Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

View Description

View PDF & Text

Download

small (250x250 max)

medium (500x500 max)

large ( > 500x500)

Full Resolution

PDF
Text

Text Search...

I W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan
I
W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
USFWS Purchased rights
to publish painting
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge USFWS
Contact information:
Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Telephone- 252-926-4021
mattamuskeet@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
September 2006
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
CEDAR ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Carteret County, North Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
1875 Century Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
September 2006
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Purpose of and Need for the Plan ................................................................................................1
Fish and Wildlife Service ..............................................................................................................2
The National Wildlife Refuge System ...........................................................................................2
Refuges of the Ecosystem ..................................................................................................3
Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................3
National Conservation Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................4
Relationship to State Partners......................................................................................................4
CHAPTER II. REFUGE OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................7
Introduction..................................................................................................................................7
Location..............................................................................................................................7
Establishment.....................................................................................................................7
Acquisition History...............................................................................................................7
Purposes............................................................................................................................9
Special Designations ....................................................................................................................9
Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................9
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................9
Ecological Threats and Problems...............................................................................................12
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation .......................................................................................12
Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................13
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................13
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants.............................................................................13
Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................14
Physical Resources ....................................................................................................................15
Climate ..............................................................................................................................15
Geology............................................................................................................................16
Minerals............................................................................................................................17
Soils .................................................................................................................................17
Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................20
Water Quality ....................................................................................................................20
Air Quality.........................................................................................................................20
Visual Resources/Aesthetics.............................................................................................22
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................23
Habitat..............................................................................................................................23
Wildlife..............................................................................................................................25
Exotic Organisms ..............................................................................................................28
Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................................28
Socioeconomic Conditions .........................................................................................................30
History ...............................................................................................................................30
Land Use...........................................................................................................................31
ii Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Demographics...................................................................................................................32
Employment.....................................................................................................................32
Forestry............................................................................................................................35
Outdoor Recreation Economics........................................................................................35
Tourism............................................................................................................................36
Transportation..................................................................................................................37
Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................37
Refuge Administration and Management...................................................................................38
Land Protection and Conservation ...................................................................................38
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................38
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ........................................................................41
Refuge Infrastructure ........................................................................................................42
CHAPTER III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................43
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................43
Plan Review and Revision ................................................................................................43
Summary of Planning Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities......................................................43
Hydrology.........................................................................................................................44
Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................44
Habitats............................................................................................................................46
Public Use.........................................................................................................................47
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................48
Administration ...................................................................................................................49
Wilderness Review ...........................................................................................................49
CHAPTER IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................51
Vision ........................................................................................................................................51
Goals.........................................................................................................................................51
Objectives and Strategies ..........................................................................................................52
Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................52
Habitat ..............................................................................................................................55
Public Use.........................................................................................................................60
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................65
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................70
CHAPTER V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION...........................................................................................73
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................73
Refuge Administration................................................................................................................77
Funding and Personnel ..............................................................................................................77
Volunteers........................................................................................................................78
Partnership Opportunities .................................................................................................78
Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................79
Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................80
Table of Contents iii
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................81
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED................................................................87
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES..............................................................................91
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...........................................................................................99
APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ..............................................................................109
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ...........................................................................109
Compatibility Determinations....................................................................................................115
APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................129
APPENDIXVII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS ..............................................151
APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS ...........................................................................................153
APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...............................................................159
APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................163
iv Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
List of Figures
Figure 1. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in Carteret County, North Carolina .....................8
Figure 2. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain
Physiographic Area.......................................................................................................11
Figure 3. Characteristics of soils on Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge.................................18
Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory map of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge.................24
Figure 5. Approved acquisition boundary of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ..............39
Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge............................40
Figure 7. Proposed visitor facilities at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge under
Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). .............................................................................61
List of Tables
Table 1. Acquisition history of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ....................................7
Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge................................................................................................10
Table 3. Federally listed threatened and endangered animal species of the .............................12
Coastal Plain of North Carolina.....................................................................................12
Table 4. Climatological data, 1971-2000, Cedar Island, North Carolina.....................................17
Table 5. Characteristics of soils on Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ................................19
Table 6. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge................................................................................................21
Table 7. Neuse River Basin Category 7 impaired waters (proper technical conditions
do not exist to develop TMDL) .....................................................................................22
Table 8. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Aerial Waterfowl Survey Results,
February 2004..............................................................................................................26
Table 9. Species of management concern at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ................27
Table 10. Historic properties on the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ................................29
Table 11. Carteret County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census...........................33
Table 12. Commodity production in Carteret County in 2002 and 1997 from the
2002 and 1997 USDA Census .....................................................................................33
Table 13. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties ....................34
Table 14. Staff of Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuges – 2005 .................................................................................................41
Table 15. Projects supporting wildlife strategies...........................................................................73
Table 16. Projects supporting habitat strategies...........................................................................74
Table 17. Projects supporting public use strategies .....................................................................75
Table 18. Projects supporting resource protection strategies.......................................................76
Table 19. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies....................................................77
Table 20. Proposed staffing plan for Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ................................78
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fish and Wildlife Service developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment to guide the management of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in
Carteret 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.
As part of the planning process, the Service 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 consisted of biologists from federal and
state agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The staff
held the public scoping meetings In Beaufort and Cedar Island, North Carolina.
The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative 1 was a proposal to maintain the
current management. The staff would manage the refuge with prescribed fire of marshes and pine
forests conducted by employees from other refuges according to the Fire Management Plan. The
refuge would employ a single maintenance worker stationed on the refuge to maintain the buildings
and 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 conduct no other surveys of wildlife or habitats.
The refuge would provide opportunities for all six priority public use activities: waterfowl hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The staff would not conduct environmental education and interpretation programs, but would allow
others to conduct programs on the refuge. The Service would manage the refuge from Mattamuskeet
National Wildlife Refuge, four hours away from Cedar Island Refuge. Staff from Mattamuskeet would
handle peak workloads at Cedar Island Refuge.
Alternative 2 proposes minimum program increases. The refuge would document the presence of priority
wildlife species, but not monitor habitat. Staff from the refuge would survey waterfowl from the air on a routine
basis. The refuge would continue to provide opportunities for the six priority public use activities, but would
have the capacity to increase the number of opportunities. The staff would conduct environmental education
programs once a month. The staff would establish an interpretive and observation trail with a brochure and a
photo blind. The staff would also control dominant pest plants and animals as time and opportunity would
allow. There would be four staff members stationed at Cedar Island Refuge.
Alternative 3 proposes moderate program increases. The refuge would document the presence of
priority wildlife species and mammals and monitor fire-dependent habitats. The staff would monitor
vegetation in the marshes and pine forests before and after prescribed burns conducted by staff from
other refuges according to the Fire Management Plan. Staff from the refuge would survey waterfowl from
the air and the ground on a routine basis. The refuge would continue to provide opportunities for the six
priority public use activities, but would have the capacity to increase the number of opportunities. The
staff would conduct environmental education and interpretation programs once a month. The refuge
would establish an interpretive trail with a brochure and a photo blind. The staff would also monitor pest
plants and animals and control them according to an integrated pest management plan. There would be
seven staff members stationed at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge.
The Service selected Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative. It advances the refuge program
considerably, addresses the highest priority needs, and is more realistic than Alternative 3 in terms of
expected budgets and staffing levels to conduct the proposed program. It serves the purposes of the
refuge, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and best serves the goals outlined.
2 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
Chapter I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The Fish and Wildlife Service developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge to provide a foundation for its management and use. The plan will serve as
a guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years.
The plan was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Public participation in the planning process (described in Chapter
III and Appendix IV) constitutes compliance with this Act. When fully implemented, this plan will strive
to achieve the vision and purposes of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge.
The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established.
Fish and wildlife conservation is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows public
use (wildlife-dependent recreation) and encourages it as long as it is compatible with, or does not
detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes.
A planning team prepared the plan and consisted of representatives from various Service programs,
including Refuges, Fisheries, Ecological Services, Realty, and Migratory Birds. In developing this
plan, the planning team and refuge staff have incorporated the input of local citizens and the general
public through a series of stakeholder and public scoping meetings. A description of this public
involvement and the planning process itself can be found in the Plan Development section.
The plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative, which was chosen after considering three
other alternatives. The alternatives were described in the Environmental Assessment, which was
Section B of the draft plan. The preferred alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action
for the management of the refuge and is detailed in this comprehensive conservation plan.
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that Cedar Island National Wildlife
Refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide long-term
guidance to the refuge’s management programs and activities for the next 15 years. The plan is needed to:
Provide a clear statement of direction for the management of the refuge;
Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
Ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational and
educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997;
2 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; and
Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for the refuge’s operational, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is to communicate with the public and include public
participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many
agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships
with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System. This comprehensive conservation plan
supports the Partners-in-Flight Initiative, South Atlantic Coastal Plain Migratory Bird Conservation
Plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve
Network, and National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the conservation,
protection, and enhancement of the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although
the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and
private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service administers a
national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of these resources.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering nearly 96
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection
of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, lie in Alaska. The remaining 16 million acres lie in the other 49 states and several island territories.
THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997, is:
... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Rfuge System. The Act states that the
Service shall manage each refuge:
• Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
• Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
• Fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the
Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
• Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
• 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
• Retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the direction
of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges.
The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, the Service is
preparing all refuge comprehensive conservation plans in conjunction with public involvement, and
requires each refuge to complete its own plan within a 15-year schedule.
Approximately 39.5 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 2003, mostly to
observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, refuges generate
substantial economic benefits to the local communities that surround them. Economists have
reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $809 million annually in sales and
$315 million in employment icome to local economies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). In
addition, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation reports that
nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $108 billion on wildlife-related recreational pursuits in
2001 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 1998,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at
more than $20.6 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses the listed principles:
• Wildlife comes first.
• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management.
• Refuges must be healthy.
• Growth of refuges must be strategic.
• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad
participation from others.
REFUGES OF THE ECOSYSTEM
The refuge is one of the ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those ten national
wildlife refuges, Alligator River, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, Mackay Island,
Mattamuskeet, Pea Island, Pocosin Lakes, Swanquarter, Roanoke River; and the Back Bay National
Wildlife Refuge in Virginia, are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and Cape
Fear Rivers, which have been classified as Ecosystem Unit #34 by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, Congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. (See Appendix III for more information on legal and policy guidance for the
operation of national wildlife refuges.)
4 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the
development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop and coordinate
planning initiatives involving federal, 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 plan reflects the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 brings
together international teams of biologists from private and government organizations from Canada,
Mexico, and the United States. The partnerships, called joint ventures, are working to restore
waterfowl and other migratory bird populations to the levels of the early 1970s by protecting about 6
million acres of priority wetland habitats from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian Arctic.
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan and Waterbirds for the Americas outline approaches
to conserving those species groups. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a high priority
of the Partners-in-Flight Plan. It also provides strategies for conserving and managing wintering,
breeding, and migration habitat for mid-continental wood duck and colonial bird populations.
The Partners-in-Flight Plan emphasizes land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the
priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified focal species for each habitat type from
which 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 provide cost-share
funding and technical assistance to private landowners to install and manage conservation practices
on working farms and forests and restore cropland to natural habitats. The programs provide
opportunities for landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage their land better as
wildlife habitat or to protect it with easements.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and management
of fish and wildlife throughout the United States.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is the state-partnering agency with the
Service that is charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species,
as well as management responsibilities for the state’s natural resources. The NCWRC also manages
approximately 1.8 million acres of game lands in North Carolina.
The NCWRC coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several game lands and from
several boat ramps located near Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge. The agency’s participation
and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable,
and it is continuing its work with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
with the public to improve the condition of fish and wildlife populations in North Carolina. Not only
has the agency participated in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field reviews, as part of
the comprehensive conservation plan planning process, but it has also been an active partner in
annual hunt coordination planning and various wildlife and habitat surveys. Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuge provides hunting opportunities for waterfowl in cooperation with the NCWRC. A key
part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of common mission
objectives between the Service and the state agency, where appropriate.
6 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Chapter II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
LOCATION
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge is in Carteret County in the northeastern part of North Carolina.
The Service named the refuge for the island on which it is located. The approved acquisition boundary
lies entirely in Carteret County, North Carolina (population 59,383) (Figure 1). Morehead City, North
Carolina, (2000 population 7,651) is the closest city and lies 30 miles west of the refuge. Greenville,
North Carolina, (2000 population 60,476) lies 100 miles west of the refuge. The major metropolitan areas
of Raleigh - Durham - Chapel Hill, North Carolina, (2000 population 1,038,703) lies 180 miles west of the
refuge and Norfolk - Virginia Beach – Hampton Roads, Virginia, (2000 population 1,569,541) lies 200
miles north of the refuge. The refuge covers a total of 14,480 acres in fee title ownership and has an
approved acquisition boundary of 16,887 acres. Its western boundary is other land in Carteret County;
eastern boundary is Cedar Island Bay and the Pamlico Sound; northern boundary is Long Bay and West
Bay; and southern boundary is Thorofare Bay and Core Sound. This region is part of the physiographic
area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s administrative
ecosystem known as the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem.
ESTABLISHMENT
The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the purchase of Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuge on August 10, 1964, by the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929.
The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 provided funding for the purchase. The Service has
also purchased land with funds provided under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The Service
approved an acquisition boundary of 16,887 acres.
ACQUISITION HISTORY
The Service acquired 12,526 acres in 1964 by fee simple purchase. Since 1985, the refuge has
acquired 1,954 additional acres of fee simple purchase for a total of 14,480 acres. It has an
approved acquisition boundary of 16,887 acres (Table 1).
Table 1. Acquisition history of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
YEAR ACRES COST COST
ACRE
TOTAL
ACRES
TOTAL
COST
1964 7,380.00 $33,210.00 $4.50 7,380.00 $33,210.00
1965 3,171.71 $107,900.80 $34.02 10,551.71 $141,110.80
1966 264.25 $20,153.80 $76.27 10,815.96 $161,264.60
1967 221.74 $27,956.21 $126.07 11,037.70 $189,220.81
1968 1,488.34 $157,950.00 $106.12 12,526.04 $347,171.21
1990 1,956.00 $0.00 $0.00 14,482.04 $347,171.21
1992 0.28 $0.00 $0.00 14,482.32 $347,171.21
TOTAL 14,482.32 $347,171.21
All acquisitions were purchased fee simple. Acquistions with no cost were donations.
8 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in Carteret County, North Carolina
􀀀 0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Primary Roads
Open Water
Refuge Ownership
NPS Ownership
􀀀 􀀀
􀀀
Open Grounds Farm
􀀀

Jacks Bay Pt
Newstump
Point
Deep Bend
Tump Point
Point
Point
of Grass
Sand
Point
Green
Point
Sand
Hill
Point
West Bay
Long Bay
Long Bay
Point
Merkle
Bay
Nameless
Deep Bend Bay Green
Point
Cove
Owens
Bay
West Thorofare Bay
Jacks
Bay
North Bay
􀀀

0 60 120 240 􀀀
Miles
Indiana

12 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
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.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
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 destroyed 40 percent of the
natural vegetation in the area. The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land
clearing for agriculture and urban development (Hunter et al. 2001).
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain. Vast areas of marshes and bottomland hardwood forests have become marsh
and forest 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. Severe fragmentation has
resulted in a substantial decline in biological diversity and integrity. Species endemic to the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, endangered, or threatened include the red wolf and
red-cockaded woodpecker (Table 3).
Table 3. Federally listed threatened and endangered animal species of the
Coastal Plain of North Carolina
Region Status Common name Scientific Name
Coastal Plain Endangered Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus
Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata
Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempii
Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea
Coastal Plain Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana
Coastal Plain Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum
Coastal Plain Endangered Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon
Coastal Plain Endangered Wolf, Red Canis rufus
Coastal Plain Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis
Coastal Plain Threatened Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis
Coastal Plain Threatened Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Coastal Plain Threatened Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus
Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas
Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Caretta caretta
Coastal Plain Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
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., 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. Nest parasitism is also common in fragmented forests.
More that 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds inhabit the region. Some of these species, including
Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kite, wood thrush, and cerulean warbler, have
declined substantially and need the benefits of large forested blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Fragmentation of marshes has left the remaining marsh tracts surrounded by commercial, industrial,
and residential developments. These land uses generate excessive quantities of surface runoff,
usually contaminated with pollutants from vehicles, industrial production, domestic waste disposal,
and lawn maintenance. Percolates from septic systems pose the potential for contamination of
shallow groundwater. The residential areas also bring pets that prey on wildlife, especially songbirds.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of marshes and bottomland forested wetlands, there have
been substantial alterations in the region’s hydrology due to managed stream flows from flood control
and hydroelectric power generation reservoirs, drainage ditches, river channel modification, flood
control levees, deforestation, and degradation to aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation and
contaminants, 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).
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Deforestation and hydrologic alteration have degraded aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs
and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated accumulation of
sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Sediment now fills many water bodies, greatly
reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point source runoff of excess nutrients and
contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic resources. Turbidity caused by sediment limits
light penetration into the water and consequently the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation. The
federally listed threatened and endangered species include 4 species of aquatic organisms as threatened
and 10 species as endangered that occur on the coastal plain of North Carolina.
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 tides go 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.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation. 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.
14 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
The declines in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s dune, marsh, shrub, and forest communities and
their associated fish and wildlife resources have prompted the Service to designate the habitats and
wildlife species of Cedar Island Refuge as those of special concern. A collaborative effort involving
private, state, and federal conservation partners is now underway to implement a variety of tools to
restore the functions and values of wetlands and other coastal habitats in the South Atlantic Coastal
Plain. The goal is to prioritize and manage areas to most effectively maintain and possibly restore
the biological diversity in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Service has prioritized some areas as
focus areas for intensive management, others for reforestation, and still others for conservation.
Conservation agencies and organizations have initiated several coordinated efforts to set priorities
and establish focus areas to overcome the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation.
Conservationists established a cooperative private-state-federal partnership in 1986, known as the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, 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 forest-nesting birds. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
is working with the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Working Group to establish step-down objectives for
shorebird foraging habitat for the fall migration period throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain.
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 songbirds. The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide islands
or blocks of habitat, especially forested habitat, in an otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The
targeted block sizes range from 10,000 to 100,000 acres. Such areas are large enough to support
viable populations of various suites of neotropical migratory songbirds. Of course, these areas will
also support other species that depend on large forested blocks. Existing or proposed state wildlife
management areas or national wildlife refuges are the anchors of the plans. These public lands
serve as centers of biodiversity that landowners and managers enhance and support by the
expansion of forested blocks, either through public or private management.
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, including 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 for another species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term
priorities that frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in special
resources shift. Agencies and organizations must exercise caution to prevent the start-up of
management and restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term,
comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An
example might be a tendency to totally manage Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in an effort
to provide habitat for many species of neotropical migratory songbirds that require a pine savanna
with herbaceous understory. Such an approach may overlook the critical habitat needs of other
songbirds that prefer a forest with shrub understory.
The partners can only meet the habitat goals of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture through active
management of croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private land
(Reinecke and Baxter 1996). Active management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration)
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
is necessary to compensate for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that deforestation and
hydrologic alterations have caused throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. When properly
managed, the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge could 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
The Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge exhibits a maritime climate because of its proximity to the Atlantic
Ocean and surrounding bays and sounds. Winter temperatures on the average are milder than those of
mainland weather stations, and in summer temperatures are cooler than those of mainland stations.
Since the flow of air over North Carolina is predominantly from west to east, the continental influence
is much greater on most of the state 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. Its direct effects are limited by the
fact that the prevailing winds in winter are westerly.
Lows usually reform along the coast as "Cape Hatteras lows" and then move north along the coast.
Winter's low-pressure storms are usually more intense because of the large north-to-south contrasts.
Winter's storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the winter
precipitation. The forms of precipitation in spring begin to change from these steady rains to
occasional thunderstorms. The Gulf of Mexico's warm, moist air produces warm, humid weather
throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn, North Carolina's
driest season, is to many people the most pleasant with its many clear, warm days and cool nights
with little rain. This weather usually lasts until November.
The refuge is situated along a coastline with a long history of storm activity. Two basic storm types
present a substantial threat to the coastal zone.
Tropical storms and hurricanes, spawned over the warm ocean waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the
Atlantic Ocean, are probably the best known and feared storms. Hurricanes, which are characterized
by winds greater than seventy-five miles per hour and accompanied by intense rainfall, plague the
Gulf and Atlantic seaboards from mid-summer to late-autumn. During the 1950s, a total of nine
hurricanes affected the North Carolina coastline. Since then, only two major hurricanes, Donna in
1960, and Isabel in 2003, have occurred along the Outer Banks.
Most storms pass off the coast east of the refuge, but may bring large quantities of rain. These
extratropical storms, often called “northeasters” present a greater problem than hurricanes to the Atlantic
coast, the Outer Banks in particular. Such storms may develop as strong low-pressure areas, and move
slowly offshore into the Atlantic Ocean. The winds, sometimes reaching hurricane force, blow onshore
from a northerly or easterly direction for sustained periods of time. The damage from these storms may
ultimately far exceed the destruction from a hurricane. The March 1962 “northeaster,” also known as the
“Ash Wednesday Storm,” proved that point decisively. Flood height and duration for extratropical storms
often have equaled or exceeded those of hurricanes affecting North Carolina.
16 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Most North Carolina tornadoes occur in the Piedmont and the interior of the coastal plain, which
spares Carteret County.
On the refuge, the average annual precipitation is 57.6 inches, while the average annual snowfall was
one inch. The record snowfall was nine inches recorded at Cedar Island, North Carolina. Snow
accumulations of more than one inch for more than a day are rare. Rainfall is evenly distributed
throughout the year: average monthly rainfall ranges from 3.25 inches in April to 7.11 inches in
August. Nine months have average precipitation between three and five inches (Table 4).
Of the total annual precipitation, about 31 inches usually falls in April through September. The
growing season for most crops falls within this period. In 2 years out of 10, the rainfall in April
through September is less than 15 inches.
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 60 percent of the time possible in summer
and 50 percent in winter. The prevailing wind is from the southwest. Average wind speed is highest,
12 miles per hour, in winter and spring. The top winds during Hurricane Isabel in September 2003
were 86 miles per hour.
In January, the average temperature is 41 degrees, the average daily minimum temperature is 38
degrees, and the average daily maximum is 53 degrees. In July, the average temperature is 81
degrees, the average daily maximum temperature is 89 degrees, and the average daily minimum is
73 degrees (Table 4).
The average growing season is 243 days-long. The average last date of frost in the spring is March
20 and the first frost in the fall is November 19.
GEOLOGY
There are five physiographic areas in Carteret County: the uplands of the Talbot Surface; the low
marine terraces and stream terraces of the Pamlico Surface; the islands of the Outer Banks; the
salt marsh; and the forested flood plains along streams. The Suffolk Scarp enters the county just
west of Harlowe and runs generally south toward Morehead City. Elevation at the base of the
scarp is about 20 feet. The scarp formed the shoreline of an ancient ocean, the Pamlico Sea. It
separates the older, upland soils of the Talbot Surface to the west from the younger, lower soils
on the Pamlico Surface. Narrow stream terraces on the Pamlico Surface extend inland along
some of the larger creeks and rivers west of Morehead City.
Elevation of the uplands of the Talbot Surface ranges from 20 feet to 40 feet above sea level. The
low marine terraces east of the scarp and the stream terraces are generally less than 20 feet in
elevation. Elevation on the Outer Banks to the east is much lower than Shackleford and Bogue Banks
to the south. The salt marshes are less than 2 feet in elevation.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Table 4. Climatological data, 1971-2000, Cedar Island, North Carolina
Month Average High
Temperature (oF)
Average Low
Temperature (oF)
Average
Precipitation (Inches)
January 53.4 37.9 5.29
February 55.6 39.5 3.50
March 62.9 45.7 4.61
April 71.7 52.9 3.25
May 79.1 61.1 4.16
June 85.4 68.6 4.13
July 89.0 72.7 6.23
August 82.0 72.1 7.11
September 82.2 68.4 6.49
October 73.1 58.1 4.42
November 64.8 49.1 3.84
December 56.8 41.1 4.54
Annual Average 71.8 55.6
Annual Total 57.60
The general slope of the county is to the east and southeast. About 92 percent of the county is nearly
level, 6 percent has slopes of 0 to 2 percent slope, and 2 percent has slopes of 2 to 30 percent.
MINERALS
Sand is the only mineral resource occurring in economic quantities. There are no sand pits in the
vicinity of the refuge. The Service owns all mineral rights on the refuge.
SOILS
Soil types identified on the refuge are Baymeade fine sand, Beaches*, Carteret* sand, Lafitte* muck,
Leon* sand, Mandarin sand, Murville* mucky sand, and Ponzer* muck (USDA, Soil Conservation
Service 1987). Soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in “Hydric Soils of the United States”
(USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1987). Hydric soils are . . . "soils that in their undrained condition
are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic
conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (water loving) vegetation" (USDA,
Soil Conservation Service 1985) (Figure 3) (Table 5).
Most of the refuge is Lafitte muck, an organic soil with sixty inches of muck over clay loam. It floods
daily with tidal fluctuations and has a water table from the surface to a half-foot below the surface.
Lafitte soils support freshwater and brackish herbaceous marsh vegetation.
18 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Characteristics of soils on Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
􀀀
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Primary Roads
Open Water
NPS Ownership
Mineral Soils with Water Tables > 2 Feet
Mineral Soils with Water Tables 1−2 Feet Deep
Mineral Soils with Water Tables < 1 Foot Deep
Mineral Soils that Flood Daily
Organic Soils that Flood Daily
Organic Soil Depths 16"−51" with Water Tables < 1’
􀀀 􀀀
􀀀
Open Grounds Farm

􀀀

Jacks Bay Pt
Newstump
Point
Deep Bend
Tump Point
Point
Point
of Grass
Sand
Point Green
Point
Sand
Hill
Point
West Bay
Long Bay
Long Bay
Point
Merkle
Bay
Nameless
Deep Bend Bay Green
Point
Cove
Owens
Bay
West Thorofare Bay
Jacks
Bay
North Bay

􀀀

Jacks Bay Pt
Newstump
Point
Deep Bend
Tump Point
Point
Point
of Grass
Sand
Point Green
Point
Sand
Hill
Point
West Bay
Long Bay
Long Bay
Point
Merkle
Bay
Nameless
Deep Bend Bay Green
Point
Cove
Owens
Bay
West Thorofare Bay
Jacks
Bay
North Bay
􀀀

Hog Island
Point
Hog Island
Back Bay
Goose
Bay
Ship Point
South
Island
Green Point
Long Point
Fish Hawk Pt
Rumley
Hammock
Rumley
Bay
Thorofare
Green
Point
Hall
Point
Barry
Bay
Thorofare Bay
Styron
Bay
Steep
Point
C A P E L O O K O U T N A T I O N A L S E A S H O R E
NC 12NC 12
NC 12NC 12
US 70US 70
Cedar Island to
Ocracoke Ferry
OCRACOKE FERRY (NC DOT)
Tump
Island
Cedar Island Bay
Atlantic
Lola
Cedar
Island
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
black gum, and occasionally pond pine or loblolly pine. The understory consists of bitter gall berry,
fetterbush, greenbrier and chain-fern. It’s believed these areas are remnant ridge and swale zones. The
presence of fire in this habitat type has been absent for many years. The refuge has about 100 acres of
this habitat type. Though small in acreage, this habitat type adds diversity to the refuge.
Low (Short) Pocosin. Often called simply shrub pocosin, this habitat type falls into two categories
according to Frost (1995): true ombrotrophic low pocosins (influenced by nutrient deficient deep
organic soils) and fire maintained low pocosins. Fire on a frequency of between 1 and 7 years
maintains fire-influenced low pocosin. Because these sites have more nutrients available for plant
growth, the absence of frequent fire will lead to development of tall shrub pocosin and eventually
decadent stands of shrub and succession to tall tree pocosin. Cranberry and pitcher plant bogs occur
throughout these pocosins, especially where ground fires have created potholes in the soil. The
refuge has one 100-acre low pocosin site.
Pond Pine Woodlands. This habitat type is described as having a pond pine overstory with a pocosin
shrub, switchcane, or shrub/cane/savannah understory. Trees, usually with a canopy closure greater
than 70 percent, dominate the habitat. In older stands, trees tend to be of larger diameters (8-20+ dbh),
taller (usually > 40 feet), and have “healthier” pond pine. They typically occur on shallow organics (16 to
51 inches of peat; Belhaven, Ponzer) and occasionally on mineral soils (Hyde loam, Cape Fear Loam)
and the very shallow organics (<16 inches peat; e.g., Roper or Wasda). Pond pine pocosin, with a cane
understory, typically occurs on sites with shallower organic or mineral soils and is maintained by regular
fire. Pond pine pocosin with a shrub understory typically occurs on deeper organic soils. Management in
pond pine pocosins will likely require a combination of fire and thinning to develop the stand structure and
understory desired. Ideally, there should be little or no hardwoods or shrubs in the mid-story or over-story
except in isolated inclusions or islands. Where these sites occur on more fertile (i.e., shallow organic)
soils, they are capable of producing relatively large pond pines of sufficient age to manage for red-cockaded
woodpecker cavity trees. The less fertile sites provide smaller trees but are ideal for red-cockaded
woodpecker and other pine specialists as foraging habitat. Currently, these habitats are in
need of restoration as the exclusion of fire and growth of hardwoods and shrubs are suppressing pine
growth. Cedar Island Refuge has 125 acres of pond pine woodlands.
Longleaf Pine/Coastal Fringe Sandhill. Longleaf pine usually occurs on sandy, well-drained soils.
Long sandy ridges on the northeast and southwest portions of the refuge have large stands of longleaf
pine. Longleaf pine and associated understory of wiregrass is an important habitat type that once
covered more than 200 million acres in the southeastern United States. Currently, less than 1 percent of
the original longleaf habitat exists. Cedar Island Refuge has 1,580 acres of longleaf pine habitat.
WILDLIFE
Birds. The brackish marshes of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge and the adjacent open water
bodies of Pamlico Sound provide important habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, secretive marsh birds,
and colonial waterbirds. The refuge marshes are some of the most important locations for breeding black
rails, a species of special management concern in the southeast. They also provide important habitat for
seaside sparrows, American black ducks, Virginia rails, and clapper rails. Isolated islands and sand spits
are used as breeding sites for American oystercatchers, gull-billed terns, least terns, and other colonial
species. The longleaf pine forests may support the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.
26 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
A total of 270 species of birds may be observed at the refuge. Of those, 99 are nesting species. A
complete species list is located in Appendix VI. Waterfowl survey results are provided in Table 8.
Table 8. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Aerial Waterfowl Survey Results, February 2004
Species Number
Surf Scoter 383
Lesser Scaup 200
Green-winged Teal 100
Canvasback 100
American Black Duck 77
Bufflehead 77
Hooded Merganser 72
Blue-winged Teal 30
Northern Pintail 30
American Wigeon 2
Total Ducks 1071
Mammals. Gray squirrels and marsh rabbits are abundant. White-tailed deer are present, though not in high
density. Furbearers that have been observed include raccoon, mink, muskrat, otter, fox, nutria, and opossum.
Notable mammals not observed on the refuge, but expected to occur, include bobcat and beaver.
A total of 35 mammal species are believed to be present on the refuge, however, no formal inventory
has been conducted. A list of species expected to occur in refuge habitats that are typical of the
southeastern coastal plain is located in Appendix VI. This list contains 14 species that are primarily
carnivorous and 18 rodent species.
Reptiles and Amphibians. A total of 92 amphibian and reptile species are believed to be present on
the refuge, however, no formal inventory has been conducted. Species observed include southern
leopard frog, green tree frog, black rat snake, eastern cottonmouth, yellow-bellied turtle, and snapping
turtle. A list of species expected to occur in refuge habitats that are typical of the southeastern coastal
plain is located in Appendix VI. This list contains 42 amphibian and 51 reptile species.
The largest group of amphibians is frogs, which include 18 species, followed by salamander/newts, 14
species; toads, 6 species; and other amphibians, 4 species. The largest group of reptiles is snakes, 31
species, of which 3 are venemous, followed by turtles, 11 species; and lizards/skinks, 9 species.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Threatened and Endangered Animals. No federally threatened or endangered species are known
to inhabit Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge. However, red-cockaded woodpeckers do occur on
adjacent lands, and the refuge does contain appropriate habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, but
the species has not been documented on the refuge.
Unique Animal Associations. Various state agencies and research biologists have identified numerous
unique animal associations on the refuge. These associations are identified in Table 9 below.
Table 9. Species of management concern at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Species Status
Brackish
Marsh
and
Sounds
Maritime
Shrub and
Swamp
Forest
Beach
Dune
Grass and
Dry
Grassland
Pine
Forests
and
Savannas
Piping Plover FL X
Roseate Tern FL X
Red-cockaded Woodpecker FL X
Shortnose Sturgeon FL X
Seabeach Amaranth FL X
Rough-leaved Loosestrife FL X
Sharp-tailed Sparrow SC X
Seaside Sparrow SC X
Black Rail SC X
Yellow Rail SC X
King Rail SC X
Sedge Wren SC X
Northern Parula SC X X
Prairie Warbler SC X
Eastern Painted Bunting SC X
Yellow-throated Warbler SC X
Wood Duck SC X
Red Knot SC X
Wilson’s Plover SC X
Least Tern SC X
Black Skimmer Sc X
American Oystercatcher SC X
Reddish Egret SC X
Canada Goose SC X
American Black Duck SC X
(FL=Federally-listed, SL=State-listed, SC=Species of Management Concern)
28 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
EXOTIC ORGANISMS
Invasive and exotic organisms present within the area include common reed (Phragmites australis),
Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), nutria (Myocaster coypus), fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) and the
gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). Refuge personnel monitor the impact of these exotic species and
determine control options as they have opportunities. Compared to many southeastern refuges,
Cedar Island Refuge is relatively intact with native vegetation and vertebrates. Non-native vegetation
along the private land interface is the biggest challenge from invasive species on the refuge.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Very few systematic archaeological and historic investigations have occurred on the refuge. These
investigations have been conducted primarily to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (Drucker 1981; Kanaski in prep.). Hutchinson and McSwain (2000) forensically
analyzed three sets of pre-columbian human remains recovered from two sites on the refuge.
The refuge is near the southern limit of the northeastern North Carolina estuarine system, the largest
barrier island embayment along the Atlantic Coast. Cedar Island Refuge is part of a region
dominated by barrier-built estuaries and submerged river valleys. Its shorelines are bounded by
several kilometers of brackish to freshwater marsh.
Four major geomorphic processes have been identified:
• Migration upward and landward of the barrier island over the eastern margin of the estuarine system;
• Flooding of lowlands adjacent to the estuaries that produce a vertical accumulation of marsh peat soil;
• Erosion of estuarine shorelines, which allow them to maintain size; and
• Deposition of fluvial and estuarine shoreline derived sediments as blanket sands and silts
along flooded trunk estuaries, while suspended sediments are deposited in perimeter
marshes and low energy, deep central bays and lateral tributaries.
Drucker (1981) used black-and-white aerial photography to distinguish submerged high ground based
upon subtle relief and color (vegetation) changes. She identified three Carolina Bay remnants in the
marsh south and southeast of Merkle Bay that range in size between 200 to 1,100 meters. Carolina
Bays were typically areas of rich floral and faunal diversity bounded by higher elevations. In
locations, such as the refuge, slight changes in elevations provide opportunities for human habitation
and access to a variety of biotic resources.
Seven historic properties have been recorded on the refuge (see Table 10 for a brief description). The
majority of the archaeological sites appear to be Woodland Period shell middens. Archaeological sites,
structures, and cemeteries, which date to the 19th through 20th century, are located adjacent to the refuge
and reflect the Island’s and county’s exploitation and dependence on the estuarine and marsh resources
as a way of life. Detailed discussions of the area’s history can be found in Barfield (1995), Feest (1978),
Hutchinson (2002), Phelps (1983), and Ward and Stephens (1999). Swanton (1946) and Mook (1944)
produced ethnohistories on the Coastal Algonkians, who occupied this portion of North Carolina at the
time of European contact. Hutchinson (2002) documented the diversity of Native Americans’ adaptation
to the coastal zones of North Carolina between A. D. 800 to 1450. The Late Woodland outer coast
populations during this period relied heavily on local marine resources and estuarine plants and animals.
His study reinforced Green’s hypothesis that maize agriculture did not play a major role in coastal North
Carolinians’ subsistence practices until after A.D. 1400.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Table 10. Historic properties on the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Site Description National
Register Status
Lola Radar
Station
Mid-20th century U.S. Navy facility consisting of three
concrete block buildings and tower. One of the buildings
has been converted into the refuge headquarters; the other
two buildings are no longer used.
Not Eligible
Lewis Creek #1
[31Cr27]
Heavily eroded, relatively thin, but dense shell midden on
Lewis Creek. Anthony and Drucker (1981) interpreted the
site as a historic industrial/resource extraction and
processing site.
Not Eligible
Fire Plow #1
[31Cr28]
Series of shell heaps containing Woodland and historic
ceramics and structural debris (brick).
Potentially
Eligible
Green Point
Shell Midden
[31Cr176]
Five loci of shell middens eroding along the bluff/beach
facing Core Sound. The assemblage contains sand- and
fabric impressed shell-tempered ceramics, 19th and 20th
century ceramics, bottle glass, debitage, and faunal
remains.
Eligible
31Cr7 Prehistoric site containing faunal remains. Size and integrity
are not known.
Unknown
31Cr26 Woodland and historic period site whose size and integrity
are unknown.
Unknown
31Cr310 Small Woodland Period shell midden containing debitage
and ceramics. Size and integrity have not been determined.
Potentially
Eligible
31Cr311 Small Woodland Period shell midden containing debitage
and ceramics. Size and integrity have not been determined.
Potentially
Eligible
Downing
Cemetery
Small 20th century family cemetery enclosed by a low
wooden fence
Not eligible
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge lies in Carteret County, North Carolina. Residents of the
county are the most frequent visitors to the refuge. The staff must consider the social and economic
conditions of the county in planning and implementing refuge activities. The land use in the
communities influences the water and air quality in the sounds surrounding the refuge and on the
refuge. The relative availability of open space will affect the availability of land for wildlife habitat and
the habitat off the refuge that wildlife use.
30 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Carteret County is in the east central part of North Carolina with the Cedar Island Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean to the east; Core Sound to the south; Craven County, North Carolina to the west; and Pamlico
Sound to the north. The southwestern corner of the county has the county’s oldest cities and the
resort area on the east side of the county is known as the “Crystal Coast.” The remainder of the
county is rural with the Croatan National Forest in the northwestern corner and a string of wetlands to
the east terminating at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Carteret County is still predominantly rural, with the largest town and County Seat being Morehead
City (with a 2000 population of 7,670). Like other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor
activities are both popular and necessary. Hunting and recreational fishing are popular pastimes and
farming, commercial fishing, and forestry are important elements of the economy.
HISTORY
The governor of colonial North Carolina established Carteret County in 1722 from part of Craven
County and named it for Sir John Carteret, the Earl of Granville. Beaufort, the County Seat, was the
first permanent settlement in the county in 1709 and is the third oldest town in North Carolina.
When the first European settlers arrived between 1700 and 1710, the Coree Indians inhabited the
area (Sharpe 1961). The Coree Indians were Coastal Algonkians who inhabited the area south of the
Neuse River. The Algonkians were the southernmost extent of a tribe that inhabited the Atlantic
Coast north to Canada. They settled in relatively dispersed patterns with capital villages, villages,
seasonal villages, and camps for specialized activities. The settlements were along the sounds,
estuaries, major rivers, and tributaries. Some of the villages had regular internal organization with
palisades and some were less organized with an open structure. They settled where they could
conduct agriculture, fishing, shell fishing, hunting, and gathering close to the village. Extended
families occupied the farmsteads. The Coastal Algonkians grew corn, squash, sunflowers, beans,
and native plants on sandy ridges. They traded extensively with the Tuscarora who inhabited the area
west of the Tidewater region (Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow 2000).
The first settlers were French Huguenots; the English, Scotch, Irish, Germans, and Swedes soon
followed. They settled in fishing villages along the coast and made their living from the rich water
resources of the county. A thriving fishing industry developed and shipbuilding was an important
enterprise centered in the area that became Beaufort. The town, founded in 1709, is the third oldest
in North Carolina. The Colonial legislature of North Carolina established it as the Port of Beaufort in
1723 with the right to collect customs. It became an important harbor and trade center (Sharpe
1961). In the 1700s, lumber was the chief export. Before the Civil War, the important exports were
lumber, barrel staves, rum, and molasses. After the Civil War, shipping declined as the railroad
became widely used and commercial fishing became the primary business.
The importance of Beaufort made it a target for countries at war with the United States. The Spanish
plundered Beaufort in 1747 and the British captured it in 1782. To guard Beaufort Inlet, North
Carolina leaders built a structure called Fort Dobbs in 1756 after the Spanish invasion and reinforced
it with a masonry structure in 1809. A hurricane swept that structure into Beaufort Inlet in 1826 and
the United States government built Fort Macon in 1834. The Confederate Army occupied the fort for
a year in 1861-1862 during the Civil War. The Union Army retook the fort and Beaufort Harbor
served as an important coaling and repair station for the Union Navy. Fort Macon State Park became
the state’s first state park in 1936 (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 2003).
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
The barrier islands of Carteret County have played an important role in its history. In the early 1700s,
the pirate Blackbeard victimized ships off the coast. In 1753, North Carolina established Portsmouth
Village. By 1842, 1400 vessels and two-thirds of North Carolina’s exports passed through Ocracoke
Inlet. In 1860, there were 685 residents in the village. During the Civil War, many residents left the
islands and never returned. After the war, the presence of shoals in the inlet and the advent of the
railroad discouraged the return of commercial shipping. Fishing replaced shipping as the principal
enterprise, but the islands never gained their former status. By 1956, only 17 residents remained and
in, 1971, the last two residents left. The National Park Service established the 28,243-acre, 56-mile-long
Cape Lookout National Seashore on the islands in 1976.
In the 1970s, tourism became an important factor in the county’s development. The popularity of the “Crystal
Coast” on the barrier islands in the southwest corner of the county has changed the face of the county and
brought more importance to retail trade, construction, and lodging and food service in the economy.
Today, Carteret County still leads North Carolina in commercial and sport fishing. In 1979, the county
produced 35 percent of North Carolina’s finfish and shellfish, according to the North Carolina Division
of Marine Fisheries. The state port of Morehead City has allowed the county to remain an important
center of commerce.
Forest products have been an important part of the county’s economy since the colonial period. Tar,
pitch, turpentine, and lumber were important early products. Newport was the center of the naval
store industry in the 1800s. Today, sawtimber for lumber and pulpwood for paper are the major
products harvested.
Early agriculture consisted of the production of corn; wheat; rice; oats; potatoes; cotton; and livestock
including cattle, sheep, and hogs. A large number of wild ponies were on the Outer Banks. In 1934,
the leading crops were corn, hay, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, peanuts, soybeans, and tobacco.
Cotton acreage had decreased mainly because of the boll weevil. Recently, in the eastern part of the
county, developers have drained a large acreage of poorly drained soils, and converted the land to
cropland and pasture; thus doubling the acreage farmed in the county. Today, the main crops are
soybeans, corn, and wheat (USDA 2002).
Tourism and water-based recreation have developed into a major local industry. The ocean beaches
and extensive water areas for fishing, boating, and water sports attract large numbers of visitors to
Carteret County each year.
LAND USE
The historic land use in Carteret County depended for the most part on the nature of the land. Hydric
soils cover eighty percent of the county and they remained in forest or marsh until the twentieth
century. Deep sandy dunes and beaches cover the eastern and southern shorelines of the county.
Access across the marshes and dunes restricted use of the barrier island.
Native Americans and farmers descended from European settlers cultivated crops on the uplands for
centuries. In the twentieth century, farmers drained much of the hydric mineral soil and shallow
organic soil. Development of the dunes and beaches on the barrier island known as the Crystal
Coast began in the 1970s.
Today Carteret County is 45 percent forested (154,000 acres), 18 percent cropland (60,000 acres),
and 15 percent marsh (51,000 acres).
32 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
From 1997 to 2002, the number of farms increased from 101 to 128; land in farms decreased slightly
from 59,869 acres to 59,755 acres; the average size of farms decreased 21 percent from 593 acres to
467 acres; full-time farm operators increased 3 percent from 59 to 61 farms; total market value of
agricultural products sold increased 6 percent from $14,964,000 to $15,871,000; and average market
value of agricultural products sold per farm decreased 34 percent from $187,703 to $123,994 (Table 11).
In 2002, soybeans and corn accounted for 20,954 and 20,742 acres of cropland respectively, the
largest of any single crop in the county. Wheat has also been an important crop in Carteret County.
Production of hogs has also been important, but the number of hogs sold has decreased substantially
between 1997 and 2002 and so few were sold that they were not reported (Table 12) (USDA 2002).
Within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary, the major visitor use is waterfowl hunting. There
is little residential construction in the wetlands surrounding the refuge due to regulation and the
instability of the hydric soils.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Carteret County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 59,383 in 2000 (U.S. Census
Bureau 2000). The county gained 13 percent of its population between 1990 and 2000 (U.S Census
Bureau 2000). Morehead City is the largest town with 7,670 residents in 2000. Beaufort, the county
seat, had a population of 3,771 in 2000. Twenty-four thousand residents live in the incorporated
areas in the western end of the county, but 60 percent of the population is widely dispersed
throughout the unincorporated areas of the county.
The population is 90.3 percent white, 7.0 percent black, 1.7 percent Hispanic, 0.4 percent Native
American, and 0.5 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the median family income was
$34,348, slightly below the state average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 11.8 percent of the
population, slightly below the state average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average
unemployment rate in 2003 was 4.7 percent, slightly below the State of North Carolina unemployment
rate of 5.5 percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004) (Table 13).
The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years is 63.8 percent; the
percentage of college graduates is 13.4 percent. The state averages are 78.1 percent for high school
and 22.5 percent for college (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Home ownership rate is 76.6 percent, well
above the state average rate of 69.4 percent. There are 2.31 persons per household in Carteret
County, slightly below the state average of 2.49.
EMPLOYMENT
Retail trade is the largest employer in Carteret County, employing more than 3,600 of the county’s
17,400 employees with an annual payroll of $357 million in 2001 (U.S. Census Bureau Economic
Census 2001). This is due in large part to Wal-Mart and Food Lion, the largest retail employers
(North Carolina Economic Security Commission 2003).
In 2003, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows:
retail trade, health care, hotel and food service, manufacturing, construction, wholesale trade,
administrative support, real estate, recreation, finance, agriculture, information, transportation, and
education (U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census 2001).
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Table 11. Carteret County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census
Number of Farms 128
Acres in Farms 59,755
Average Size of Farms (Acres) 467
Market Value of Land Per Farm $985,532
Market Value of Land Per Acre $2,100
Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $102,802
Total Cropland (Acres) 46,573
Market Value of All Products Sold $15,871,000
Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $123,994
Market Value of Crops Sold $15,467,000
Market Value of Livestock Sold $404,000
Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 61
Operators with Anther Occupation as Principal Occupation 64
Hogs in Inventory 130
Hogs Sold 0
Beef Cows in Inventory 238
Beef Cows Sold 173
Land in Soybeans (Acres) 20,954
Land in Corn (Acres) 20,742
Land in Wheat (Acres) 415
Table 12. Commodity production in Carteret County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997
USDA Census
Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1987-1997 Change
Soybeans (Acres) 20,954 19,948 Increased 5%
Corn (Acres) 20,742 19,822 Increased 5%
Wheat (Acres) 415 6,577 Decreased 94%
Hog Inventory 130 2,043 Decreased 94%
Hogs Sold 0 6,121 N/A
Cattle Inventory 238 130 Increased 83%
Cattle Sold 173 332 Decreased 48%
34 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Table 13. 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
County in the vicinity of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Carteret $34,348 11.8 4.7 59,383 +13% since 1990
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
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 +166% since 1970
Dare $35,258 8.1 5.1 29,967 +328% since 1970
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
Hyde $23,568 24.8 7.2 5,826 -37% since 1900
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
Perquimans $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
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
FORESTRY
Timber has always been a source of wealth for Carteret County. However, farmers cleared much of
the timber in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops.
Today, Carteret County is approximately 45 percent forested, with 154,000 acres of forestland. In
contrast, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Forty-eight percent of the county’s forest is in
loblolly and shortleaf pine, 22 percent is in oak and pine, 17 percent is in oak-hickory, 8 percent is in
oak-gum-cypress, and 5 percent is in loblolly and slash pine (Conner 2001).
In 2000, the Federal Government was the largest forest landowner and owned 32 percent of the
county’s forested land. Private individuals owned 26 percent, the forest industry owned 23 percent,
and corporate non-industrial concerns owned 19 percent (Conner 2001).
The volume of sawtimber harvested in 2000 was 13.0 million board feet, all of it softwood; the volume of
pulpwood was 3.2 million cubic feet, 2.9 million of softwood and 0.3 million of hardwood (Conner 2001).
Despite the diminished wooded acreage, timber is still a large source of income for Carteret County.
In 1990, the value of timber sold was $9.7 million. The payroll from forest products was $10.5 million
of the $31 million from all manufactured products (USDA, Forest Service 1991).
Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Carteret County has
always had an abundance of fish and game, due to its diversity of lands and waters. The Service
manages Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge to conserve, manage, and restore habitat for
migratory birds and native wildlife (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1964). In addition to the refuge, the
28,243-acre Cape Lookout National Seashore, 161,000-acre Croatan National Forest, 385-acre Fort
Macon State Park, and the 2,675-acre Rachel Carson site of the North Carolina Estuarine Research
Reserve provide outdoor recreation opportunities in the area. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission manages 160,000 acres of the Croatan National Forest as a state game land and
provides hunting opportunities.
Recreation in the area is also based on the water in the Pamlico, Core, and Bogue Sounds, as well
as numerous bays and rivers. Boat ramps provide access to the river and sound. Numerous
outfitters provide boats, fishing charters, and guided tours. Local events that revolve around natural
resources include the Atlantic Beach King Mackerel Tournament, Big Rock Blue Marlin Tournament,
Core Sound Waterfowl Weekend and the Core Sound Waterfowl Decoy Festival on Harker’s Island,
and the North Carolina Seafood Festival in Morehead City.
OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS
Fish and wildlife are not only the focus of the refuge but are also important to the local economy. A
commercial fishery is present in the Pamlico and Core Sounds where shrimp, blue crab, flounder,
striped bass, croaker, gray trout, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, mullet, and sea bass are the
major species harvested. Hunting and fishing are also economically important to local businesses, as
both local and non-local sportsmen travel to Carteret County to fish for saltwater and freshwater fish
and hunt for waterfowl, white-tailed deer, and other species.
Unfortunately, conversion of wildlife habitat to more intensive land uses combined with 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 restore and protect some of these resources, Cedar Island
36 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
National Wildlife Refuge serves an important role, not only by providing habitat for a diversity of plant
and wildlife species, but also by offering a place where people can go to enjoy these resources, either
through observation or more directly through hunting or fishing.
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 studied 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
(Vogelsang 2001). A similar study of visitors at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge 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 observe
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 (local residents) on High Island, Texas, spent an average of $46 per day while 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 National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas demonstrated a range of
expenditures from $88 to $145 per day on nature based tourist activities. The Laguna Atascosa
National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas reported a range of $83 to $117 per day (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1997).
An increasing number of local officials view eco-tourism, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental interpretation 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
Tourism in the area is based on the natural resources and cultural attractions of the region. Boat
ramps provide access to the rivers, bays, and sounds for fishing, hunting, and boating. Numerous
outfitters provide boats, fishing charters, and guided tours. The oceanfront attracts swimmers,
surfers, sunbathers, and anglers. More developed tourist attractions based on natural resources
include Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Croatan National
Forest, Fort Macon State Park, Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve, and the North Carolina
Aquarium at Pine Knoll Shores. Local events that revolve around natural resources include the
Atlantic Beach King Mackerel Tournament, Big Rock Blue Marlin Tournament, Core Sound Waterfowl
Weekend and Core Sound Waterfowl Decoy Festival on Harker’s Island, and the North Carolina
Seafood Festival in Morehead City.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Carteret County has a number of historic attractions. There are five areas on the National Register of
Historic Places: Beaufort Historic District, Morehead City Historic District, Cape Lookout Village
Historic District, Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station, and Portsmouth Village. Fort Macon State Park
interprets the role the Fort played in the history of the area. Cape Lookout National Seashore
interprets the importance of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and Portsmouth Village. The North
Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort presents and interprets artifacts from maritime history. The
Carteret County Museum of History and Art in Morehead City has an interesting collection of Carteret
County artifacts.
TRANSPORTATION
In its early days, residents of the area relied on water transportation. The sounds, rivers, and
streams that crisscross the county served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication
between almost every community in the area. The Pamlico, Core, and Bogue Sounds and the
streams they connected were once the major transportation avenues in the area. As the area grew
and the railroad arrived, commercial boat traffic declined. The waterways are still important as
sources of income and recreation. Ferries still provide access across the sounds. A ferry connects
Cedar Island to the Outer Banks, where seven million tourists spend their vacations.
In the twentieth century with the popularity of automobiles, the state developed a network of highways
connecting the county to all areas of the eastern United States. State Route 12 and U.S. Highways
70 and 17 connect Carteret County with Interstate Route 95 and with the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-
Hampton Roads, Virginia, metropolitan area. A number of smaller roads connect the various
communities in the area. A 5-mile stretch of North Carolina Highway 12, connecting the Cedar Island
ferry to Morehead City, runs through the refuge. There are international airports in Raleigh, North
Carolina, and Norfolk/Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Cedar Island Refuge, which is in the eastern part of Carteret County can be reached via U.S. Route 70 and
North Carolina Route 12 and is a 30-mile drive to the east from Morehead City.
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
Carteret County is in predominantly rural east central North Carolina. Cultural opportunities in the
immediate area are limited to the history-based facilities outlined in the tourism section; theater at local
high schools and parks; music at local fairs, festivals, and nightclubs; and art at local fairs, festivals, and
small galleries. Greenville, North Carolina, and East Carolina University, located 100 miles northwest of
Carteret County, offer the nearest opportunities for large theatrical or musical performances.
The Raleigh-Chapel Hill-Durham, North Carolina metropolitan area located 180 miles to the west by
highway has the area’s closest large art museums and venues for performing arts with national
touring collections and companies.
The Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Hampton Roads of the Virginia metropolitan area located 200 miles north of
the refuge is another major metropolitan area that supports a wide range of cultural facilities and events.
38 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the acquisition of Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuge on August 10, 1964, by the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929.
The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 provided funds for the purchase. The Service has
also purchased land with funds provided by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The Service approved
an acquisition boundary of 16,887 acres (Figure 5).
The Service acquired 12,526 acres in 1964 by fee simple purchase. Since 1985, the refuge has
acquired 1,954 additional acres of fee simple purchase for a total of 14,480 acres.
A variety of federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations have acquired land in the
vicinity of the refuge. The National Park Service manages the 28,243-acre Cape Lookout National
Seashore. The U.S. Forest Service manages the 308,234-acre Croatan National Forest. The United
States Marine Corps manages the 1,470-acre Atlantic Field. The State of North Carolina manages the
385-acre Fort Macon State Park and the 2,675-acre Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve.
VISITOR SERVICES
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge currently has one staff member, a maintenance worker, who is
stationed on the refuge. Visitors are welcome to use the refuge during daylight hours. There are two
public boat ramps with launching and parking facilities. The refuge headquarters on Lola Road has a
visitor information area, and provides maps and directions to the refuge’s firebreaks and access
roads that are used by the public for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and bird watching (Figure 6).
Hunting
Waterfowl hunting is permitted in accordance with the Federal and State regulations. Hunting is
restricted to an area of 400 acres north of Thorofare Canal and west of North Carolina Highway 12.
The hunt area is marked on refuge maps and is posted by “Waterfowl Hunt Area” signs. Only
temporary blinds are permitted on refuge lands, though local hunters erect permanent blinds in the
open water immediately adjacent to refuge lands.
Environmental Education
The refuge does not have a developed environmental education program.
Interpretation
Interpretation is limited to visitor contact with the Maintenance Worker at the Lola Road office. Visitors
are provided with an overview of the refuge, a wildlife list, and directions for desired outdoor activities.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Figure 5. Approved acquisition boundary of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
􀀀
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Approved Acquisition Boundary
Refuge Ownership
NPS Ownership
Primary Roads
Open Water 􀀀 􀀀
􀀀
Open Grounds Farm
􀀀

Jacks Bay Pt
Newstump
Point
Deep Bend
Point
Tump
Island
Point
of Grass
Sand
Point Green
Point
Sand
Hill
Point
West Bay
Long Bay
Long Bay
Point Merkle
Bay
Nameless
Bay
Deep Bend
Green
Point
Cove
Owens
Bay
West Thorofare Bay
Cedar Island Bay
North Bay
􀀀

Jacks Bay Pt
Newstump
Point
Deep Bend
Point
Tump
Island
Point
of Grass
Sand
Point
Green
Point
Sand
Hill
Point
West Bay
Long Bay
Long Bay
Point
Merkle
Bay
Nameless
Deep Bend Bay Green
Point
Cove
Owens
Bay
West Thorofare Bay
Jacks
Bay
Cedar Island Bay
North Bay
􀀀

Description

Rating
Title	Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Description	cedarisland_final.pdf
FWS Resource Links	http://library.fws.gov
Subject	Document Wildlife refuges Planning
Location	Region 4 North Carolina
FWS Site	CEDAR ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Publisher	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Date of Original	September 2006
Type	Text
Format	PDF
Source	NCTC Conservation Library
Rights	Public Domain
File Size	7969785 Bytes
Original Format	Document
Length	182
Full Resolution File Size	7969785 Bytes
Transcript	I W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan I W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USFWS Purchased rights to publish painting Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge USFWS Contact information: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge Telephone- 252-926-4021 mattamuskeet@fws.gov U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov September 2006 Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN CEDAR ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Carteret County, North Carolina U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region 1875 Century Blvd. Atlanta, Georgia 30345 September 2006 Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 Purpose of and Need for the Plan ................................................................................................1 Fish and Wildlife Service ..............................................................................................................2 The National Wildlife Refuge System ...........................................................................................2 Refuges of the Ecosystem ..................................................................................................3 Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................3 National Conservation Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................4 Relationship to State Partners......................................................................................................4 CHAPTER II. REFUGE OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................7 Introduction..................................................................................................................................7 Location..............................................................................................................................7 Establishment.....................................................................................................................7 Acquisition History...............................................................................................................7 Purposes............................................................................................................................9 Special Designations ....................................................................................................................9 Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................9 Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................9 Ecological Threats and Problems...............................................................................................12 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation .......................................................................................12 Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................13 Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................13 Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants.............................................................................13 Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................14 Physical Resources ....................................................................................................................15 Climate ..............................................................................................................................15 Geology............................................................................................................................16 Minerals............................................................................................................................17 Soils .................................................................................................................................17 Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................20 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................20 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................20 Visual Resources/Aesthetics.............................................................................................22 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................23 Habitat..............................................................................................................................23 Wildlife..............................................................................................................................25 Exotic Organisms ..............................................................................................................28 Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................................28 Socioeconomic Conditions .........................................................................................................30 History ...............................................................................................................................30 Land Use...........................................................................................................................31 ii Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Demographics...................................................................................................................32 Employment.....................................................................................................................32 Forestry............................................................................................................................35 Outdoor Recreation Economics........................................................................................35 Tourism............................................................................................................................36 Transportation..................................................................................................................37 Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................37 Refuge Administration and Management...................................................................................38 Land Protection and Conservation ...................................................................................38 Visitor Services .................................................................................................................38 Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ........................................................................41 Refuge Infrastructure ........................................................................................................42 CHAPTER III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................43 Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................43 Plan Review and Revision ................................................................................................43 Summary of Planning Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities......................................................43 Hydrology.........................................................................................................................44 Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................44 Habitats............................................................................................................................46 Public Use.........................................................................................................................47 Resource Protection .........................................................................................................48 Administration ...................................................................................................................49 Wilderness Review ...........................................................................................................49 CHAPTER IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................51 Vision ........................................................................................................................................51 Goals.........................................................................................................................................51 Objectives and Strategies ..........................................................................................................52 Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................52 Habitat ..............................................................................................................................55 Public Use.........................................................................................................................60 Resource Protection .........................................................................................................65 Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................70 CHAPTER V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION...........................................................................................73 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................73 Refuge Administration................................................................................................................77 Funding and Personnel ..............................................................................................................77 Volunteers........................................................................................................................78 Partnership Opportunities .................................................................................................78 Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................79 Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................80 Table of Contents iii SECTION B. APPENDICES APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................81 APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED................................................................87 APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES..............................................................................91 APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...........................................................................................99 APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ..............................................................................109 Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ...........................................................................109 Compatibility Determinations....................................................................................................115 APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................129 APPENDIXVII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS ..............................................151 APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS ...........................................................................................153 APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...............................................................159 APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................163 iv Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge List of Figures Figure 1. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in Carteret County, North Carolina .....................8 Figure 2. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Area.......................................................................................................11 Figure 3. Characteristics of soils on Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge.................................18 Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory map of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge.................24 Figure 5. Approved acquisition boundary of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ..............39 Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge............................40 Figure 7. Proposed visitor facilities at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge under Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). .............................................................................61 List of Tables Table 1. Acquisition history of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ....................................7 Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge................................................................................................10 Table 3. Federally listed threatened and endangered animal species of the .............................12 Coastal Plain of North Carolina.....................................................................................12 Table 4. Climatological data, 1971-2000, Cedar Island, North Carolina.....................................17 Table 5. Characteristics of soils on Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ................................19 Table 6. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge................................................................................................21 Table 7. Neuse River Basin Category 7 impaired waters (proper technical conditions do not exist to develop TMDL) .....................................................................................22 Table 8. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Aerial Waterfowl Survey Results, February 2004..............................................................................................................26 Table 9. Species of management concern at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ................27 Table 10. Historic properties on the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ................................29 Table 11. Carteret County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census...........................33 Table 12. Commodity production in Carteret County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997 USDA Census .....................................................................................33 Table 13. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties ....................34 Table 14. Staff of Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuges – 2005 .................................................................................................41 Table 15. Projects supporting wildlife strategies...........................................................................73 Table 16. Projects supporting habitat strategies...........................................................................74 Table 17. Projects supporting public use strategies .....................................................................75 Table 18. Projects supporting resource protection strategies.......................................................76 Table 19. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies....................................................77 Table 20. Proposed staffing plan for Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge ................................78 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fish and Wildlife Service developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment to guide the management of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in Carteret 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. As part of the planning process, the Service 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 consisted of biologists from federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The staff held the public scoping meetings In Beaufort and Cedar Island, North Carolina. The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative 1 was a proposal to maintain the current management. The staff would manage the refuge with prescribed fire of marshes and pine forests conducted by employees from other refuges according to the Fire Management Plan. The refuge would employ a single maintenance worker stationed on the refuge to maintain the buildings and 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 conduct no other surveys of wildlife or habitats. The refuge would provide opportunities for all six priority public use activities: waterfowl hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The staff would not conduct environmental education and interpretation programs, but would allow others to conduct programs on the refuge. The Service would manage the refuge from Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, four hours away from Cedar Island Refuge. Staff from Mattamuskeet would handle peak workloads at Cedar Island Refuge. Alternative 2 proposes minimum program increases. The refuge would document the presence of priority wildlife species, but not monitor habitat. Staff from the refuge would survey waterfowl from the air on a routine basis. The refuge would continue to provide opportunities for the six priority public use activities, but would have the capacity to increase the number of opportunities. The staff would conduct environmental education programs once a month. The staff would establish an interpretive and observation trail with a brochure and a photo blind. The staff would also control dominant pest plants and animals as time and opportunity would allow. There would be four staff members stationed at Cedar Island Refuge. Alternative 3 proposes moderate program increases. The refuge would document the presence of priority wildlife species and mammals and monitor fire-dependent habitats. The staff would monitor vegetation in the marshes and pine forests before and after prescribed burns conducted by staff from other refuges according to the Fire Management Plan. Staff from the refuge would survey waterfowl from the air and the ground on a routine basis. The refuge would continue to provide opportunities for the six priority public use activities, but would have the capacity to increase the number of opportunities. The staff would conduct environmental education and interpretation programs once a month. The refuge would establish an interpretive trail with a brochure and a photo blind. The staff would also monitor pest plants and animals and control them according to an integrated pest management plan. There would be seven staff members stationed at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Service selected Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative. It advances the refuge program considerably, addresses the highest priority needs, and is more realistic than Alternative 3 in terms of expected budgets and staffing levels to conduct the proposed program. It serves the purposes of the refuge, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and best serves the goals outlined. 2 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN Chapter I. Background INTRODUCTION The Fish and Wildlife Service developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge to provide a foundation for its management and use. The plan will serve as a guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years. The plan was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Public participation in the planning process (described in Chapter III and Appendix IV) constitutes compliance with this Act. When fully implemented, this plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge. The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established. Fish and wildlife conservation is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) and encourages it as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes. A planning team prepared the plan and consisted of representatives from various Service programs, including Refuges, Fisheries, Ecological Services, Realty, and Migratory Birds. In developing this plan, the planning team and refuge staff have incorporated the input of local citizens and the general public through a series of stakeholder and public scoping meetings. A description of this public involvement and the planning process itself can be found in the Plan Development section. The plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative, which was chosen after considering three other alternatives. The alternatives were described in the Environmental Assessment, which was Section B of the draft plan. The preferred alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for the management of the refuge and is detailed in this comprehensive conservation plan. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide long-term guidance to the refuge’s management programs and activities for the next 15 years. The plan is needed to: Provide a clear statement of direction for the management of the refuge; Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; Ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational and educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; 2 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; and Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for the refuge’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs. Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is to communicate with the public and include public participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System. This comprehensive conservation plan supports the Partners-in-Flight Initiative, South Atlantic Coastal Plain Migratory Bird Conservation Plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE The Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the conservation, protection, and enhancement of the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service administers a national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of these resources. As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering nearly 96 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million acres, lie in Alaska. The remaining 16 million acres lie in the other 49 states and several island territories. THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is: ... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Rfuge System. The Act states that the Service shall manage each refuge: • Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; • Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; • Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; • Fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans; • Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 • 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 • Retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses. Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the direction of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, the Service is preparing all refuge comprehensive conservation plans in conjunction with public involvement, and requires each refuge to complete its own plan within a 15-year schedule. Approximately 39.5 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 2003, mostly to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, refuges generate substantial economic benefits to the local communities that surround them. Economists have reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $809 million annually in sales and $315 million in employment icome to local economies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). In addition, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation reports that nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $108 billion on wildlife-related recreational pursuits in 2001 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 1998, volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $20.6 million. The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses the listed principles: • Wildlife comes first. • Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management. • Refuges must be healthy. • Growth of refuges must be strategic. • The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others. REFUGES OF THE ECOSYSTEM The refuge is one of the ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those ten national wildlife refuges, Alligator River, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, Mackay Island, Mattamuskeet, Pea Island, Pocosin Lakes, Swanquarter, Roanoke River; and the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia, are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and Cape Fear Rivers, which have been classified as Ecosystem Unit #34 by the Fish and Wildlife Service. LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, Congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. (See Appendix III for more information on legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges.) 4 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop and coordinate planning initiatives involving federal, 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 plan reflects the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 brings together international teams of biologists from private and government organizations from Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The partnerships, called joint ventures, are working to restore waterfowl and other migratory bird populations to the levels of the early 1970s by protecting about 6 million acres of priority wetland habitats from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian Arctic. The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan and Waterbirds for the Americas outline approaches to conserving those species groups. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a high priority of the Partners-in-Flight Plan. It also provides strategies for conserving and managing wintering, breeding, and migration habitat for mid-continental wood duck and colonial bird populations. The Partners-in-Flight Plan emphasizes land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified focal species for each habitat type from which 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 provide cost-share funding and technical assistance to private landowners to install and manage conservation practices on working farms and forests and restore cropland to natural habitats. The programs provide opportunities for landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage their land better as wildlife habitat or to protect it with easements. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and management of fish and wildlife throughout the United States. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is the state-partnering agency with the Service that is charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species, as well as management responsibilities for the state’s natural resources. The NCWRC also manages approximately 1.8 million acres of game lands in North Carolina. The NCWRC coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several game lands and from several boat ramps located near Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge. The agency’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable, and it is continuing its work with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 with the public to improve the condition of fish and wildlife populations in North Carolina. Not only has the agency participated in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field reviews, as part of the comprehensive conservation plan planning process, but it has also been an active partner in annual hunt coordination planning and various wildlife and habitat surveys. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge provides hunting opportunities for waterfowl in cooperation with the NCWRC. A key part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of common mission objectives between the Service and the state agency, where appropriate. 6 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 Chapter II. Refuge Overview INTRODUCTION LOCATION Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge is in Carteret County in the northeastern part of North Carolina. The Service named the refuge for the island on which it is located. The approved acquisition boundary lies entirely in Carteret County, North Carolina (population 59,383) (Figure 1). Morehead City, North Carolina, (2000 population 7,651) is the closest city and lies 30 miles west of the refuge. Greenville, North Carolina, (2000 population 60,476) lies 100 miles west of the refuge. The major metropolitan areas of Raleigh - Durham - Chapel Hill, North Carolina, (2000 population 1,038,703) lies 180 miles west of the refuge and Norfolk - Virginia Beach – Hampton Roads, Virginia, (2000 population 1,569,541) lies 200 miles north of the refuge. The refuge covers a total of 14,480 acres in fee title ownership and has an approved acquisition boundary of 16,887 acres. Its western boundary is other land in Carteret County; eastern boundary is Cedar Island Bay and the Pamlico Sound; northern boundary is Long Bay and West Bay; and southern boundary is Thorofare Bay and Core Sound. This region is part of the physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s administrative ecosystem known as the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem. ESTABLISHMENT The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the purchase of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge on August 10, 1964, by the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 provided funding for the purchase. The Service has also purchased land with funds provided under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The Service approved an acquisition boundary of 16,887 acres. ACQUISITION HISTORY The Service acquired 12,526 acres in 1964 by fee simple purchase. Since 1985, the refuge has acquired 1,954 additional acres of fee simple purchase for a total of 14,480 acres. It has an approved acquisition boundary of 16,887 acres (Table 1). Table 1. Acquisition history of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge YEAR ACRES COST COST ACRE TOTAL ACRES TOTAL COST 1964 7,380.00 $33,210.00 $4.50 7,380.00 $33,210.00 1965 3,171.71 $107,900.80 $34.02 10,551.71 $141,110.80 1966 264.25 $20,153.80 $76.27 10,815.96 $161,264.60 1967 221.74 $27,956.21 $126.07 11,037.70 $189,220.81 1968 1,488.34 $157,950.00 $106.12 12,526.04 $347,171.21 1990 1,956.00 $0.00 $0.00 14,482.04 $347,171.21 1992 0.28 $0.00 $0.00 14,482.32 $347,171.21 TOTAL 14,482.32 $347,171.21 All acquisitions were purchased fee simple. Acquistions with no cost were donations. 8 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Figure 1. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in Carteret County, North Carolina 􀀀 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Primary Roads Open Water Refuge Ownership NPS Ownership 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 Open Grounds Farm 􀀀 Jacks Bay Pt Newstump Point Deep Bend Tump Point Point Point of Grass Sand Point Green Point Sand Hill Point West Bay Long Bay Long Bay Point Merkle Bay Nameless Deep Bend Bay Green Point Cove Owens Bay West Thorofare Bay Jacks Bay North Bay 􀀀 Hog Island Point Hog Island Back Bay Goose Bay Ship Point South Island Green Point Long Point Fish Hawk Pt Rumley Hammock Rumley Bay Thorofare Green Point Hall Point Barry Bay Thorofare Bay Styron Bay Steep Point C A P E L O O K O U T N A T I O N A L S E A S H O R E NC 12NC 12 NC 12NC 12 US 70US 70 Cedar Island to Ocracoke Ferry OCRACOKE FERRY (NC DOT) Tump Island Cedar Island Bay Atlantic Lola Cedar Island Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 PURPOSES The purposes of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, as reflected in the legislation under which Congress authorized the refuge and the Service has acquired land, is to protect and conserve migratory birds, and other wildlife resources through the protection of wetlands, in accordance with the listed laws. ...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929); …for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources… 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)(4)…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. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has designated most of the refuge, with the exception of the headquarters area, 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 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge as outstanding resource waters or high-quality waters (Table 6). The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has designated several streams and water bodies within and off the borders of the refuge as fish nurseries and anadromous fish spawning habitats. ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain (Figure 2). The South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 25-million-hectare 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. REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES Beyond national conservation plans and initiatives and the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, regional planning activities directly influence the development of the comprehensive conservation plan. 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 plan reflect the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture--the Joint Venture between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Partners-in- Flight Plan, and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative. 10 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest S1 G3 Coastal Fringe Sandhill S1 G3 Bay Forest S2 G3 Low Pocosin S2 G3 Maritime Dry Grassland S2 G3 Pine Savanna S2 G3 Wet Pine Flatwoods S3 G3 Maritime Shrub S3 G4 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 or 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). The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focus is that of the middle and upper Atlantic coast. Within the Joint Venture is a partnership formed between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Fish and Wildlife 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 migration 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 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and conservation organizations, such as Audubon Society and The 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 Department of Agriculture, have state level plans and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. The Service also utilizes those programs to assist private landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage habitat for wildlife or protect their land with easements. Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 Figure 2. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Area 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 12 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge 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. ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 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 destroyed 40 percent of the natural vegetation in the area. The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for agriculture and urban development (Hunter et al. 2001). Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a tremendous effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Vast areas of marshes and bottomland hardwood forests have become marsh and forest 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. Severe fragmentation has resulted in a substantial decline in biological diversity and integrity. Species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, endangered, or threatened include the red wolf and red-cockaded woodpecker (Table 3). Table 3. Federally listed threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina Region Status Common name Scientific Name Coastal Plain Endangered Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempii Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Coastal Plain Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Coastal Plain Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Coastal Plain Endangered Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon Coastal Plain Endangered Wolf, Red Canis rufus Coastal Plain Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Coastal Plain Threatened Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis Coastal Plain Threatened Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus Coastal Plain Threatened Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Caretta caretta Coastal Plain Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13 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., 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. Nest parasitism is also common in fragmented forests. More that 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds inhabit the region. Some of these species, including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kite, wood thrush, and cerulean warbler, have declined substantially and need the benefits of large forested blocks to recover and sustain their existence. Fragmentation of marshes has left the remaining marsh tracts surrounded by commercial, industrial, and residential developments. These land uses generate excessive quantities of surface runoff, usually contaminated with pollutants from vehicles, industrial production, domestic waste disposal, and lawn maintenance. Percolates from septic systems pose the potential for contamination of shallow groundwater. The residential areas also bring pets that prey on wildlife, especially songbirds. ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY In addition to the loss of vast acreages of marshes and bottomland forested wetlands, there have been substantial alterations in the region’s hydrology due to managed stream flows from flood control and hydroelectric power generation reservoirs, drainage ditches, river channel modification, flood control levees, deforestation, and degradation to aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation and contaminants, 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). SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS Deforestation and hydrologic alteration have degraded aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Sediment now fills many water bodies, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic resources. Turbidity caused by sediment limits light penetration into the water and consequently the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation. The federally listed threatened and endangered species include 4 species of aquatic organisms as threatened and 10 species as endangered that occur on the coastal plain of North Carolina. 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 tides go 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. PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic vegetation. 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. 14 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge CONSERVATION PRIORITIES The declines in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s dune, marsh, shrub, and forest communities and their associated fish and wildlife resources have prompted the Service to designate the habitats and wildlife species of Cedar Island Refuge as those of special concern. A collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is now underway to implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands and other coastal habitats in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The goal is to prioritize and manage areas to most effectively maintain and possibly restore the biological diversity in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Service has prioritized some areas as focus areas for intensive management, others for reforestation, and still others for conservation. Conservation agencies and organizations have initiated several coordinated efforts to set priorities and establish focus areas to overcome the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. Conservationists established a cooperative private-state-federal partnership in 1986, known as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, 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 forest-nesting birds. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is working with the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Working Group to establish step-down objectives for shorebird foraging habitat for the fall migration period throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. 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 songbirds. The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide islands or blocks of habitat, especially forested habitat, in an otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The targeted block sizes range from 10,000 to 100,000 acres. Such areas are large enough to support viable populations of various suites of neotropical migratory songbirds. Of course, these areas will also support other species that depend on large forested blocks. Existing or proposed state wildlife management areas or national wildlife refuges are the anchors of the plans. These public lands serve as centers of biodiversity that landowners and managers enhance and support by the expansion of forested blocks, either through public or private management. 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, including 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 for another species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term priorities that frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources shift. Agencies and organizations must exercise caution to prevent the start-up of management and restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An example might be a tendency to totally manage Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in an effort to provide habitat for many species of neotropical migratory songbirds that require a pine savanna with herbaceous understory. Such an approach may overlook the critical habitat needs of other songbirds that prefer a forest with shrub understory. The partners can only meet the habitat goals of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture through active management of croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private land (Reinecke and Baxter 1996). Active management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration) Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15 is necessary to compensate for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that deforestation and hydrologic alterations have caused throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. When properly managed, the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge could 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 The Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge exhibits a maritime climate because of its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and surrounding bays and sounds. Winter temperatures on the average are milder than those of mainland weather stations, and in summer temperatures are cooler than those of mainland stations. Since the flow of air over North Carolina is predominantly from west to east, the continental influence is much greater on most of the state 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. Its direct effects are limited by the fact that the prevailing winds in winter are westerly. Lows usually reform along the coast as "Cape Hatteras lows" and then move north along the coast. Winter's low-pressure storms are usually more intense because of the large north-to-south contrasts. Winter's storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the winter precipitation. The forms of precipitation in spring begin to change from these steady rains to occasional thunderstorms. The Gulf of Mexico's warm, moist air produces warm, humid weather throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn, North Carolina's driest season, is to many people the most pleasant with its many clear, warm days and cool nights with little rain. This weather usually lasts until November. The refuge is situated along a coastline with a long history of storm activity. Two basic storm types present a substantial threat to the coastal zone. Tropical storms and hurricanes, spawned over the warm ocean waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, are probably the best known and feared storms. Hurricanes, which are characterized by winds greater than seventy-five miles per hour and accompanied by intense rainfall, plague the Gulf and Atlantic seaboards from mid-summer to late-autumn. During the 1950s, a total of nine hurricanes affected the North Carolina coastline. Since then, only two major hurricanes, Donna in 1960, and Isabel in 2003, have occurred along the Outer Banks. Most storms pass off the coast east of the refuge, but may bring large quantities of rain. These extratropical storms, often called “northeasters” present a greater problem than hurricanes to the Atlantic coast, the Outer Banks in particular. Such storms may develop as strong low-pressure areas, and move slowly offshore into the Atlantic Ocean. The winds, sometimes reaching hurricane force, blow onshore from a northerly or easterly direction for sustained periods of time. The damage from these storms may ultimately far exceed the destruction from a hurricane. The March 1962 “northeaster,” also known as the “Ash Wednesday Storm,” proved that point decisively. Flood height and duration for extratropical storms often have equaled or exceeded those of hurricanes affecting North Carolina. 16 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Most North Carolina tornadoes occur in the Piedmont and the interior of the coastal plain, which spares Carteret County. On the refuge, the average annual precipitation is 57.6 inches, while the average annual snowfall was one inch. The record snowfall was nine inches recorded at Cedar Island, North Carolina. Snow accumulations of more than one inch for more than a day are rare. Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year: average monthly rainfall ranges from 3.25 inches in April to 7.11 inches in August. Nine months have average precipitation between three and five inches (Table 4). Of the total annual precipitation, about 31 inches usually falls in April through September. The growing season for most crops falls within this period. In 2 years out of 10, the rainfall in April through September is less than 15 inches. 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 60 percent of the time possible in summer and 50 percent in winter. The prevailing wind is from the southwest. Average wind speed is highest, 12 miles per hour, in winter and spring. The top winds during Hurricane Isabel in September 2003 were 86 miles per hour. In January, the average temperature is 41 degrees, the average daily minimum temperature is 38 degrees, and the average daily maximum is 53 degrees. In July, the average temperature is 81 degrees, the average daily maximum temperature is 89 degrees, and the average daily minimum is 73 degrees (Table 4). The average growing season is 243 days-long. The average last date of frost in the spring is March 20 and the first frost in the fall is November 19. GEOLOGY There are five physiographic areas in Carteret County: the uplands of the Talbot Surface; the low marine terraces and stream terraces of the Pamlico Surface; the islands of the Outer Banks; the salt marsh; and the forested flood plains along streams. The Suffolk Scarp enters the county just west of Harlowe and runs generally south toward Morehead City. Elevation at the base of the scarp is about 20 feet. The scarp formed the shoreline of an ancient ocean, the Pamlico Sea. It separates the older, upland soils of the Talbot Surface to the west from the younger, lower soils on the Pamlico Surface. Narrow stream terraces on the Pamlico Surface extend inland along some of the larger creeks and rivers west of Morehead City. Elevation of the uplands of the Talbot Surface ranges from 20 feet to 40 feet above sea level. The low marine terraces east of the scarp and the stream terraces are generally less than 20 feet in elevation. Elevation on the Outer Banks to the east is much lower than Shackleford and Bogue Banks to the south. The salt marshes are less than 2 feet in elevation. Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 Table 4. Climatological data, 1971-2000, Cedar Island, North Carolina Month Average High Temperature (oF) Average Low Temperature (oF) Average Precipitation (Inches) January 53.4 37.9 5.29 February 55.6 39.5 3.50 March 62.9 45.7 4.61 April 71.7 52.9 3.25 May 79.1 61.1 4.16 June 85.4 68.6 4.13 July 89.0 72.7 6.23 August 82.0 72.1 7.11 September 82.2 68.4 6.49 October 73.1 58.1 4.42 November 64.8 49.1 3.84 December 56.8 41.1 4.54 Annual Average 71.8 55.6 Annual Total 57.60 The general slope of the county is to the east and southeast. About 92 percent of the county is nearly level, 6 percent has slopes of 0 to 2 percent slope, and 2 percent has slopes of 2 to 30 percent. MINERALS Sand is the only mineral resource occurring in economic quantities. There are no sand pits in the vicinity of the refuge. The Service owns all mineral rights on the refuge. SOILS Soil types identified on the refuge are Baymeade fine sand, Beaches, Carteret sand, Lafitte* muck, Leon* sand, Mandarin sand, Murville* mucky sand, and Ponzer* muck (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1987). Soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in “Hydric Soils of the United States” (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1987). Hydric soils are . . . "soils that in their undrained condition are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (water loving) vegetation" (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985) (Figure 3) (Table 5). Most of the refuge is Lafitte muck, an organic soil with sixty inches of muck over clay loam. It floods daily with tidal fluctuations and has a water table from the surface to a half-foot below the surface. Lafitte soils support freshwater and brackish herbaceous marsh vegetation. 18 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Figure 3. Characteristics of soils on Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge 􀀀 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Primary Roads Open Water NPS Ownership Mineral Soils with Water Tables > 2 Feet Mineral Soils with Water Tables 1−2 Feet Deep Mineral Soils with Water Tables < 1 Foot Deep Mineral Soils that Flood Daily Organic Soils that Flood Daily Organic Soil Depths 16"−51" with Water Tables < 1’ 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 Open Grounds Farm 􀀀 Jacks Bay Pt Newstump Point Deep Bend Tump Point Point Point of Grass Sand Point Green Point Sand Hill Point West Bay Long Bay Long Bay Point Merkle Bay Nameless Deep Bend Bay Green Point Cove Owens Bay West Thorofare Bay Jacks Bay North Bay 􀀀 Hog Island Point Hog Island Back Bay Goose Bay Ship Point South Island Green Point Long Point Fish Hawk Pt Rumley Hammock Rumley Bay Thorofare Green Point Hall Point Barry Bay Thorofare Bay Styron Bay Steep Point C A P E L O O K O U T N A T I O N A L S E A S H O R E NC 12 NC 12NC 12 US 70US 70 Cedar Island to Ocracoke Ferry OCRACOKE FERRY (NC DOT) Tump Island Cedar Island Bay Lola Cedar Island Atlantic Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19 Table 5. Characteristics of soils on Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Soil Series Surface Texture Acres Water Table Depth (Feet) Flooding Frequency Vegetative Community Lafitte Muck 11,656 0.0-0.5 Frequent Marsh Carteret Sand 240 0.0-1.0 Frequent Marsh Murville Mucky Sand 884 0.0-1.0 None Pocosin Ponzer Muck 153 0.0-1.0 None Pocosin Leon Sand 1,416 0.0-1.0 None Pine Forest Mandarin Sand 76 1.0-3.0 None Pine Forest Beaches Sand 45 >6.0 Frequent None Baymeade Fine Sand 10 4.0-5.0 None Pine Forest Frequent Flooding = flooding more than once every two years Carteret sand occurs in narrow bands between Lafitte muck and Murville mucky sand. It has eighty inches of sand over clay or loam. It floods daily with tidal fluctuations and has a water table from the surface to a foot below the surface. Carteret soils support freshwater and brackish herbaceous marsh vegetation. Murville mucky sands occur to the southwest and northeast of the Lafitte soils. They have ten inches of mucky sand over sand. The water table depth varies between being at the surface and a foot below the surface, but the soil does not flood. Murville soils support “pocosins” of dense shrubs and scattered trees. Leon sands are interspersed with the Murville mucky sands. They have eighty inches of sand, but the sand is cemented between twenty-two and fifty-eight inches. The water table depth varies between being at the surface and a foot below the surface, but the soil does not flood. Leon soils support pine forests referred to as “flatwoods” or “savanna” because the understory is a low stand of grass with the frequent fires that are typical of the area. There is a large area of Ponzer muck along the northern boundary of the refuge. It has twenty-six inches of muck over fifty inches of sand. The water table depth varies between being at the surface and a foot below the surface, but the soil does not flood. Ponzer soils support “pocosins” of dense shrubs and scattered trees. Small areas of Mandarin sand occur with the Murville and Leon soils. These areas have eighty inches of sand with cemented sand between sixty and eighty inches. The water table depth is between one and three feet below the surface. Mandarin soils support drought-tolerant forests characterized by longleaf pine, turkey oak, bluejack oak, and scrubby post oak. A small area of well-drained Baymeade fine sand occurs within the Leon and Mandarin soils. It has twenty-nine inches of fine sand over thirty inches of sandy loam. The water table depth is between four and five feet below the surface. Baymeade soils support drought-tolerant forests characterized by longleaf pine, turkey oak, bluejack oak, and blackjack oak. Coastal beaches are sandy areas that flood daily with the tidal cycle. They are areas of deep deposits of sand and shell with no vegetation. 20 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge HYDROLOGY Surface Water. Carteret County is drained by the Neuse, Newport, North, South, and White Oak Rivers, and numerous creeks that drain into the sounds and bays. The flow is sluggish in the rivers and creeks. Groundwater. Groundwater is plentiful throughout the county. It is near the surface in most places, particularly during the winter and early spring. Thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits underlie the area. The upper part of these deposits contains aquifers that supply water for domestic use. The surficial aquifer ranges from near the surface to a maximum depth of 75 feet. It is thickest east of Morehead City. Early in the development of the county, the main source of domestic water was from shallow wells in this aquifer. The use of shallow wells has decreased considerably because of the small yield in some places, the high content of dissolved iron in the water, and the risk of contamination. The underlying limestone of the Yorktown or Castle Hayne Formations, or both, is a more productive artesian aquifer and is the main source of water supply in the county today. The water is generally hard, but low in iron. Water from wells near the coast and especially on the Outer Banks may be salty, but layers of fresh groundwater are at lower depths (Legrand 1960). WATER QUALITY The Pamlico and Core Sound area is a highly productive ecosystem. Extending along the entire shoreline of Carteret County, the area exhibits a brackish to fresh wetland community. Local stream classifications are all high-quality water or outstanding resource waters (Table 6). The state sets minimum water quality standards based on the best uses listed for the waters. Developments and agricultural operations in the area located on hydric soils, non-hydric soils with high water tables, or soils with rapid permeability all have the potential to pollute the water table with septic system percolate, household wastes, and nutrient, pesticide, and petroleum products. There is one facility in the vicinity of the refuge with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. That facility is at the ferry landing at the northern end of Cedar Island. There are no violations of the permit currently on file. There are impaired waters in Cedar Island Bay east of the refuge, West Bay north of the refuge, and Merrimon Bay fifteen miles west of the refuge and immediately west of Open Ground Farms, a large corporate agricultural operation (Table 7) (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2003). AIR QUALITY North Carolina law states that no source of air pollution shall cause any listed ambient air quality standard (Section .0400) to be exceeded or contribute to a violation of any listed ambient air quality standard (Section .0400), except as allowed by Rules .0531 or .0532 [.0401(c), NCAC, Title 15A, Subchapter 2D - Air Pollution Control Requirements (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources)]. Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 Table 6. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Water Body or Stream Classification Best Uses Pamlico Sound West Bay Long Bay Flag Creek Golden Creek Benneys Creek Henrys Creek Fur Creek Stump Bay Old Canal Piney Island Bay Owens Bay Jacks Bay West Thorofare Bay Bull Creek Cadduggen Creek Goose Bay Merkle Bay Deep Bend Nameless Bay Green Point Cove Dowdy Bay Point of Island Bay Newestump bay North Bay SA – Saltwater HQW - High Quality Waters NSW - Nutrient Sensitive Shellfishing Quality Core Sound Thorofare Bay Merkle Hammock Cr. Barry Bay Rumley Bay John Day Ditch Lewis Creek SW Prong, Lewis Cr. Big Gut Cedar Island Bay Great Pond Back Bay SA – Saltwater ORW – Outstanding Resource Waters NSW - Nutrient Sensitive Shellfishing Quality 22 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Table 7. Neuse River Basin Category 7 impaired waters (proper technical conditions do not exist to develop TMDL) Water Body Acres Cause of Impairment Priority Potential Sources Merrimon Bay 1475 Fecal Coliform Medium Agriculture Silviculture Cedar Island Bay 13 Fecal Coliform Low Marinas West Bay 12 Fecal Coliform Low Natural Sources Subchapter 2D lists ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides (measured as sulfur dioxide), total suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter. Section .0508 enumerates control of particulates from pulp and paper mills. Section 0.0520 (7) indicates that fires purposely set to forest lands for forest management practices acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the Environmental Management Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and regulations of governmental entities having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses certain potential liabilities of burning even though permissible. The area closest to the refuge that an environmental agency monitors is the Virginia Beach-Norfolk 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 with the industry, traffic, and power plants, the area has exceeded only ozone level standards in 2002. Monitoring has indicated unhealthy levels twice and unhealthy levels for sensitive groups thirteen times. The air quality is due to the breezes blowing through the area from the ocean. VISUAL RESOURCES/AESTHETICS The Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge is part of an extensive complex of brackish marshes along the Pamlico and Core Sounds. The marshes adjacent to the refuge are largely undisturbed - protected by government ownership of Cape Lookout National Seashore and Piney Island and the regulations promulgated under the Clean Water Act. Most of the soils are too unstable to make development very attractive. Visitors to the refuge have the opportunity to experience wildness, spirit and adventure, and observe the signs and the sounds of activity in the marsh and forested wetlands. However, frequent military flights over the refuge at low levels with helicopters and jets often shatter the impression of isolation and solitude that would otherwise exist. The casual observer sees large expanses of brackish marsh and pine savanna. Breezes off the water move the dune and marsh grasses like flags waving across a vast landscape. During the growing season, the marshes appear alive with neotropical songbirds, raptors, wading birds, marsh birds, mink, otter, and other wildlife species. The forests of longleaf, loblolly, and pond pine, red maple, black gum, sweetgum, green ash, and wax myrtle echo the sounds of songbirds, wood ducks, and deer. During the late fall, winter, and early spring, migrating waterfowl and songbirds fill the air, managed wetlands, sounds, bays, and streams with their sights and sounds. Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES HABITAT The Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge is a typical southeastern United States coastal barrier island system that has formed dunes, brackish marshes, and forested swamps in the Coastal Plain region. Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) and rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) are the only plant species that are federally listed as endangered that are known to occur on the refuge. The National Wetlands Inventory described the refuge as an estuarine emergent herbaceous or palustrine, forested wetland with deciduous or broad-leafed deciduous vegetation, and a water regime ranging from temporarily flooded to semi-permanently flooded (Cowardin et al. 1979). Schafale and Weakley (1990) identify nine natural communities within the refuge boundary: brackish marsh, maritime shrub, maritime dry grassland, coastal fringe sandhills, coastal fringe evergreen forest, cypress gum swamp, bay forest, pine savanna, and wet pine flatwoods. Figure 4 illustrates the national wetland inventory map classifications on the refuge. Estuarine emergent wetlands correspond to brackish marshes; estuarine scrub/shrub and palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands correspond to maritime shrub; palustrine forested wetlands correspond to bay forest, coastal fringe evergreen forest, cypress gum swamps, maritime swamp forest, pond pine woodlands, wet pine flatwoods; uplands correspond to coastal fringe sandhills, dune grass, and pine savannas. The large number of plant species listed in Appendix VI is indicative of the diverse habitats on the refuge. The vegetation communities present on the refuge include maritime shrub, marsh (e.g., brackish and freshwater), cypress-gum swamp, bay forest, low pocosin, pond pine woodlands, and longleaf pine-coastal fringe sandhill. Maritime Shrub. This habitat type is similar to low pocosin with a maritime shrub component. It represents the transition zone between the brackish marsh and the higher, well-drained ridges of longleaf/pond pine that occurs on Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge. The canopy is dominated by widely spaced pond pine with a dense understory dominated by wax myrtle, zenobia, bay species, fetterbush, and high-bush blueberry. Cedar Island Refuge has 150 acres of maritime shrub habitat. Marsh. This category of habitat types includes brackish and freshwater marsh and associated high marsh. The majority of marsh at Cedar Island Refuge is brackish marsh with varying levels of salinity in the surface and groundwater. This habitat type is present on the refuge in large continuous blocks that are relatively intact and unaltered. Great marsh is a contiguous and unbroken expanse of 5,000 acres, and is a unique feature of the refuge. Much of the natural brackish marshes have a natural fire frequency of one to three years, but have endured fire exclusion during the past half century or longer. As a result, many of them are suffering from a lack of species diversity as only one to three species of marsh grasses dominate the wetter or lower marshes, and encroaching brush has now dominated the high marshes. Large mats of wrack and storm debris have drifted up in long wide tide lines, suffocating large strips of marsh. Dead grass makes up a large component of the remaining marsh stands, limiting plant productivity and nutrient availability and adversely affecting wildlife habitat. Cedar Island Refuge has 11,000 acres of marsh habitat. Cypress Gum Swamp. Cypress and black gum dominated swamp provide habitat for important trust species like prothonotary, yellow-throated, and other priority warblers and forest songbirds, as well as nesting yellow-crowned night herons. Cedar Island Refuge has 50 acres of Cypress-Black Gum forests. Bay Forest. This habitat type is characterized by shallow to deep organic soils, intermediate to long hydroperiods, and a canopy dominated by combinations of red maple, loblolly bay, sweet bay, red bay, 24 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory map of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge 0 0.5 1 2 􀀀 Miles Primary Roads Open Water NPS Ownership Estuarine Bottom Estuarine Emergent Estuarine Forested Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Shoreline Palustrine Bottom Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Upland 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 Open Grounds Farm 􀀀 Jacks Bay Pt Newstump Point Deep Bend Tump Point Point Point of Grass Sand Point Green Point Sand Hill Point West Bay Long Bay Long Bay Point Merkle Bay Nameless Deep Bend Bay Green Point Cove Owens Bay West Thorofare Bay Jacks Bay North Bay 􀀀 Hog Island Point Hog Island Back Bay Goose Bay Ship Point South Island Green Point Long Point Fish Hawk Pt Rumley Hammock Rumley Bay Thorofare Green Point Hall Point Barry Bay Thorofare Bay Styron Bay Steep Point C A P E L O O K O U T N A T I O N A L S E A S H O R E NC 12NC 12 NC 12NC 12 US 70US 70 Cedar Island to Ocracoke Ferry OCRACOKE FERRY (NC DOT) Tump Island Cedar Island Bay Atlantic Lola Cedar Island Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25 black gum, and occasionally pond pine or loblolly pine. The understory consists of bitter gall berry, fetterbush, greenbrier and chain-fern. It’s believed these areas are remnant ridge and swale zones. The presence of fire in this habitat type has been absent for many years. The refuge has about 100 acres of this habitat type. Though small in acreage, this habitat type adds diversity to the refuge. Low (Short) Pocosin. Often called simply shrub pocosin, this habitat type falls into two categories according to Frost (1995): true ombrotrophic low pocosins (influenced by nutrient deficient deep organic soils) and fire maintained low pocosins. Fire on a frequency of between 1 and 7 years maintains fire-influenced low pocosin. Because these sites have more nutrients available for plant growth, the absence of frequent fire will lead to development of tall shrub pocosin and eventually decadent stands of shrub and succession to tall tree pocosin. Cranberry and pitcher plant bogs occur throughout these pocosins, especially where ground fires have created potholes in the soil. The refuge has one 100-acre low pocosin site. Pond Pine Woodlands. This habitat type is described as having a pond pine overstory with a pocosin shrub, switchcane, or shrub/cane/savannah understory. Trees, usually with a canopy closure greater than 70 percent, dominate the habitat. In older stands, trees tend to be of larger diameters (8-20+ dbh), taller (usually > 40 feet), and have “healthier” pond pine. They typically occur on shallow organics (16 to 51 inches of peat; Belhaven, Ponzer) and occasionally on mineral soils (Hyde loam, Cape Fear Loam) and the very shallow organics (<16 inches peat; e.g., Roper or Wasda). Pond pine pocosin, with a cane understory, typically occurs on sites with shallower organic or mineral soils and is maintained by regular fire. Pond pine pocosin with a shrub understory typically occurs on deeper organic soils. Management in pond pine pocosins will likely require a combination of fire and thinning to develop the stand structure and understory desired. Ideally, there should be little or no hardwoods or shrubs in the mid-story or over-story except in isolated inclusions or islands. Where these sites occur on more fertile (i.e., shallow organic) soils, they are capable of producing relatively large pond pines of sufficient age to manage for red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. The less fertile sites provide smaller trees but are ideal for red-cockaded woodpecker and other pine specialists as foraging habitat. Currently, these habitats are in need of restoration as the exclusion of fire and growth of hardwoods and shrubs are suppressing pine growth. Cedar Island Refuge has 125 acres of pond pine woodlands. Longleaf Pine/Coastal Fringe Sandhill. Longleaf pine usually occurs on sandy, well-drained soils. Long sandy ridges on the northeast and southwest portions of the refuge have large stands of longleaf pine. Longleaf pine and associated understory of wiregrass is an important habitat type that once covered more than 200 million acres in the southeastern United States. Currently, less than 1 percent of the original longleaf habitat exists. Cedar Island Refuge has 1,580 acres of longleaf pine habitat. WILDLIFE Birds. The brackish marshes of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge and the adjacent open water bodies of Pamlico Sound provide important habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, secretive marsh birds, and colonial waterbirds. The refuge marshes are some of the most important locations for breeding black rails, a species of special management concern in the southeast. They also provide important habitat for seaside sparrows, American black ducks, Virginia rails, and clapper rails. Isolated islands and sand spits are used as breeding sites for American oystercatchers, gull-billed terns, least terns, and other colonial species. The longleaf pine forests may support the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. 26 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge A total of 270 species of birds may be observed at the refuge. Of those, 99 are nesting species. A complete species list is located in Appendix VI. Waterfowl survey results are provided in Table 8. Table 8. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Aerial Waterfowl Survey Results, February 2004 Species Number Surf Scoter 383 Lesser Scaup 200 Green-winged Teal 100 Canvasback 100 American Black Duck 77 Bufflehead 77 Hooded Merganser 72 Blue-winged Teal 30 Northern Pintail 30 American Wigeon 2 Total Ducks 1071 Mammals. Gray squirrels and marsh rabbits are abundant. White-tailed deer are present, though not in high density. Furbearers that have been observed include raccoon, mink, muskrat, otter, fox, nutria, and opossum. Notable mammals not observed on the refuge, but expected to occur, include bobcat and beaver. A total of 35 mammal species are believed to be present on the refuge, however, no formal inventory has been conducted. A list of species expected to occur in refuge habitats that are typical of the southeastern coastal plain is located in Appendix VI. This list contains 14 species that are primarily carnivorous and 18 rodent species. Reptiles and Amphibians. A total of 92 amphibian and reptile species are believed to be present on the refuge, however, no formal inventory has been conducted. Species observed include southern leopard frog, green tree frog, black rat snake, eastern cottonmouth, yellow-bellied turtle, and snapping turtle. A list of species expected to occur in refuge habitats that are typical of the southeastern coastal plain is located in Appendix VI. This list contains 42 amphibian and 51 reptile species. The largest group of amphibians is frogs, which include 18 species, followed by salamander/newts, 14 species; toads, 6 species; and other amphibians, 4 species. The largest group of reptiles is snakes, 31 species, of which 3 are venemous, followed by turtles, 11 species; and lizards/skinks, 9 species. Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27 Threatened and Endangered Animals. No federally threatened or endangered species are known to inhabit Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge. However, red-cockaded woodpeckers do occur on adjacent lands, and the refuge does contain appropriate habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, but the species has not been documented on the refuge. Unique Animal Associations. Various state agencies and research biologists have identified numerous unique animal associations on the refuge. These associations are identified in Table 9 below. Table 9. Species of management concern at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Species Status Brackish Marsh and Sounds Maritime Shrub and Swamp Forest Beach Dune Grass and Dry Grassland Pine Forests and Savannas Piping Plover FL X Roseate Tern FL X Red-cockaded Woodpecker FL X Shortnose Sturgeon FL X Seabeach Amaranth FL X Rough-leaved Loosestrife FL X Sharp-tailed Sparrow SC X Seaside Sparrow SC X Black Rail SC X Yellow Rail SC X King Rail SC X Sedge Wren SC X Northern Parula SC X X Prairie Warbler SC X Eastern Painted Bunting SC X Yellow-throated Warbler SC X Wood Duck SC X Red Knot SC X Wilson’s Plover SC X Least Tern SC X Black Skimmer Sc X American Oystercatcher SC X Reddish Egret SC X Canada Goose SC X American Black Duck SC X (FL=Federally-listed, SL=State-listed, SC=Species of Management Concern) 28 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge EXOTIC ORGANISMS Invasive and exotic organisms present within the area include common reed (Phragmites australis), Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), nutria (Myocaster coypus), fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) and the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). Refuge personnel monitor the impact of these exotic species and determine control options as they have opportunities. Compared to many southeastern refuges, Cedar Island Refuge is relatively intact with native vegetation and vertebrates. Non-native vegetation along the private land interface is the biggest challenge from invasive species on the refuge. CULTURAL RESOURCES Very few systematic archaeological and historic investigations have occurred on the refuge. These investigations have been conducted primarily to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Drucker 1981; Kanaski in prep.). Hutchinson and McSwain (2000) forensically analyzed three sets of pre-columbian human remains recovered from two sites on the refuge. The refuge is near the southern limit of the northeastern North Carolina estuarine system, the largest barrier island embayment along the Atlantic Coast. Cedar Island Refuge is part of a region dominated by barrier-built estuaries and submerged river valleys. Its shorelines are bounded by several kilometers of brackish to freshwater marsh. Four major geomorphic processes have been identified: • Migration upward and landward of the barrier island over the eastern margin of the estuarine system; • Flooding of lowlands adjacent to the estuaries that produce a vertical accumulation of marsh peat soil; • Erosion of estuarine shorelines, which allow them to maintain size; and • Deposition of fluvial and estuarine shoreline derived sediments as blanket sands and silts along flooded trunk estuaries, while suspended sediments are deposited in perimeter marshes and low energy, deep central bays and lateral tributaries. Drucker (1981) used black-and-white aerial photography to distinguish submerged high ground based upon subtle relief and color (vegetation) changes. She identified three Carolina Bay remnants in the marsh south and southeast of Merkle Bay that range in size between 200 to 1,100 meters. Carolina Bays were typically areas of rich floral and faunal diversity bounded by higher elevations. In locations, such as the refuge, slight changes in elevations provide opportunities for human habitation and access to a variety of biotic resources. Seven historic properties have been recorded on the refuge (see Table 10 for a brief description). The majority of the archaeological sites appear to be Woodland Period shell middens. Archaeological sites, structures, and cemeteries, which date to the 19th through 20th century, are located adjacent to the refuge and reflect the Island’s and county’s exploitation and dependence on the estuarine and marsh resources as a way of life. Detailed discussions of the area’s history can be found in Barfield (1995), Feest (1978), Hutchinson (2002), Phelps (1983), and Ward and Stephens (1999). Swanton (1946) and Mook (1944) produced ethnohistories on the Coastal Algonkians, who occupied this portion of North Carolina at the time of European contact. Hutchinson (2002) documented the diversity of Native Americans’ adaptation to the coastal zones of North Carolina between A. D. 800 to 1450. The Late Woodland outer coast populations during this period relied heavily on local marine resources and estuarine plants and animals. His study reinforced Green’s hypothesis that maize agriculture did not play a major role in coastal North Carolinians’ subsistence practices until after A.D. 1400. Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29 Table 10. Historic properties on the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Site Description National Register Status Lola Radar Station Mid-20th century U.S. Navy facility consisting of three concrete block buildings and tower. One of the buildings has been converted into the refuge headquarters; the other two buildings are no longer used. Not Eligible Lewis Creek #1 [31Cr27] Heavily eroded, relatively thin, but dense shell midden on Lewis Creek. Anthony and Drucker (1981) interpreted the site as a historic industrial/resource extraction and processing site. Not Eligible Fire Plow #1 [31Cr28] Series of shell heaps containing Woodland and historic ceramics and structural debris (brick). Potentially Eligible Green Point Shell Midden [31Cr176] Five loci of shell middens eroding along the bluff/beach facing Core Sound. The assemblage contains sand- and fabric impressed shell-tempered ceramics, 19th and 20th century ceramics, bottle glass, debitage, and faunal remains. Eligible 31Cr7 Prehistoric site containing faunal remains. Size and integrity are not known. Unknown 31Cr26 Woodland and historic period site whose size and integrity are unknown. Unknown 31Cr310 Small Woodland Period shell midden containing debitage and ceramics. Size and integrity have not been determined. Potentially Eligible 31Cr311 Small Woodland Period shell midden containing debitage and ceramics. Size and integrity have not been determined. Potentially Eligible Downing Cemetery Small 20th century family cemetery enclosed by a low wooden fence Not eligible SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge lies in Carteret County, North Carolina. Residents of the county are the most frequent visitors to the refuge. The staff must consider the social and economic conditions of the county in planning and implementing refuge activities. The land use in the communities influences the water and air quality in the sounds surrounding the refuge and on the refuge. The relative availability of open space will affect the availability of land for wildlife habitat and the habitat off the refuge that wildlife use. 30 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Carteret County is in the east central part of North Carolina with the Cedar Island Bay and the Atlantic Ocean to the east; Core Sound to the south; Craven County, North Carolina to the west; and Pamlico Sound to the north. The southwestern corner of the county has the county’s oldest cities and the resort area on the east side of the county is known as the “Crystal Coast.” The remainder of the county is rural with the Croatan National Forest in the northwestern corner and a string of wetlands to the east terminating at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge. Carteret County is still predominantly rural, with the largest town and County Seat being Morehead City (with a 2000 population of 7,670). Like other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor activities are both popular and necessary. Hunting and recreational fishing are popular pastimes and farming, commercial fishing, and forestry are important elements of the economy. HISTORY The governor of colonial North Carolina established Carteret County in 1722 from part of Craven County and named it for Sir John Carteret, the Earl of Granville. Beaufort, the County Seat, was the first permanent settlement in the county in 1709 and is the third oldest town in North Carolina. When the first European settlers arrived between 1700 and 1710, the Coree Indians inhabited the area (Sharpe 1961). The Coree Indians were Coastal Algonkians who inhabited the area south of the Neuse River. The Algonkians were the southernmost extent of a tribe that inhabited the Atlantic Coast north to Canada. They settled in relatively dispersed patterns with capital villages, villages, seasonal villages, and camps for specialized activities. The settlements were along the sounds, estuaries, major rivers, and tributaries. Some of the villages had regular internal organization with palisades and some were less organized with an open structure. They settled where they could conduct agriculture, fishing, shell fishing, hunting, and gathering close to the village. Extended families occupied the farmsteads. The Coastal Algonkians grew corn, squash, sunflowers, beans, and native plants on sandy ridges. They traded extensively with the Tuscarora who inhabited the area west of the Tidewater region (Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow 2000). The first settlers were French Huguenots; the English, Scotch, Irish, Germans, and Swedes soon followed. They settled in fishing villages along the coast and made their living from the rich water resources of the county. A thriving fishing industry developed and shipbuilding was an important enterprise centered in the area that became Beaufort. The town, founded in 1709, is the third oldest in North Carolina. The Colonial legislature of North Carolina established it as the Port of Beaufort in 1723 with the right to collect customs. It became an important harbor and trade center (Sharpe 1961). In the 1700s, lumber was the chief export. Before the Civil War, the important exports were lumber, barrel staves, rum, and molasses. After the Civil War, shipping declined as the railroad became widely used and commercial fishing became the primary business. The importance of Beaufort made it a target for countries at war with the United States. The Spanish plundered Beaufort in 1747 and the British captured it in 1782. To guard Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina leaders built a structure called Fort Dobbs in 1756 after the Spanish invasion and reinforced it with a masonry structure in 1809. A hurricane swept that structure into Beaufort Inlet in 1826 and the United States government built Fort Macon in 1834. The Confederate Army occupied the fort for a year in 1861-1862 during the Civil War. The Union Army retook the fort and Beaufort Harbor served as an important coaling and repair station for the Union Navy. Fort Macon State Park became the state’s first state park in 1936 (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 2003). Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31 The barrier islands of Carteret County have played an important role in its history. In the early 1700s, the pirate Blackbeard victimized ships off the coast. In 1753, North Carolina established Portsmouth Village. By 1842, 1400 vessels and two-thirds of North Carolina’s exports passed through Ocracoke Inlet. In 1860, there were 685 residents in the village. During the Civil War, many residents left the islands and never returned. After the war, the presence of shoals in the inlet and the advent of the railroad discouraged the return of commercial shipping. Fishing replaced shipping as the principal enterprise, but the islands never gained their former status. By 1956, only 17 residents remained and in, 1971, the last two residents left. The National Park Service established the 28,243-acre, 56-mile-long Cape Lookout National Seashore on the islands in 1976. In the 1970s, tourism became an important factor in the county’s development. The popularity of the “Crystal Coast” on the barrier islands in the southwest corner of the county has changed the face of the county and brought more importance to retail trade, construction, and lodging and food service in the economy. Today, Carteret County still leads North Carolina in commercial and sport fishing. In 1979, the county produced 35 percent of North Carolina’s finfish and shellfish, according to the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. The state port of Morehead City has allowed the county to remain an important center of commerce. Forest products have been an important part of the county’s economy since the colonial period. Tar, pitch, turpentine, and lumber were important early products. Newport was the center of the naval store industry in the 1800s. Today, sawtimber for lumber and pulpwood for paper are the major products harvested. Early agriculture consisted of the production of corn; wheat; rice; oats; potatoes; cotton; and livestock including cattle, sheep, and hogs. A large number of wild ponies were on the Outer Banks. In 1934, the leading crops were corn, hay, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, peanuts, soybeans, and tobacco. Cotton acreage had decreased mainly because of the boll weevil. Recently, in the eastern part of the county, developers have drained a large acreage of poorly drained soils, and converted the land to cropland and pasture; thus doubling the acreage farmed in the county. Today, the main crops are soybeans, corn, and wheat (USDA 2002). Tourism and water-based recreation have developed into a major local industry. The ocean beaches and extensive water areas for fishing, boating, and water sports attract large numbers of visitors to Carteret County each year. LAND USE The historic land use in Carteret County depended for the most part on the nature of the land. Hydric soils cover eighty percent of the county and they remained in forest or marsh until the twentieth century. Deep sandy dunes and beaches cover the eastern and southern shorelines of the county. Access across the marshes and dunes restricted use of the barrier island. Native Americans and farmers descended from European settlers cultivated crops on the uplands for centuries. In the twentieth century, farmers drained much of the hydric mineral soil and shallow organic soil. Development of the dunes and beaches on the barrier island known as the Crystal Coast began in the 1970s. Today Carteret County is 45 percent forested (154,000 acres), 18 percent cropland (60,000 acres), and 15 percent marsh (51,000 acres). 32 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge From 1997 to 2002, the number of farms increased from 101 to 128; land in farms decreased slightly from 59,869 acres to 59,755 acres; the average size of farms decreased 21 percent from 593 acres to 467 acres; full-time farm operators increased 3 percent from 59 to 61 farms; total market value of agricultural products sold increased 6 percent from $14,964,000 to $15,871,000; and average market value of agricultural products sold per farm decreased 34 percent from $187,703 to $123,994 (Table 11). In 2002, soybeans and corn accounted for 20,954 and 20,742 acres of cropland respectively, the largest of any single crop in the county. Wheat has also been an important crop in Carteret County. Production of hogs has also been important, but the number of hogs sold has decreased substantially between 1997 and 2002 and so few were sold that they were not reported (Table 12) (USDA 2002). Within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary, the major visitor use is waterfowl hunting. There is little residential construction in the wetlands surrounding the refuge due to regulation and the instability of the hydric soils. DEMOGRAPHICS Carteret County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 59,383 in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The county gained 13 percent of its population between 1990 and 2000 (U.S Census Bureau 2000). Morehead City is the largest town with 7,670 residents in 2000. Beaufort, the county seat, had a population of 3,771 in 2000. Twenty-four thousand residents live in the incorporated areas in the western end of the county, but 60 percent of the population is widely dispersed throughout the unincorporated areas of the county. The population is 90.3 percent white, 7.0 percent black, 1.7 percent Hispanic, 0.4 percent Native American, and 0.5 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the median family income was $34,348, slightly below the state average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 11.8 percent of the population, slightly below the state average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average unemployment rate in 2003 was 4.7 percent, slightly below the State of North Carolina unemployment rate of 5.5 percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004) (Table 13). The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years is 63.8 percent; the percentage of college graduates is 13.4 percent. The state averages are 78.1 percent for high school and 22.5 percent for college (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Home ownership rate is 76.6 percent, well above the state average rate of 69.4 percent. There are 2.31 persons per household in Carteret County, slightly below the state average of 2.49. EMPLOYMENT Retail trade is the largest employer in Carteret County, employing more than 3,600 of the county’s 17,400 employees with an annual payroll of $357 million in 2001 (U.S. Census Bureau Economic Census 2001). This is due in large part to Wal-Mart and Food Lion, the largest retail employers (North Carolina Economic Security Commission 2003). In 2003, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: retail trade, health care, hotel and food service, manufacturing, construction, wholesale trade, administrative support, real estate, recreation, finance, agriculture, information, transportation, and education (U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census 2001). Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33 Table 11. Carteret County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census Number of Farms 128 Acres in Farms 59,755 Average Size of Farms (Acres) 467 Market Value of Land Per Farm $985,532 Market Value of Land Per Acre $2,100 Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $102,802 Total Cropland (Acres) 46,573 Market Value of All Products Sold $15,871,000 Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $123,994 Market Value of Crops Sold $15,467,000 Market Value of Livestock Sold $404,000 Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 61 Operators with Anther Occupation as Principal Occupation 64 Hogs in Inventory 130 Hogs Sold 0 Beef Cows in Inventory 238 Beef Cows Sold 173 Land in Soybeans (Acres) 20,954 Land in Corn (Acres) 20,742 Land in Wheat (Acres) 415 Table 12. Commodity production in Carteret County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997 USDA Census Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1987-1997 Change Soybeans (Acres) 20,954 19,948 Increased 5% Corn (Acres) 20,742 19,822 Increased 5% Wheat (Acres) 415 6,577 Decreased 94% Hog Inventory 130 2,043 Decreased 94% Hogs Sold 0 6,121 N/A Cattle Inventory 238 130 Increased 83% Cattle Sold 173 332 Decreased 48% 34 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Table 13. 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 County in the vicinity of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Carteret $34,348 11.8 4.7 59,383 +13% since 1990 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 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 +166% since 1970 Dare $35,258 8.1 5.1 29,967 +328% since 1970 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 Hyde $23,568 24.8 7.2 5,826 -37% since 1900 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 Perquimans $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 Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35 FORESTRY Timber has always been a source of wealth for Carteret County. However, farmers cleared much of the timber in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops. Today, Carteret County is approximately 45 percent forested, with 154,000 acres of forestland. In contrast, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Forty-eight percent of the county’s forest is in loblolly and shortleaf pine, 22 percent is in oak and pine, 17 percent is in oak-hickory, 8 percent is in oak-gum-cypress, and 5 percent is in loblolly and slash pine (Conner 2001). In 2000, the Federal Government was the largest forest landowner and owned 32 percent of the county’s forested land. Private individuals owned 26 percent, the forest industry owned 23 percent, and corporate non-industrial concerns owned 19 percent (Conner 2001). The volume of sawtimber harvested in 2000 was 13.0 million board feet, all of it softwood; the volume of pulpwood was 3.2 million cubic feet, 2.9 million of softwood and 0.3 million of hardwood (Conner 2001). Despite the diminished wooded acreage, timber is still a large source of income for Carteret County. In 1990, the value of timber sold was $9.7 million. The payroll from forest products was $10.5 million of the $31 million from all manufactured products (USDA, Forest Service 1991). Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Carteret County has always had an abundance of fish and game, due to its diversity of lands and waters. The Service manages Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge to conserve, manage, and restore habitat for migratory birds and native wildlife (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1964). In addition to the refuge, the 28,243-acre Cape Lookout National Seashore, 161,000-acre Croatan National Forest, 385-acre Fort Macon State Park, and the 2,675-acre Rachel Carson site of the North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve provide outdoor recreation opportunities in the area. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission manages 160,000 acres of the Croatan National Forest as a state game land and provides hunting opportunities. Recreation in the area is also based on the water in the Pamlico, Core, and Bogue Sounds, as well as numerous bays and rivers. Boat ramps provide access to the river and sound. Numerous outfitters provide boats, fishing charters, and guided tours. Local events that revolve around natural resources include the Atlantic Beach King Mackerel Tournament, Big Rock Blue Marlin Tournament, Core Sound Waterfowl Weekend and the Core Sound Waterfowl Decoy Festival on Harker’s Island, and the North Carolina Seafood Festival in Morehead City. OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS Fish and wildlife are not only the focus of the refuge but are also important to the local economy. A commercial fishery is present in the Pamlico and Core Sounds where shrimp, blue crab, flounder, striped bass, croaker, gray trout, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, mullet, and sea bass are the major species harvested. Hunting and fishing are also economically important to local businesses, as both local and non-local sportsmen travel to Carteret County to fish for saltwater and freshwater fish and hunt for waterfowl, white-tailed deer, and other species. Unfortunately, conversion of wildlife habitat to more intensive land uses combined with 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 restore and protect some of these resources, Cedar Island 36 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge National Wildlife Refuge serves an important role, not only by providing habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, but also by offering a place where people can go to enjoy these resources, either through observation or more directly through hunting or fishing. 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 studied 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 (Vogelsang 2001). A similar study of visitors at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge 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 observe 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 (local residents) on High Island, Texas, spent an average of $46 per day while 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 National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas demonstrated a range of expenditures from $88 to $145 per day on nature based tourist activities. The Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas reported a range of $83 to $117 per day (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997). An increasing number of local officials view eco-tourism, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental interpretation 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 Tourism in the area is based on the natural resources and cultural attractions of the region. Boat ramps provide access to the rivers, bays, and sounds for fishing, hunting, and boating. Numerous outfitters provide boats, fishing charters, and guided tours. The oceanfront attracts swimmers, surfers, sunbathers, and anglers. More developed tourist attractions based on natural resources include Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Croatan National Forest, Fort Macon State Park, Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve, and the North Carolina Aquarium at Pine Knoll Shores. Local events that revolve around natural resources include the Atlantic Beach King Mackerel Tournament, Big Rock Blue Marlin Tournament, Core Sound Waterfowl Weekend and Core Sound Waterfowl Decoy Festival on Harker’s Island, and the North Carolina Seafood Festival in Morehead City. Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37 Carteret County has a number of historic attractions. There are five areas on the National Register of Historic Places: Beaufort Historic District, Morehead City Historic District, Cape Lookout Village Historic District, Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station, and Portsmouth Village. Fort Macon State Park interprets the role the Fort played in the history of the area. Cape Lookout National Seashore interprets the importance of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and Portsmouth Village. The North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort presents and interprets artifacts from maritime history. The Carteret County Museum of History and Art in Morehead City has an interesting collection of Carteret County artifacts. TRANSPORTATION In its early days, residents of the area relied on water transportation. The sounds, rivers, and streams that crisscross the county served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication between almost every community in the area. The Pamlico, Core, and Bogue Sounds and the streams they connected were once the major transportation avenues in the area. As the area grew and the railroad arrived, commercial boat traffic declined. The waterways are still important as sources of income and recreation. Ferries still provide access across the sounds. A ferry connects Cedar Island to the Outer Banks, where seven million tourists spend their vacations. In the twentieth century with the popularity of automobiles, the state developed a network of highways connecting the county to all areas of the eastern United States. State Route 12 and U.S. Highways 70 and 17 connect Carteret County with Interstate Route 95 and with the Virginia Beach-Norfolk- Hampton Roads, Virginia, metropolitan area. A number of smaller roads connect the various communities in the area. A 5-mile stretch of North Carolina Highway 12, connecting the Cedar Island ferry to Morehead City, runs through the refuge. There are international airports in Raleigh, North Carolina, and Norfolk/Virginia Beach, Virginia. Cedar Island Refuge, which is in the eastern part of Carteret County can be reached via U.S. Route 70 and North Carolina Route 12 and is a 30-mile drive to the east from Morehead City. CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT Carteret County is in predominantly rural east central North Carolina. Cultural opportunities in the immediate area are limited to the history-based facilities outlined in the tourism section; theater at local high schools and parks; music at local fairs, festivals, and nightclubs; and art at local fairs, festivals, and small galleries. Greenville, North Carolina, and East Carolina University, located 100 miles northwest of Carteret County, offer the nearest opportunities for large theatrical or musical performances. The Raleigh-Chapel Hill-Durham, North Carolina metropolitan area located 180 miles to the west by highway has the area’s closest large art museums and venues for performing arts with national touring collections and companies. The Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Hampton Roads of the Virginia metropolitan area located 200 miles north of the refuge is another major metropolitan area that supports a wide range of cultural facilities and events. 38 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the acquisition of Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge on August 10, 1964, by the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 provided funds for the purchase. The Service has also purchased land with funds provided by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The Service approved an acquisition boundary of 16,887 acres (Figure 5). The Service acquired 12,526 acres in 1964 by fee simple purchase. Since 1985, the refuge has acquired 1,954 additional acres of fee simple purchase for a total of 14,480 acres. A variety of federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations have acquired land in the vicinity of the refuge. The National Park Service manages the 28,243-acre Cape Lookout National Seashore. The U.S. Forest Service manages the 308,234-acre Croatan National Forest. The United States Marine Corps manages the 1,470-acre Atlantic Field. The State of North Carolina manages the 385-acre Fort Macon State Park and the 2,675-acre Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve. VISITOR SERVICES Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge currently has one staff member, a maintenance worker, who is stationed on the refuge. Visitors are welcome to use the refuge during daylight hours. There are two public boat ramps with launching and parking facilities. The refuge headquarters on Lola Road has a visitor information area, and provides maps and directions to the refuge’s firebreaks and access roads that are used by the public for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and bird watching (Figure 6). Hunting Waterfowl hunting is permitted in accordance with the Federal and State regulations. Hunting is restricted to an area of 400 acres north of Thorofare Canal and west of North Carolina Highway 12. The hunt area is marked on refuge maps and is posted by “Waterfowl Hunt Area” signs. Only temporary blinds are permitted on refuge lands, though local hunters erect permanent blinds in the open water immediately adjacent to refuge lands. Environmental Education The refuge does not have a developed environmental education program. Interpretation Interpretation is limited to visitor contact with the Maintenance Worker at the Lola Road office. Visitors are provided with an overview of the refuge, a wildlife list, and directions for desired outdoor activities. Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39 Figure 5. Approved acquisition boundary of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge 􀀀 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Approved Acquisition Boundary Refuge Ownership NPS Ownership Primary Roads Open Water 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 Open Grounds Farm 􀀀 Jacks Bay Pt Newstump Point Deep Bend Point Tump Island Point of Grass Sand Point Green Point Sand Hill Point West Bay Long Bay Long Bay Point Merkle Bay Nameless Bay Deep Bend Green Point Cove Owens Bay West Thorofare Bay Cedar Island Bay North Bay 􀀀 Hog Island Point Hog Island Back Bay Goose Bay Ship Point South Island Green Point Long Point Fish Hawk Pt Rumley Hammock Rumley Bay Thorofare Green Point Hall Point Barry Bay Thorofare B ay Styron Bay Steep Point C A P E L O O K O U T N A T I O N A L S E A S H O R E NC 12NC 12 NC 12NC 12 US 70US 70 Cedar Island to Ocracoke Ferry OCRACOKE FERRY (NC DOT) Tump Point Atlantic Lola Cedar Island 40 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles Primary Roads Secondary Roads Open Water Refuge Ownership NPS Ownership 􀀀 Refuge Headquarters 􀀀 Boat Ramp Waterfowl Hunt Area 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 Open Grounds Farm 􀀀 Jacks Bay Pt Newstump Point Deep Bend Point Tump Island Point of Grass Sand Point Green Point Sand Hill Point West Bay Long Bay Long Bay Point Merkle Bay Nameless Deep Bend Bay Green Point Cove Owens Bay West Thorofare Bay Jacks Bay Cedar Island Bay North Bay 􀀀 Hog Island Point Hog Island Back Bay Goose Bay Ship Point South Island Green Point Long Point Fish Hawk Pt Rumley Hammock Rumley Bay Thorofare Green Point Hall Point Barry Bay Thorofare Bay Styron Bay Steep Point C A P E L O O K O U T N A T I O N A L S E A S H O R E NC 12NC 12 NC 12NC 12 US 70US 70 Cedar Island to Ocracoke Ferry OCRACOKE FERRY (NC DOT) Tump Point Atlantic Lola Cedar Island Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41 Wildlife Observation Wildlife observation areas include the firebreaks and access roads, and the boat ramp areas. The local community and visitors heavily use the Lola Road boat ramp and parking lot as a wildlife and scenic viewing area. In addition, canoes and kayaks are frequently launched at the ramp to tour the refuge wetlands. Visitors may observe wildlife anywhere on the refuge, where access is not restricted, during daylight hours. There are currently 10,000 visitors annually to the refuge for wildlife observation. Wildlife Photography The Lola Road boat ramp area is a popular spot for wildlife photography. There are no photography blinds available. There are currently 500 visitors to the refuge annually for wildlife photography. PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE Personnel The staff which serves Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuges includes a Project Leader (GS-0485-13), a Deputy Project Leader (GS-0485-12), a Wildlife Biologist (GS-486-11), a Park Ranger (Law Enforcement)(GS-0025-9), an Office Assistant (GS-0303-8), a Forestry Technician (GS-0462-05), a Heavy Mobile Equipment Operator (WG-5803-10), a Crane Operator (WG-5725-10), and two Maintenance Workers (WG-4749-08). All are headquartered at Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. There is one Maintenance Worker (WG-4749-08) stationed at the Cedar Island Refuge. Table 14. Staff of Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuges – 2005 Position Status Percent of Time on Cedar Island Project Leader, GS-0485-13 PFT 0 Assistant Manager, GS-0485-12 PFT 10 Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-11 PFT 0 Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-09 PFT 0 Office Assistant, GS-0303-08 PFT 10 Heavy Mobile Equipment Operator, WG-5803-10 PFT 0 Crane Operator, WG-5725-10 PFT 0 Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-08 PFT 0 Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-08 PFT 0 Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-08 PFT 100 Forestry Technician, GS-0462-05 (Fire) PFT 0 PFT = permanent full time 42 Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Operations The Service administers the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge from an office located at the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge in Swan Quarter, Hyde County, North Carolina - 175 miles and a 4-hour trip from Cedar Island. The refuge staff administers Cedar Island, Mattamuskeet, and Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuges (Figure 1). A single maintenance worker is headquartered at the refuge. The refuge facilities include an office and equipment storage building. Maintenance The Maintenance Worker stationed on the refuge maintains the buildings, grounds, firebreaks, and boundary signs and removes litter and dumped refuse from the entrances to refuge roads. The fire crews from the other refuges in eastern North Carolina assist the refuge staff in conducting prescribed burns. REFUGE INFRASTRUCTURE Roads and Trails There are two and a half miles of unimproved roads and fourteen miles of firebreaks on the refuge. The roads and firebreaks serve several functions, including access to private landowner properties; pr
Tag	Library-Source-CCPs
Date created	2012-10-17

you wish to report:

Your comment:

Your Name:

Submit

Cancel

...

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Description