SWANQUARTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Hyde County, North Carolina 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

July 2008 
Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................1

Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2

Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5

Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6

II. Refuge Overview .............................................................................................................................. 7

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7

Refuge History and PurposeS ...................................................................................................... 7

Special Designations .................................................................................................................... 9

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 11

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 11

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................13

Regional Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ........................................................................ 13

Regional Alterations To Hydrology .................................................................................... 14

Regional Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ......................................................................... 14

Regional Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants .............................................................. 15

Regional Conservation Priorities ....................................................................................... 15

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 16

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 16

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 17

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 18

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 21

Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 22

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 23

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 23

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................26

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 30

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 31

History ............................................................................................................................... 31

Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 32

Demographics ................................................................................................................... 32

Employment ...................................................................................................................... 32

Forestry ............................................................................................................................. 33

Outdoor Recreation In The Area ....................................................................................... 34

Outdoor Recreation Economics .................................................................................................. 36

Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 37

Transportation ................................................................................................................... 37

Cultural Environment ......................................................................................................... 38

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 38

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 38

Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 40

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 41
ii Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

III. Plan Development ......................................................................................................................... 43

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 43

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 43

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 44

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 46

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 46

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 47

Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 47

IV. Management Direction ................................................................................................................ 49

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 49

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 49

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 50

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 50

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 51

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 54

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 54

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 57

V. Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................... 61

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 61

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 61

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 65

Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 66

Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 68

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 70

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 70

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 71

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 71

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 71

Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 72

Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 72

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 72

Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 73

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 73

II. Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 75

III. Description of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 77

Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 77

Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 77

Alternative A – Current Management – No Action ............................................................ 77

Alternative B – Moderately expand Programs – Proposed Alternative ............................. 78

Alternative C – Optimally Expand Programs ..................................................................... 79

Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 80

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 80
Table of Contents iii

Interagency Coordination and Cooperative Agreements .................................................. 80

Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 80

Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 81

Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................... 82

IV. Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................. 101

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 101

Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 101

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 101

Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 101

Other Management ......................................................................................................... 102

Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................102

Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 102

Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 103

Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 103

Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 103

Biological Environment .................................................................................................... 103

Physical Environment ...................................................................................................... 104

Social Environment ......................................................................................................... 104

Economic Environment ................................................................................................... 105

Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 106

Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 109

Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 109

Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 109

User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 110

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 110

Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 110

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 110

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 112

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 113

V. Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................................. 115

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 115

APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary ..................................................................................................................... 119

Appendix B. References and Literature Citations ....................................................................... 131

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive Orders ................................................... 137

Appendix D. Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 151

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 151

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations ............................................................................. 157

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................. 169

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ........................................................ 185
iv Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix H. Wilderness Review ................................................................................................... 193

Appendix I. Refuge Biota ............................................................................................................... 195

Appendix J. Budget Requests ....................................................................................................... 213

Appendix K. List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 219

Overview .................................................................................................................................. 219

Appendix L. Draft Coastal Zone Consistency Determination ..................................................... 223
Table of Contents v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of Swanquarter NWR in Hyde County, North Carolina .................................... 8

Figure 2. Location of wilderness areas at Swanquarter NWR ...................................................... 10

Figure 3. Swanquarter, Mattamuskeet, and Cedar Island NWRs in the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain Ecosystem ................................................................................................. 12

Figure 4. Characteristics of soils of Swanquarter NWR ................................................................ 19

Figure 6. Current boundary of the Swanquarter NWR................................................................... 39

Figure 7. Current staffing chart of Mattamuskeet NWR shared with Swanquarter NWR ........... 67

Figure 8. Proposed future staffing chart of Mattamuskeet NWR to be shared with 

Swanquarter NWR ............................................................................................................ 67

Figure 9. Sensitive species in relation to Swanquarter NWR ..................................................... 188
vi Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Acquisition history of the Swanquarter NWR .................................................................... 9

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of 

Swanquarter MWR ............................................................................................................... 9

Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Swanquarter NWR ................................................................. 20

Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Swanquarter NWR ..... 22

Table 6. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Swanquarter NWR ......... 23

Table 7. Hyde County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA census of agriculture ......... 33

Table 8. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997 

USDA census of agriculture ............................................................................................. 34

Table 9. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties .................. 35

Table 10. Staff of Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island NWRs - 2007 ........................ 42

Table 11. Projects supporting wildlife strategies .......................................................................... 61

Table 12. Projects supporting habitat strategies ........................................................................... 62

Table 13. Projects supporting resource protection strategies ..................................................... 63

Table 14. Projects supporting visitor services strategies ............................................................ 64

Table 15. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies .................................................. 64

Table 16. Summary of projects ........................................................................................................ 65

Table 17. Refuge step-down management plans ........................................................................... 68

Table 18. Comparison of alternatives by management program or issue for 

Swanquarter NWR ............................................................................................................ 82

Table 19. North Carolina present use value calculation ............................................................. 107

Table 21. Swanquarter NWR comprehensive conservation core planning team members .... 115

Table 22. Swanquarter NWR comprehensive conservation biological review 

team members ................................................................................................................ 116

Table 23. Expert contributors to the Swanquarter NWR comprehensive conservation 

plan and their area(s) of expertise................................................................................ 117
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge (Swanquarter NWR) was prepared to guide management actions 

and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; 

wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does 

not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established. 

A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the 

refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA 

describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and 

their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state and federal 

government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. 

Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the final CCP. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge 

purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is consistent 

with sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

• Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction; 

• Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

• Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education 

programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and 

• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission 

of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the 

Bureau of Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. 

The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology 

and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals 

to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was changed to 

the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896. 
2 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of 

Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the 

Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. 

The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through Federal programs 

relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and 

inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1). 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95 

million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest 

collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million 

acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United 

States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national 

fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service 

enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps 

foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state 

fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) 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 Improvement Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of 

this new legislation, including an effort to complete CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are 

completed with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing 

natural resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, 

approved CCPs will serve as the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The 

Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be managed to: 

• Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• Consider the needs of wildlife first; 

• Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of 

the refuge system; 

• Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system; and 

• Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine 

compatible public uses. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting 

birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for 

American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after 

over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought 

conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges 

established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie 

wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes 

protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the 

Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species. 

Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in 

their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local 

communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, 

generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent 

in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 

120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 

refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); 

Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); 

Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna 

Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River 

(Louisiana), which are the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the 

belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and 

transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each 

dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation 

expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data). 

Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, 

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more 

than $22 million. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that 

ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must 

be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, 

and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an 

opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the CCPs. 

All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide 

management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be 

consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including Service 

compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1). 
4 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, congressional legislation, 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. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and management of the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

are provided in Appendix C. 

Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making 

decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural 

resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation 

between Swanquarter NWR and other partners, such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission (NCWRC), and private landowners, etc. 

Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and 

legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A 

compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the 

purposes of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the 

Improvement Act. Those mandates are to: 

• Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

• Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

• Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

• Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses that benefit the conservation of 

fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and 

• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses 

are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System they receive priority consideration over 

other public uses in planning and management. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy 

The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while 

achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and 

protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and 

associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge 

managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional 

judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an 

ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside 

and outside the Service. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the 

environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection 

information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem 

levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected 

parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The 

conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and 

integrated where appropriate into this draft comprehensive conservation plan. 

This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic 

institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico working to ensure 

the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to 

bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives 

include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation 

for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is 

to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s’ levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. 

Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of 

waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of 

federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private 

companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit 

of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan projects are international in 

scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and 

wildlife species across the North American landscape. 

Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird 

conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land 

birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in 

conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be 

most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort 

throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird 

species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies, 

organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation 

goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach 

programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. 

Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the 

conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird 

populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive 
6 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from 

abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, 

marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are 

federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping 

cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan 

is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure 

timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal 

governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas 

and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the 

overall health and sustenance of fish and wildlife species in the State of North Carolina. 

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) provides 1.8 million acres of public 

hunting, fishing, and trapping through the Game Lands Program. The NCWRC manages the state’s 

freshwater fisheries through research, fisheries management, operation of six fish hatcheries, and 

habitat conservation to protect the resources and provide diverse fishing experiences. It also 

manages and monitors the health and status of the state’s wildlife populations in a manner which will 

assure a diverse wildlife resource for future generations of North Carolinians. The NCWRC 

administers educational programs designed to facilitate conservation of the state’s wildlife and other 

interrelated natural resources and the environment people share with them. It has the responsibility 

for administrating the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and the registration and titling of vessels to 

the public. The NCWRC is also charged with enforcing state rules and regulations and maintaining 

over 1200 buoys and navigational aids statewide. 

The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing 

opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustenance of fish and wildlife in the state 

of North Carolina. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common 

mission objectives where appropriate. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Swanquarter NWR is located on the Pamlico Sound in Hyde County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The 

refuge is located at the southern end of a broad, flat and swampy peninsula in northeastern North 

Carolina, and is surrounded by brackish marsh and cropland. The Service named the refuge for the 

nearby village of Swan Quarter, the county seat of Hyde County. The village of Swan Quarter (population 

of 275 in the year 2000) is located at the northern boundary of the refuge, and the village of Engelhard 

(population of 1,561 in the year 2000) is fifteen miles east of the eastern boundary of the refuge. The 

major metropolitan area of Raleigh – Durham – Chapel Hill, North Carolina (population of 1,038,703 in the 

year 2000) is 180 miles west of the refuge, and Norfolk – Virginia Beach – Hampton Roads, Virginia 

(population of 1,569,541 in the year 2000) is 150 miles north of the refuge. The Pamlico Sound borders 

the southern boundary of the refuge. This region is part of the physiographic area known as the South 

Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s administrative ecosystem known as the 

Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES 

The refuge was established by presidential order on June 23, 1932, under the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which prescribes the following purpose to the refuge: 

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929). 

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 prescribed the following purpose to the refuge: 

“. . .for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its 

activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant or condition of servitude. . . .” 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f (b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

In addition, because a portion of the refuge (54 percent) was designated a Wilderness Area 

on October 19, 1976, the purposes of the Wilderness Act of 1964 are supplemental purposes 

of the refuge: 

“Wilderness areas . . . shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in 

such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to 

provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the 

gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. . . . 

” 16 U.S.C. 1 1 21. 

Logging and land clearing activities over the last 300 years have greatly altered the refuge area’s 

landscape. All of the Swanquarter NWR lands and a 27,082-acre portion of the Pamlico Sound 

adjacent to the refuge were closed to hunting, taking, or molesting of game birds by Executive Order 

2129 on July 18, 1935. The executive order was amended on September 5, 1977 to allow hunting on 

specific tracts of the refuge. The Service approved an acquisition boundary of 16,411.09 acres and 

has acquired this land over seven decades (Table 1). 
8 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

US 264 −

NC−94

US−264

 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.2 Miles

Swanquarter NWR BoundarySwanquarter NWR Proclamation Boundary

Roads

Open Water

County Boundaries

To Engelhard

HYDE COUNTY

Swan Quarter

New Holland

To Belhaven

PAMLICO

COUNTY

Rose Bay

Deep Bay

Swanquarter Bay

Deep Cove

Caffee Bay

PAMLICO SOUND

Juniper Bay

Judith Island

Swanquarter Island

GreatIsland

Figure 1. Location of Swanquarter NWR in Hyde County, North Carolina 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Table 1. Acquisition history of the Swanquarter NWR 

DATE TRACTS ACRES COST 

COST 

PER 

ACRE 

TOTAL 

ACREAGE CUMULATIVE 

COST 

1932 2 11,830.19 $47,320.84 $4.00 11,830.19 $47,320.84 

1933 2 3,519.15 $13,074.41 $3.71 15,350.34 $60,394.25 

1935 1 151.42 $605.68 $4.00 15,501.76 $61,000.93 

1980 1 142.33 $0.00 $0.00 15,644.09 $61,000.93 

1992 1 768,00 $0.00 $0.00 16,411.09 $61,000.93 

Total 16,411.09 $61,000.93 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Approximately 8,800 acres of the refuge have been designated a Wilderness Area under the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (Figure 2). Most of the Wilderness Area is brackish marsh. 

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has designated most of the refuge, with the exception 

of the roads, as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. The Nature Conservancy ranks certain 

vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 2). 

The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has designated several water bodies in the vicinity of 

Swanquarter NWR as outstanding resource waters or high quality waters. (See Table 5 in the 

Chapter II Physical Resources, Water Quality Section.) 

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Swanquarter MWR 

Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank 

Low Pocosin S2 G3 

Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest S3 G3 

Cypress – Gum Swamp S3 G4 

S1 = Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to 

extirpation in the state. 

S2 = Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state. 

S3 = Rare or uncommon in North Carolina. 

G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction 

throughout its range. 

G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. 

G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area. 

G4 = Apparently secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery). 
10 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

US 264 −

NC−94

US−264

 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.2 Miles

Swanquarter NWR BoundaryWilderness AreasSwanquarter NWR Proclamation Boundary

Roads

Open Water

County Boundaries

To Engelhard

HYDE COUNTY

Swan Quarter

New Holland

To Belhaven

PAMLICO

COUNTY

Rose Bay

Deep Bay

Swanquarter Bay

Deep Cove

Caffee Bay

PAMLICO SOUND

Juniper Bay

Judith Island

Swanquarter Island

GreatIsland

Figure 2. Location of wilderness areas at Swanquarter NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Swanquarter NWR lies within a physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain 

(Figure 3). The South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 25-million-hectare (62-million-acre) 

complex of forested wetlands and uplands, dunes, and marshes that extended from Florida to North 

Carolina. Historically, the extent and duration of seasonal flooding along the ecosystem’s rivers 

fluctuated annually, recharging the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s aquatic systems and creating a 

rich diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources. 

The refuge is one of the ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those ten national 

wildlife refuges (Alligator River, Pea Island, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, Mackay 

Island, Mattamuskeet, Roanoke River, Pocosin Lakes, and Swanquarter) and the Back Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge in Virginia are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and Cape 

Fear Rivers, which have collectively been designated as Ecosystem Unit # 34, the Roanoke–Tar–

Neuse–Cape Fear Ecosystem, by the Service. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the 

development of the CCP. Various groups and agencies develop and coordinate planning initiatives 

involving regional, state, and local agencies; local communities, non-governmental organizations, and 

private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on and off public lands. 

The Service is initiating cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend in biological 

diversity. Biological planning for species groups targeted in this plan reflects the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the Joint Venture 

between NCWRC and the Service, Partners-in-Flight Plan, and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird 

Initiative (SAMBI). 

The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focus is that of the middle and upper Atlantic coast. Within the 

Atlantic Coast Joint Venture was the joint venture formed among the NCWRC, the Service, and 

private conservation organizations. The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration 

habitat for migratory songbirds returning from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, 

breeding, and migrating habitat for mid-continental wood duck and colonial bird populations. 

Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a high priority of the Partners-in-Flight Plan for the 

South Atlantic Physiographic Region. 

The Partners in Flight Plan emphasizes land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, 

population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the 

priority ranking of species. Further, biologists from local offices of the Service, the NCWRC, and 

conservation organizations, such as the Audubon Society and 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. 
12 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Florida

Georgia

Virginia

Alabama

Kentucky

North Carolina

Ohio

Tennessee

South Carolina

West Virginia

Maryland

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Delaware District of Columbia



	



	





0 120 240 60

Miles 

Indiana





	



	



	





Figure 3. Swanquarter, Mattamuskeet, and Cedar Island NWRs in the South Atlantic Coastal 

Plain Ecosystem 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

The Farm Bill programs, administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, have state 

level plans and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. The Service also utilizes 

these programs to assist private landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage 

habitat for wildlife or protect their land with easements. 

The NCWRC has its own Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to help direct the state’s 

allocation of funds from the federally funded State Working Grants Program. The Service has 

provided input to the development and execution of the strategy. The Service, in conjunction with the 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, will ensure the proposed activities of this CCP are 

consistent with the State’s coastal management program. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

REGIONAL HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

The South Atlantic Coastal Plain has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread 

throughout the area. Scientists have estimated that land conversion has cleared 40 percent of the 

natural vegetation. The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for 

agriculture and urban development (Hunter et al., 2001). 

Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a 

tremendous negative effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The changes have reduced vast areas of forests, pocosins, marshes, 

and coastal dunes to fragments ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a 

few large areas that have maintained many of the original functions and values of forested habitat. 

Severe fragmentation has resulted in a substantial decline in biological diversity and integrity. 

Species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that are now extinct, endangered, or threatened 

include the piping plover, sea turtle, red wolf, and red-cockaded woodpecker (Table 3). 

Table 3. Federally listed threatened and endangered animal species of the North Carolina 

Coastal Plain 

Status Common Name Scientific Name 

Endangered Manatee, West Indian** Trichechus manatus 

Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill** Eretmochelys imbricata 

Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley** Lepidochelys kempii 

Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback** Dermochelys coriacea 

Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum 

Endangered Wolf, Red* Canis rufus 

Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded** Picoides borealis 

Threatened*** Alligator, American* Alligator mississippiensis 

Threatened Plover, Piping** Charadrius melodus 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead** Caretta caretta 

* Presence Documented on Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

** Other Species Listed in Hyde County, North Carolina 

*** Listed by Similarity of Appearance 
14 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian species 

most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (e.g., those dependent on 

large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; those that depend on 

special habitat requirements (e.g., mature forests or a particular food source); and/or those that depend 

on good water quality. Habitat loss in general has affected species dependent on coastal marshes, and 

exposed sandy areas on beaches, sandbars, and within dune ecosystems. 

More than 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds inhabit the region. Some of the inland 

species, including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and 

cerulean warbler, have declined substantially and need the benefits of large forested blocks to 

recover and sustain their existence. On the Outer Coastal Plain, songbirds, such as seaside sparrow, 

saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow, and Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, depend on declining marsh 

habitat. The secretive marshbirds black rail and yellow rail require brackish marsh. The threatened 

piping plovers, red knots, least terns, black skimmers, and American oystercatchers are shorebirds 

that nest on the decreasing acreage of unvegetated sand along beaches and among coastal dunes. 

Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests in the interior areas of the coastal plain has left many 

of the remaining forested tracts surrounded by agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed 

most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of 

connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts 

and reduces the functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also 

result in a loss of gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel 

corridors is particularly important for some wide-ranging species, such as the black bear. 

Habitat loss on the Outer Coastal Plain is more permanent than in the interior. Conversion of 

marshes for commercial development is irreversible. Conversion of pocosins and nonriverine 

hardwood forests for agriculture results in the oxidation of the organic soils on which those plant 

communities evolved. 

REGIONAL ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

In addition to the loss of vast acreages of marshes and bottomland forested wetlands, there have 

been substantial alterations to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s hydrology. The changes are the 

result of construction of flood control and hydroelectric power generation reservoirs/dams, river 

channel modifications, creation of drainage ditches, installation of flood control levees, deforestation, 

degradation of aquatic systems due to excessive sedimentation and contamination, and urban 

development. The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of 

wetlands and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on 

topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to 

wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988). 

REGIONAL SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

Deforestation and hydrologic alteration have degraded aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, 

sloughs, bays, and sounds. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated 

accumulation of sediments and contaminants in aquatic systems. Sediment now fills many water 

bodies, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Non-point source runoff of excess nutrients 

and contaminants is also threatening the area’s aquatic resources. Increased turbidity, caused by the 

sediment influx, limits light penetration in the water column, which consequently limits the growth of 

submerged aquatic vegetation. The federally listed threatened and endangered animal species 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

include four species of aquatic organisms as threatened and ten species as endangered that inhabit 

the coastal plain of North Carolina (Table 3). 

Drainage ditches in coastal marsh habitats expose more areas of the marshes to fluctuations in water 

levels with tidal cycles. As the tides come into the marsh, water saturates more soil on ditch banks. 

As the tide goes out, the banks erode and the tides carry sediments into the bays and sounds. Over 

the years, this erosion results in a loss of wetland acreage. 

REGIONAL PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS 

Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic 

vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and reduced water depths, 

resulting from excessive sedimentation, have created conditions favorable for the establishment and 

proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic (nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of aquatic systems. 

These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems, 

and choke waterways to a degree that limits biodiversity and often prevents recreational use. 

Common reed (Phragmites australis) is the most dominant of these plants on the Outer Banks and 

the refuge, and it has a negative impact on the marshes in the area. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

The declines in the area of the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s bottomland hardwood forests and their 

associated fish and wildlife resources have prompted the Service to designate this forest type as an 

area of special concern. These areas are of particular concern as habitat for neotropical migratory 

songbirds that only breed in the interior of large forested areas. They also provide habitat for fisheating raptors that require forested habitat close to water in which to perch and from which to fish. 

The forests protect the aquatic habitat for interjurisdictional fish and other aquatic organisms. Much 

of the development has been for crop production and these areas may have potential for restoration. 

Many government habitat restoration programs focus on bottomland forests. 

In the Outer Coastal Plain, the loss of marshes, pocosins, and nonriverine hardwood forests has not 

been as great in acreage or percentage of habitat lost, but there was originally much less of these 

habitat types. Although wetland protection legislation regulates development in marshes, the public 

desires to live and recreate in these areas and destruction thus continues. Pocosins and nonriverine 

hardwood forests have been logged, cleared, and drained for crop production. The fish and wildlife 

species associated with these habitats are in much greater jeopardy than those associated with 

bottomland hardwood forests because the potential for restoring these habitats is lower than it is for 

bottomland forests since the habitat loss is due to land use conversion to residential, commercial, and 

agricultural development. Conservationists must mitigate habitat loss by intensive management of 

the habitat that remains with practices such as prescribed fire and water management. 

A collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is now underway to 

implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain. The goal is to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain and 

possibly restore the biological diversity in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Through cooperative 

efforts, apportioning resources, and the focusing of available programs, conservationists can improve 

the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s biological diversity. 
16 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Conservationists have initiated several coordinated efforts to set priorities and establish focus areas 

to overcome the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. Conservation 

organizations and agencies established a cooperative private-state-federal partnership, known as the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, in 1988 to help provide 

sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain. 

The initial Atlantic Coast Joint Venture effort for waterfowl has expanded to also establish breeding 

bird objectives for shorebirds and neotropical migratory birds. Partners-in-Flight has developed bird 

conservation plans to focus a number of private, state, and federal restoration programs into specific 

areas in an effort to provide maximum program benefits for neotropical migratory birds. 

One of the biggest challenges to the management and restoration efforts underway in the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain, and one that affects refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term management 

objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs. These needs include those of wintering 

migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, large mammals, and other wide-ranging 

species. Often, management for one species or species group conflicts with the management objectives 

for another species or species group. Biologists must exercise caution to avoid management and 

restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive management 

needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. As an example, management of 

Swanquarter NWR for herbaceous wetlands to increase waterfowl diversity may overlook the critical 

habitat needs of neotropical migratory songbirds that prefer a shrubby habitat. 

Active management of wetlands, moist-soil areas, and croplands on both public and private land is 

necessary to meet the habitat goals of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (Reinecke and Baxter 1996). 

The management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration) helps compensate for the 

spatial and temporal habitat changes that deforestation and hydrologic alterations have caused 

throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Appropriately managed, Swanquarter National Wildlife 

Refuge will make a substantial contribution to meeting the objectives of the Atlantic Coast Joint 

Venture. Setting habitat and species objectives from the perspective of the South Atlantic Coastal 

Plain is advantageous because it looks at the big picture and enables managers to plan and provide 

habitat for a diversity of species throughout their range. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

Since the flow of air over North Carolina is predominantly from west to east, the continental influence 

is much greater than the ocean or marine influence. Therefore, the state experiences a fairly large 

variation in temperature from winter to summer. 

The Gulf Stream current flows only a short distance off the North Carolina coast. One might think this 

"river" of warm water would have a profound effect on the climate, which is true to a degree. 

Temperatures on the coast are typically warmer in winter months and cooler during summer months 

than mainland Hyde County due to the temperature of surrounding waters. 

Lows sometimes reform along the coast as "Cape Hatteras lows" and then move north along the 

coast. Winter's low-pressure storms are usually more intense because of the large north-to-south 

contrasts. Winter's storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the 

winter precipitation. The forms of precipitation in spring begin to change from these steady rains to 

occasional thunderstorms. The Gulf of Mexico's warm, moist air produces warm, humid weather 

throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn, North Carolina's 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

driest season, is to many people the most pleasant with its many clear, warm days and cool nights 

with little rain. This weather usually lasts until November. Winter is cool and has brief occasional 

cold spells. Snowfall is not common. 

The average annual precipitation is 52.50 inches. Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year: 

average monthly rainfall ranges from 3.24 inches in April to 6.50 inches in August. The average 

seasonal snowfall is about 0.7 inches. The record snowfall was 4.0 inches at New Holland on 

January 8, 1973. Twelve inches fell on the Outer Banks on January 23, 2003. Twenty-five inches is 

the record at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. 

Of the total annual precipitation, about 26 inches usually fall in May through September. The growing 

season for most crops falls within this period. Thunderstorms occur on about 43 days each year. Every 

few years, a hurricane or tropical storm crosses the county, bringing 1 to 3 days of intensive rainfall. 

The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 65 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and 

the average at dawn is about 80 percent. The sun shines 65 percent of the time in summer and 50 

percent of the time in winter. The prevailing wind is from the north to northeast. Average wind speed 

is highest, 12 miles per hour, in winter. 

The average daily maximum temperature at the New Holland weather station from 1971-2000 was 

71.5 degrees F, and the average daily minimum is 51.2 degrees. 

In January the average temperature is 42.9 degrees, the average daily maximum is 53.0 degrees, 

and the average daily minimum temperature is 32.7 degrees. The lowest temperature on record, 

which occurred at New Holland on January 21, 1985, is 12 degrees below zero. In July the average 

temperature is 79.4 degrees, the average daily maximum temperature is 88.2 degrees, and the 

average daily minimum temperature is 70.5 degrees. The highest recorded temperature, which 

occurred on July 20, 1977, is 100 degrees. 

The average last freezing temperature in spring is March 24. The average first freezing temperature 

in the fall is November 21. The average growing season is 241 days. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

Swanquarter NWR is the product of wetland community development following the Wisconsin Ice Age 

15,000 years ago. Prior to this Ice Age, the level of the Atlantic Ocean in the Southeast was higher 

than it is presently. During the Wisconsin Ice Age, the sea level dropped to its current level and 

exposed large areas of the continental shelf. As a result, fast flowing rivers cut through the coastal 

plain terrace to the Atlantic Ocean. During the next several thousand years, as the ice receded, sea 

levels gradually raised. During this period it is believed river flows were slowed and organic sediment 

loads were deposited in the interstream areas as flowing systems shifted to slow-moving streams 

(Daniel 1981). Aquatic plants began to grow in these shallow bodies of water, adding to the 

accumulation of sediment and aquatic debris. Simultaneous with this buildup of organic sediments, a 

climatic warming trend accompanied the end of the Ice Age (Whitehead 1972). This warming trend 

helped to eliminate the cooler climate boreal forests and replace them with swamps, bogs, marshes, 

and pocosin habitats. Logging and land clearing activities over the last 300 years have greatly 

altered all habitat types. 
18 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge lies in the Pamlico Terrace, an extensive low flat plain lying east of the Suffolk Scarp, a 

prehistoric Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The terrace slopes from 10 to 16 foot elevations at the base of 

the scarp gently eastward to 1 to 2 feet at the end of the land peninsulas. The Suffolk Scarp 

separates the Pamlico Terrace of the main estuarine region from the higher Inland Coastal Plain 

around the western-most segment of the Albemarle Sound system. 

Streams in this area have relatively small sediment loading. Suspended sediments are mixed with 

organic sediments from swamp forests and marshes. This mixture of sediments produces the 

dominant bottom sediment of the area sounds. This sediment contains up to 15 percent organic 

matter (Griese et al., 1979) and is deposited within the standing waters of the estuaries. 

Brown to black, organic-rich muds predominate in the surrounding sounds, but grade laterally into a thin 

apron of fine sand in the shallow waters around the perimeter of the estuaries. The sand apron usually 

occurs landward of the main break in the bottom slope at a depth of about 3 feet, and extends to the 

shoreline. The sediments in front of the marshes generally have little sand. They are characterized by 

high organic contents and contain peat blocks, logs, and stumps (Copeland et al., 1982). 

SOILS 

Soil types identified on the refuge are Argent loam*, Backbay mucky peat*, Belhaven muck*, 

Brookman loam*, Delway muck*, Dorovan muck*, Hyde silt loam*, Longshoal muck*, Pungo muck*, 

Roper muck*, Scuppernong muck*, Stockade sandy loam*, Udorthents, and Yonges loam*. 

 (USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 2001) (Table 4). Soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in 

‘Hydric Soils of the United States’ (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985) (Figure 4). Hydric soils 

are . . . "soils that in their undrained condition are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during 

the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of 

hydrophilic (water loving) vegetation" (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985). These soils have 

seasonally high water tables within a foot of the surface of the soil. 

The wetlands typical of the area are characterized by deep organic soils known as mucks or peats. The 

depth of organic soil depth over mineral soil, though not evident at the surface, has a tremendous 

influence on the potential uses of the land. Typically, the deeper the muck surface layer, the shorter the 

vegetation in the native plant community growing on the soil. The dominant species in the plant 

communities are dense shrubs tolerant of the wet, acid soils. Tall trees are unable to establish their deep 

root systems on the deep organic soils. Wind easily topples trees that do grow on the deep organic soils. 

Over the years, evolution has selected trees that are shorter. Formation of peat is an ongoing process in 

areas sufficiently wet to prevent oxidation of organic matter deposited by plants. 

There are 9,200 acres of soils with more than 51 inches of muck over mineral soil identified on the refuge: 

Pungo (1,200 acres, 7 percent of the land area of the refuge), Longshoal (7,900 acres, 5 percent), Dorovan 

(100 acres, 1 percent). These soils are excessively wet. Longshoal and Dorovan flood frequently; Pungo 

rarely floods. They are characterized by layers of peat over mineral soil, and are mostly unsuitable for 

agriculture (Skaggs et al., 1980; Lilly 1981). Marshes and low pocosins dominate these soils. 

The following soils have surface layers of 16 to 51 inches of muck: Belhaven (1,300 acres, 8 

percent), Delway (3,000 acres, 18 percent), and Scuppernong (500 acres, 3 percent). These soils 

are also excessively wet. Delway floods frequently; Belhaven and Scuppernong rarely flood. They 

are also characterized by layers of peat over mineral soil, and are mostly unsuitable for agriculture 

(Skaggs et al., 1980; Lilly 1981). The productivity of the maple, gum, and bald cypress forests is 

lower on these soils compared to mineral soils with less than 16 inches of organic soil. With 

appropriate drainage and bedding, 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Figure 4. Characteristics of soils of Swanquarter NWR 
20 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

productivity can be increased. However, the refuge would not likely engage extensively in such 

practices on these deep organic soils owing to accelerated oxidation of peat and release of nitrogen 

and mercury – a negative impact on water quality. 

Backbay (1,500 Acres, 9 percent) and Roper (200 acres, 1 percent) have less than 16 inches of muck 

over mineral soil. The native vegetation on these soils is the maple, gum, and bald cypress forest 

typical of that on wet mineral soils and the productivity of the soils are similar to mineral soils. When 

drained, these soils are among the most productive agricultural soils in the area. The USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service classifies Scuppernong as a prime farmland soil. 

Mineral soils make up 711 acres (4 percent) of the land area of the refuge. Brookman loam, Argent 

loam, and Stockade sandy loam each have approximately 200 acres. Hyde silt loam and Yonges 

loam each have 50 acres. Most mineral soils are more productive than organic soils for crops as well 

as forest trees. Most on the refuge are poorly drained and rarely flood. They would grow loblolly 

pine, bald cypress, swamp black gum, red maple, sweet gum, water oak, willow oak, and swamp 

white oak. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies Argent, Brookman, Hyde, 

Stockade, and Yonges as prime farmland soils if drained. 

The Udorthent soils are well drained to droughty and are the soils under the refuge roads. 

Udorthents are the dredge spoils from canals and ditches. 

Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Swanquarter NWR 

Series Approximate 

Acreage 

Surface 

Texture 

Muck 

Depth 

Water Table 

Depth 

Flooding 

Frequency 

Pungo 1,200 Muck 80” 0-1.0’ Rare 

Longshoal 7,900 Muck 72” 0-0.5’’ Very Frequently 

Dorovan 100 Muck 70” 0-0.5’ Frequent 

Belhaven 1,300 Muck 40” 0-1.0’ Rare 

Delway 3,000 Muck 36” 0-0.5’ Very Frequent 

Scuppernong 500 Muck 33” 0-1.0’ Rare 

Backbay 1,500 Mucky Peat 14” 0-0.5’ Very Frequent 

Roper 200 Muck 13” 0-1.0’ Rare 

Hyde 50 Silt Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare 

Yonges 50 Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare 

Brookman 200 Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare 

Argent 200 Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare 

Stockade 200 Sandy Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare 

Udorthents 11 Sand None 0-6.0’ Rare 

Total 16,411 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Hydrology 

Swanquarter NWR is within the Tar Pamlico River Basin. Freshwater creeks and streams drain to 

Rose Bay, Swanquarter Bay, Juniper Bay, and other smaller bays within the proclamation boundary. 

Groundwater provides the freshwater resources for the area. Studies have shown that the 

groundwater reservoir consists of two types of aquifers: a water table aquifer, which extends from the 

land surface to the first confining beds of silt and clay, and a confined, or semi-confined aquifer 

beneath and between the silt and clay beds. The water table aquifer ranges in thickness from 10 to 

50 feet and averages 15 feet. The water table itself averages 3 feet above mean sea level. 

Maintenance of the fresh groundwater depends on the amount of rainfall. Due to the sandy nature of 

the soils, rainfall enters the water table aquifer with little or no surface runoff. However, after the 

ground has become saturated during periods of intensive rainfall, some runoff occurs in roadside 

ditches and small intermittent freshwater ponds. 

The deeper confined aquifers are as much as 30 feet thick and are below the first confining beds 

whose thickness ranges from 5 to 20 feet. Exact thicknesses are difficult to determine due to the 

gradational nature of sediments below the water table aquifer. 

The fresh groundwater is best described as a lens-shaped mass floating on top of denser salt water. 

The amount of fresh water in this lens varies depending on the amount of recharge and discharge. 

Between the fresh water and salt water, a zone of brackish water occurs. This zone periodically 

changes due to flooding, tidal movement, and rainfall. 

Most of the refuge lies within a few feet of sea level, and marshes cover the majority of the refuge. 

Flooding resulting from sea level rising could be a long-term problem for the Swanquarter NWR. 

Over the last 100 years the sea level has risen approximately one foot. Experts agree that the sea 

level will rise another two feet over the next 100 years, with a maximum increase of as much as four 

to seven feet. (Source: The Probability of Sea Level Rise. James G. Titus and Vijay Narayanan. 

1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 186 pp. EPA 230-R95-008). A 

rise in sea level would alter the habitat, changing marshes into open water areas, and upland areas 

into marshes. As the habitat changes, the wildlife will also change. The fresh groundwater aquifer 

would be even more susceptible to saltwater intrusion because of the expected sea level rise. The 

refuge can do little to affect this issue, but can realize that it is occurring and adapt management as 

hydrology and plant communities change. 

AIR QUALITY 

The area closest to the refuge that an environmental agency monitors is the Virginia Beach-Norfolk, 

Virginia metropolitan area. The Environmental Protection Agency monitors carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide and particulates in Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport 

News, Suffolk, and Chesapeake. Despite the large population, industry, traffic, and power plants, the 

area exceeded only ozone level standards in 2002. Monitoring has indicated unhealthy levels only 

twice and unhealthy levels for sensitive groups thirteen times. The relatively good air quality is due to 

the breezes blowing through the area from the ocean. 

Prescribed burning on the refuge has the potential to have an impact on air quality. The State of 

North Carolina specifies that prescribed fires purposely set to marshes for marsh 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 
22 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses certain potential 

liabilities of burning even though permissible. 

WATER QUALITY 

The state has classified the water bodies and streams according to their water quality and the uses 

that quality supports. All of the waters in and around Swanquarter NWR are Outstanding Resource 

Waters (ORW) or High Quality Waters (HQW). The classifications of waters surrounding the refuge 

are listed in Table 5. According to the 2006 North Carolina 303(d) List, some of these waterbodies 

are impaired. Portions of Juniper Bay, Northwest Creek (a tributary to Juniper Bay), portions of 

Swanquarter Bay, a segment of Oyster Creek (tributary to Swanquarter Bay), portions of Rose Bay 

and Rose Bay Creek are listed for shellfish harvesting closure due to fecal coliform. 

There is one National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facility that 

discharges into waters adjacent to the refuge. The Rose Bay Oyster Company discharges to Rose 

Bay Creek on the western perimeter of the refuge. 

Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Swanquarter NWR 

Water Body or Stream Classification Best Uses 

Rose Bay 

 Rose Bay Creek 

Deep Bay 

 Old Haulover 

 Bernice Creek 

 Middle Creek 

HQW – High 

Quality Waters 

SA – Shellfishing 

Waters 

Shellfishing, and Primary and Secondary 

Recreation 

Pamlico Sound 

Swanquarter Bay 

 Shingle Creek 

 Cowpen Creek 

 Oyster Creek 

Juniper Bay 

 Northwest Creek 

 Rattlesnake Creek 

 Old Haulover 

 Doe Creek 

 Buck Creek 

 Laurel Creek 

ORW – 

Outstanding 

Resource Waters 

SA – Shellfishing 

Waters 

Shellfishing, and Primary and Secondary 

Recreation 

 Juniper Bay Creek ORW – 

Outstanding 

Resource Waters 

SC – Protected for 

Secondary 

Recreation 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

Human development activities have affected plant communities on the refuge over time. Some of 

these activities occurred before the Service established the refuge and some have occurred since. 

Logging and land clearing activities over the last 300 years have greatly altered all habitat types. 

Most notable today are the roads and the former site of the administration building near the Bell 

Island Pier. However, the refuge’s undisturbed saltmarsh islands and forested wetlands interspersed 

with potholes, creeks, and drains contain many important wildlife and ecological resources. Since 

clear-cutting, peat mining, and agricultural conversion have developed much of the AlbemarlePamlico peninsula, this area remains as important wildlife habitat in eastern North Carolina. Over half 

of the refuge is marsh land included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Marsh 

vegetation on the refuge is dominated by black needlerush and sawgrass while the mainland is 

forested by loblolly pine, pond pine, and bald cypress. An additional 27,082 acres of adjacent, nonrefuge open water are closed by Presidential Proclamation to the taking of migratory birds. 

Swanquarter NWR is an important estuarine and wilderness resource; together with the surrounding 

proclamation waters it provides winter sanctuary for black ducks and canvasbacks, redheads and 

scaup. Additionally, it provides habitat for nesting osprey and colonial waterbirds. It also supports 

one of the northernmost populations of the American alligator. Hyde County, in which Swanquarter 

NWR lies, is a stronghold for the black bear in North Carolina and the mid-Atlantic coast. The refuge 

also has the potential for habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, currently hosts bald 

eagles, and is located within the red wolf reintroduction area. 

In recent years, the staff has utilized prescribed fire to maintain plant communities and successional 

stages on part of the refuge. There are eight habitat types/land uses found on the refuge (Table 6 

and Figure 5) which are described subsequently. There are no known threatened or endangered 

plants on Swanquarter NWR. However, the Sensitive Joint Vetch has been documented as occurring 

in mainland Hyde County within the last 20 years near Swanquarter NWR. 

Table 6. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Swanquarter NWR 

Habitat Acreage 

Brackish Marsh 13,000

Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 1,300

High Pocosin 750

Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest 500

Nonriverine Swamp Forest 400

Pond Pine Pocosin 300

Open Water 150

Administrative Areas 11

Total Acres 16,411
24 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 5. Vegetative habitat types of the Swanquarter NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Brackish Marsh 

The brackish marsh community is found along the margins of sounds and estuaries in areas not 

subjected to regular flooding by salt water. This community is often referred to as "high marsh" and is 

subjected to irregular flooding mostly from wind tides along the Pamlico Sound. Salinity in the brackish 

marsh is generally low due to distance from a saltwater source and freshwater inflow, but can be midrange for brief periods. If a brackish marsh occurs in an area subjected to regular flooding with low 

salinity water, mineral deposition can result in mud flats. Vegetation in the brackish marsh community 

is strongly dominated by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), but patches of saltmeadow grass 

(Spartina patens) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) can be found. In some areas patches of giant 

cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) and common reed (Phragmites australis) occur and can be 

extensive in a few areas. Sawgrass (Cladium jamaiciense) is the dominant species in large tracts of 

marsh on the north side of the refuge and can be found throughout. One may also find cattails (Typha

spp.), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and spikerushes 

(Eleocharis spp.). As salinity increases, this community can grade into salt marsh on the edge of the 

Sound; if salinity decreases, it grades into freshwater marsh on the northern edge of the refuge. 

Brackish marsh occupies 13,000 acres on organic soils throughout the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5). On 

2,000 acres, shrubs make up a substantial portion of the marsh due to the exclusion of fire. 

Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine 

This plant community features an overstory of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and an understory that 

varies with fire frequency. In the absence of fire, the understory is dominated by wax myrtle (Morella

cerifera) and inkberry (Ilex glabra). With regular natural or prescribed fire, the understory is 

saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens). The habitat occurs on saturated mineral or organic soils 

that rarely flood. The stand on the refuge has been damaged extensively by the wind and salt spray 

from Hurricane Isabel in September 2003. Estuarine fringe loblolly pine occupies 500 acres, mostly 

on mineral soils on the western edge of the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5). 

High Pocosin 

The high pocosin community is associated with deep to intermediate depth organic soils, primarily in a 

transitional zone between low pocosin and the pond pine pocosin. The shrub layer is the dominant feature 

of this community. However, shrubs tend to be taller (10 to 15 feet) than those in low pocosins and trees, 

mostly pond pine (Pinus serotina), may grow up to 30 to 40 feet. Bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra) and fetterbush 

(Lyonia lucida) dominate this shrub layer with Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia virginica) being the most 

abundant herbaceous plant. Other shrub species may include wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) and groundsel 

tree (Baccharis halimifolia), especially on edges and in areas of disturbance. Red bay (Persea borbonia) 

and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) may be found, but are uncommon. High pocosin occupies 750 acres, 

mostly on deep organic soils on the eastern edge of the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5). 

Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 

Hardwood/Mixed pine is found in scattered areas throughout the refuge. Red maple (Acer rubrum), red 

bay (Persea borbonia), and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora) are dominant hardwood trees with an average 

height of 50 to 60 feet. Pond pine (Pinus serotina) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) are the pine species 

present. Dominant shrubs are fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), and sweet bay 

(Magnolia virginiana). Typically little or no herbaceous vegetation is present. River cane (Arundinaria 

gigantea) may be found in some locations. Mixed pine hardwood forest occupies 1,300 acres, mostly on 

organic soils of intermediate depth in the northwestern part of the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5). 
26 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Nonriverine Swamp Forest 

This habitat type occurs on shallow organic soils found primarily in the flats of the refuge between 

streams. These areas occur mostly on the margins of peatlands, grading into cypress-gum swamps, 

Atlantic white cedar forests, or pond pine pocosin habitat types. Various soft mast-producing 

hardwood trees, typical of bottomland hardwoods, dominate this forest. A long history of poor logging 

practices has further degraded this habitat type. However, a tree canopy of swamp tupelo (Nyssa 

biflora), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinux 

pennsylvanica), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) dominates the forest in the natural state. Tulip poplar 

(Liriodendron tulipfera), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and 

serviceberry (Amelanchier canadensis) may also be found. Dominant understory vegetation includes 

American holly (Ilex opaca), deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), 

sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweet and bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra and coriacea), and 

fetterbush (Lyonia lucida). The ground layer may have cane, netted and Virginia chain fern, 

(Woodwardia virginica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), 

and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens). Common woody vines are greenbrier (Smilax spp.), grape 

(Vitis spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and 

cross vine (Bigninia capreolata). Nonriverine swamp forest occupies 400 acres, mostly on organic 

soils of intermediate depth in the north central part of the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5). 

Pond Pine Pocosin

Pond pine pocosin is very similar to the high shrub pocosin, but contains more pond pine (Pinus serotina), 

bays (Persea spp., Gordonia spp., Magnolia spp.), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Red bay (Persea 

borbonia) and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) also reach heights greater than 20 feet in this cover type. 

Mature tree heights, including red maple (Acer rubrum), may vary from 30 to 40 feet. Fetterbush (Lyonia 

lucida) and bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra) are the dominant shrubs with Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia 

virginica) as the dominant herbaceous plant where openings occur. Grasses, sedges, and other 

herbaceous species are rarely present due to the dense shrub understory. Pond pine occupies 300 

acres, mostly on deep organic soils on the eastern edge of the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5). 

Administrative Areas 

The site of the former administrative buildings near the Bell Island Pier, the entry road and gravel spur road, 

the Bell Island Pier parking area, and roadsides make up the administrative areas of the refuge. Very little 

maintenance is required of these areas. The vegetated roadsides are mowed frequently enough to 

maintain visibility along roads, but not intensively enough to threaten vegetative cover. Roadsides do 

fragment natural habitat and create corridors along which exotic and invasive plants thrive and spread. 

WILDLIFE 

General 

Swanquarter NWR and its surrounding waters support many species of resident and migratory fish 

and wildlife. Of these, 48 species are fish (Hester and Copeland 1975, Johnson et. al 1980), 145 are 

birds, 48 are reptiles and amphibians, and 40 are mammals. The refuge supports wildlife species 

that are important from both a regional and a national standpoint. Its large size and vegetative 

diversity make the refuge a haven for species that require aquatic and wetland habitats. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Birds 

Swanquarter NWR provides habitat for a wide variety of birds. Because of the refuge's large size and 

plant community diversity, habitat is provided for forest-dwelling species, as well as marsh dwelling 

species. This somewhat unique complex of various wetland habitat types results in the presence of 

some unique avian forms such the Wayne’s black-throated green warbler, a distinct form of prairie 

warbler, and an unusually dense population of worm-eating warblers (Watts & Paxton, 2002). There 

are approximately 250 species of birds that visit regularly with about 40 to 50 additional species 

considered accidental visitors. 

The area is roughly at midpoint in the Atlantic Flyway and is a much used and valuable feeding and 

resting area for numerous species of wintering waterfowl. Tundra swans, coots, and more than 

twenty-five species of ducks winter either on the refuge or in the sounds and rivers adjacent to the 

refuge. Populations of migratory waterfowl peak during the months of November through February. 

In addition to waterfowl, large numbers of hawks, owls, and many species of passerine birds may be 

seen. Avian species composition changes throughout the year since most are migratory. 

Waterfowl. Pamlico Sound provides open water for resting, feeding, and escape cover. The wood 

duck is a common year-round species and is most often associated with the shorelines, wooded 

swamps, and ditches. Black ducks nest on the numerous ponds found throughout the extensive 

marshes on the refuge and are part of an important regional breeding population. The most prevalent 

wintering species residing in refuge marshes include pintail, green-winged teal, gadwall, widgeon, 

mallard, and black duck. Large “rafts” of black scoter and lesser scaup are commonly observed on 

the open waters adjacent to the refuge. Other species wintering or migrating on the refuge and 

surrounding waters may include blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, shovelor, canvasback, ruddy 

duck, red head, bufflehead, hooded merganser and red-breasted merganser. Both migratory Canada 

geese and snow geese use the refuge. 

Breeding Birds. The species that breed on the refuge are characteristic of species that inhabit other 

coastal plain communities. They include warblers, nuthatches, thrashers, and blue-gray 

gnatcatchers. Wading birds, such as the great blue heron, are common and breeding has been 

documented in at least one rookery on the refuge. Bald eagles and ospreys have also historically 

nested on the refuge and viable nests remain. 

Wintering Birds. The most common winter species are the American robin, yellow-rumped 

warbler, the red-winged blackbird, and sparrows. Robins feed heavily on berries of redbay and 

greenbrier and roost in large concentrations along the ditches. Myrtle warblers use vegetated 

ditch banks, and forest edges. They feed heavily on wax myrtle berries. The northern harrier 

may be observed hunting over the marshes. 

Transient Species. Swanquarter NWR lies in the path of the Atlantic Flyway, a major migration route. 

The refuge provides resting and foraging areas for many migrantory species which winter farther 

south. Species which migrate through the refuge during the fall include: blue-winged teal; raptors, 

such as the broad-winged hawk and merlin; shore birds; and a variety of perching birds, such as the 

western kingbird, bank swallow, Swainson's thrush, warblers (yellow, magnolia, Cape May, blackthroated blue, blackpoll and palm), bobolink, northern oriole, and rose-breasted grosbeak. 
28 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Mammals 

Of the 47 species of mammals commonly occurring in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, 42 

occur on the refuge. The most common land mammals are the black bear, opossum, and rodents 

such as the hispid cotton rat. Semi-aquatic furbearers, such as the muskrat, nutria, and river otter, 

are also common. Numbers of beaver are increasing. The white-tailed deer population has 

remained relatively constant at low numbers in recent years. However, deer herd health checks at 5-

year intervals show that the population is at or very near carrying capacity for pocosin habitat. The 

black bear population is among the highest density populations in the southeast. Numerous sightings 

of eastern cougar have been reported, but none have been confirmed. 

American Black Bear. Today the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula has what is believed to be one of the 

largest concentrations of black bear found in the southeastern United States. The population had 

declined in this and other areas due to human disturbance and habitat destruction (Hamilton 1978). 

According to Hamilton and Marchiuto (1977 and 1978), protection of major wetland forest types is 

critical to the continued maintenance of the Coastal Plain bear population. 

Little information is known on the numbers and characteristics of the refuge's black bear population. 

In 1974, Hardy suggested a Dare County bear population of 25 to 35 individuals of which 13 to 20 

were adult males, 4 to 8 were adult females, and 5 to 9 were juveniles. There was very little evidence 

of reproductive success. The population imbalance probably resulted from selective mortality 

engendered by excessive hunting. 

High hunting pressure associated with increased access through road construction was the apparent 

mechanism that reduced the bear population on and off the refuge. In the 1970s, state legislation 

made it illegal to hunt black bear in the Coastal Plain. The population has increased steadily since 

then. The state legislature re-established a hunting season in 1992, but the season was not opened 

on the refuge due to insufficient population data. A research project on Alligator River NWR by the 

University of Tennessee from 1992 to 1996, resulted in good information on habitat use, food habits, 

and reproduction. During the same study, an attempt to estimate the population size was not 

successful due to low recapture numbers (Allen 1998). An effort to estimate the population through 

genetic analysis of hair samples on Alligator River and Pocosin Lakes NWRs began during 2001, by 

Virginia Tech, and data collection continued through 2004. That study concluded that the bear 

populations on the refuges were well above levels that are considered optimum in good habitat. 

Limiting factors on black bear on the refuge have been identified as blackgum mast, disturbance, and 

availability of escape cover. Although blackgum fruit has been identified as limiting, the diet of the 

black bear varies with the seasons and availability of food. Spring foraging appears to be largely 

opportunistic with a high occurrence of ants and leaves in the diet. Blueberries and switchcane 

stems are preferred throughout the summer. Fall feeding shifts to blackgum, with winter diets 

consisting mainly of greenbrier, sumac, and gallberry (NCSU 1974). 

White-tailed Deer. The white-tailed deer is probably the most sought after game species on the 

refuge. Hunters make extensive use of the area around the refuge for deer hunting. White-tailed 

deer are considered to be browsers because they primarily consume woody vegetation. However, 

whitetails will eat almost any available form of plant life. Because of this adaptability, it is impossible 

to single out one habitat as greatly superior to others. Interaction of deer and habitat is a combination 

of food preference and utilization, quantity and quality of food, and availability of cover (Halls 1984; 

Halls and Ripley 1961). However, best estimates suggest a much lower carrying capacity for pocosin 

habitat than other habitat types. For example, Monschein (1981) reported the best estimate for 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

pocosin habitat is about 6 deer per-square-mile; about 18 deer per-square-mile along pocosin 

borders; and 35-40 deer per-square-mile for coastal bottomland hardwoods. Basic differences 

involve the quantity, quality, and availability of food. 

Since establishment of the refuges on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, periodic abomasal parasite 

counts, necropsy findings, laboratory tests, and general physical condition indicate that the health of 

the deer population is fair to good. It was concluded in 1985, 1992, and 1998 by the Southeastern 

Cooperative Wildlife Study that the Swanquarter NWR deer were within an optimal stocking density 

for the nutritional capacity of the habitat. 

Furbearers. Swanquarter NWR provides habitat for fur-bearing species such as bobcat, otter, mink, 

gray fox, muskrat, nutria, and raccoon. Raccoon, nutria, muskrat, otter and mink make use of the 

ditches and streams that run through the refuge. The gray fox makes use of the edges feeding on 

small mammals as well as blackberries and other fruits. Bobcats are common predators on the 

refuge and are most commonly observed around the farm unit, along the edges of pocosin areas, and 

in swamp forests. They may be found throughout the refuge because of the presence of the marsh 

rabbit, the bobcat's main prey. 

In addition to the mammals already mentioned, the refuge supports populations of the gray squirrel, 

cottontail rabbit, opossum, and several rodent and insectivore species. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

There are 61 species of reptiles and amphibians reported for the refuge. Reptiles and amphibians 

are most numerous and diverse around permanent and semi-permanent open water, marshes, 

creeks, lakes, and ditches. They also thrive in disturbed or modified and transitional areas. Some of 

the species that inhabit the area are the brown, banded, and plain-bellied water snakes; common 

snapping, red-bellied and eastern painted turtles; and the southern leopard frog. Three venomous 

snake species have been documented on the refuge. They are the cottonmouth, canebrake (timber) 

rattlesnake, and copperhead. The pygmy rattlesnake has been documented in Hyde County but, 

even though the refuge is in Hyde County, none have been documented on the refuge. 

American Alligator. The refuge is near the northern extent of the American alligator's natural range in 

North America. This endangered reptile occurs in refuge marshes, slow-moving streams, and manmade ditches. They prefer areas where water turbidity is low, water quality is high, and an adequate 

food source is present. The refuge’s drainage ditches provide prime alligator habitat. 

Fish 

Fisheries on and surrounding Swanquarter NWR are diverse and productive. The refuge's potholes, 

creeks, and drains support species characteristic of blackwater or oligohaline systems. Fish that 

inhabit the refuge include resident species, migratory species, anadromous species, and one 

catadromous species. 

Resident species, such as gar, pickerel, white and yellow perch, a variety of sunfish, and catfish, 

inhabit the blackwater portions of the refuge. Spotted sea trout and redfish are commonly found in 

the shallow open waters of Pamlico Sound. Migratory species use the refuge's estuaries as 

spawning grounds and its surrounding waters as a nursery area. Migratory species that use the 

refuge include Atlantic croaker, spot, Atlantic menhaden, and the southern and summer flounders. 

Most of these species are commercially harvested elsewhere. 
30 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Anadromous species are those that spawn in the refuge's freshwater streams and estuaries, inhabit 

these areas as juveniles, mature offshore, and return to these streams to spawn as adults. These 

species use Pamlico Sound and the refuge’s drainage ditches heavily. They include striped bass, 

alewife, and blueback herring. 

Insect and Disease Pests 

The gypsy moth is now well established as far south as northeastern North Carolina. The North 

Carolina Division of Plant Industry and United States Forest Service closely monitor gypsy moth 

populations. They use pheromone traps located throughout the Hyde County mainland and barrier 

islands, including refuge lands. When they detect large-scale outbreaks, they use integrated pest 

management techniques to suppress the outbreak, but not necessarily eliminate the species from the 

area. Although the refuge is within the quarantine area of northeastern North Carolina, there have 

not been any outbreaks of the gypsy moth requiring treatment at the refuge. 

Since the mid-1990s, southern pine beetle outbreaks and cutting controlling buffers resulted in the 

conversion of over 5,000 acres of mostly pond pine habitat to shrub habitat. Without prescribed fire, 

this acreage will most likely remain as shrub habitat unless pond pine is planted after site preparation. 

During 2002 and 2003, the spread of southern pine beetle infestations was greatly diminished. 

Exotic Organisms 

At the present time, little is known about exotic organisms on the refuge. Feral cats and dogs can be 

found on the refuge but there is uncertainty as to numbers and extent of impact on wildlife. 

Fire ants are an increasing problem but current control methods, using pesticides, are impractical and 

undesirable in a large roadless landscape such as the refuge. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Several federally listed species occur in the area. Among them are the red-cockaded woodpecker, 

red wolf, and American alligator. All species, except for the red-cockaded woodpecker, occur 

throughout the refuge. 

The Service first reintroduced the red wolf in the region in 1987. Since the initial releases, wolves 

have reproduced in the wild and may be found throughout the refuge and four surrounding counties. 

Depending upon circumstances within and between packs, there can be from two to five packs of 

wolves on the refuge at a given point in time. An estimated 100 wolves now inhabit a 1.7 million acre 

area in eastern North Carolina. 

The American alligator is listed as threatened by similarity of appearance in North Carolina and is 

found in aquatic habitat throughout the refuge. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The staff conducts 

management activities so as to avoid compromising sensitive sites and requests an investigation 

before they plan any development. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Swanquarter NWR lies within Hyde County, North Carolina. Recently made more accessible to the 

mainland by bridges and ferries and primarily supported by tourism, coastal Hyde and Dare counties have 

seen an influx of tourists, visitors, and residents over the last few decades. This considerable population 

growth and development of the barrier islands has brought substantial economic benefit to a region 

historically rural and impoverished. The mainland part of the county has not developed due the fact that 

99 percent of the soil is hydric and 33 percent of it is organic and will not support structures. Despite the 

growth on the coast and with its location just south of U.S. Highway 264, the refuge has not seen greater 

recreational and public use. The Bell Island Pier does attract visitors when it is open for use, but 

hurricanes have damaged it often and the Service has closed it for extended periods of time after each 

storm. Much of the county has been cleared for agriculture. As one of the few remaining tracts of intact 

natural land, the refuge and, consequently, its management considerations, have become even more 

critical to the nature-based tourism in the county. 

Swanquarter NWR and Hyde County are located in the northeastern part of North Carolina and are 

bounded by the Tyrrell County and Albemarle Sound to the north, Beaufort County to the west, and 

the Pamlico Sound to the south. 

For many decades, Hyde County’s Ocracoke Island has been in the forefront of economic growth and 

development in the State of North Carolina, and historically, unemployment has been lower than the 

state average. Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks of Dare, Currituck, and Hyde counties 

every year. The next closest areas of economic growth and social life are Greenville, North Carolina, 

100 miles west of the refuge, and Virginia Beach, Virginia, 100 miles north of the refuge. 

Despite the growth on the Outer Banks, Hyde County is still predominantly rural, with the largest town 

being Engelhard (2000 population 1,561). Like other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor activities 

are both popular and necessary. Hunting, recreational fishing, and bird watching are popular pastimes, 

and commercial fishing is an important element of the economy. The importance of Swanquarter NWR 

and its appropriate management is, therefore, easily understood. 

HISTORY 

The inhabitants of Hyde County at the time of European settlement were also Coastal Algonkians 

called the Machapungo and Mattamuskeets. By the early 1700s, most of the Indians lived on a 

reservation in the eastern part of the county. In 1711 the number of Indians was about 30, and by 

1761 only 6 remained. 

English explorers first arrived in the county in 1585. The early history of the county was dominated by 

maritime trade and featured the exploits of Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard the Pirate. The 

first settlers were castaways from ships. 

The North Carolina General Assembly formed Hyde County from Bath County in 1705, and originally 

named it Wickam County. It named the county Hyde County in 1712, in honor of Edward Hyde, the 

first governor of North Carolina. 

In the 1800s, residents built many plantation homes in the county. The best known is the Octagon 

House in the eastern part of the county. Due to its rich soil with an organic topsoil layer, Hyde County 

has always had a good reputation for agricultural production, especially in corn. People once 

traveled to the county from across the state for corn. 
32 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Agriculture has remained the most important part of the county’s economy and lifestyle. The acreage in 

cropland increased dramatically in the 1970s, when soybean prices increased substantially. Much of that 

land was difficult to drain and maintain water levels necessary for production, and has been abandoned. 

In the later part of the twentieth century, conservation agencies and organizations began to purchase 

areas less suited for agriculture and production forestry due to the deep organic soils. They manage 

those areas for wildlife habitat, the protection of unique ecological communities, and outdoor 

recreation. In 1932, Swanquarter NWR was established by presidential order. Recreation based on 

natural and cultural resources is a growing part of the local lifestyle. 

LAND USE 

Today Hyde County is 60 percent forested (235,800 acres), 24 percent cropland (95,327 acres), and 

11 percent marsh (44,729 acres). 

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms increased 8 percent from 95,327 acres to 103,089 acres; the 

average size of farms decreased 25 percent from 953 acres to 716 acres; full-time farm operators 

increased 22 percent from 74 farms to 90 farms; total market value of agricultural products sold 

decreased slightly from $32,996,000 to $32,868,000; and average market value of agricultural 

products sold per farm decreased 31 percent from $329,965 to $228,251 (Table 7). 

In 2002, corn and soybeans accounted for 31,059 and 30,013 acres of cropland, the largest crops in the 

county. Cotton and wheat have also been important crops in Hyde County (Table 8) (USDA, 2002). 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Hyde County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 5,826 in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000). The county population increased 7.7 percent between 1990 and 2000 (U.S Census Bureau, 

2000). Swan Quarter, the county seat, is the largest town but the population is widely dispersed 

throughout the unincorporated areas of the county. 

The population is 62.7 percent White, 35.1 percent Black, 2.2 percent Hispanic, 0.3 percent Native 

American, and 0.4 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the mean family income was 

$23,568, substantially below the state average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 24.8 percent of the 

population, well above the state average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average 

unemployment rate in 2004 was 7.2 percent, well above the State of North Carolina unemployment 

rate of 5.5 percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004) (Table 9). 

EMPLOYMENT 

Lodging and food service and retail trade are the largest employers in Hyde County, employing 277 

and 223 of the county’s 1,044 employees with an annual payroll of $22.4 million in 2000 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns 2000). This is due in large part to the tourists 

attracted to the Outer Banks of Hyde County (North Carolina Economic Security Commission 2002). 

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

lodging and food service, retail trade, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, wholesale trade, 

health care, finance, forestry, fishing, real estate, administrative and support services, and recreation 

(U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census 2000). 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

FORESTRY 

Timber has always been a source of wealth for Hyde County. However, much of the timber was 

cleared in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops. 

Today, Hyde County is approximately 60 percent forested, with 235,800 acres of forestland. In 

comparison, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Fifty-two percent of the County’s forest is in 

pine, 32 percent is in oak-gum-cypress, 11 percent is in oak-hickory, and 5 percent is in oak-pine 

(USDA Forest Service 2002). 

In 2000, private landowners were the largest forest landowners with 55 percent of the county’s 

forestland. The Federal Government owned 28 percent, the forest industry owned 15 percent, and 

the State Government owned 2 percent (USDA Forest Service 2002). 

Table 7. Hyde County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA census of agriculture 

Number of Farms 144

Acres in Farms 103,089

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 716

Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,264,802

Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,819

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $208,106

Total Cropland (Acres) 91,524

Market Value of All Products Sold $32,868,000

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $228,251

Market Value of Crops Sold $32,151,000

Market Value of Livestock Sold $717,000

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 90

Operators with Another Occupation as Principal Occupation 54

Hogs in Inventory 3,300

Hogs Sold 7,160

Beef Cows in Inventory 180

Beef Cows Sold 99

Land in Corn (Acres) 31,059

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 30,013

Land in Cotton (Acres) 22,906

Land in Wheat (Acres) 10,614
34 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 8. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997 

USDA census of agriculture 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1992-1997 Change 

Corn (acres) 31,059 31,990 Decreased 3% 

Soybeans (acres) 30,013 36,381 Decreased 17% 

Cotton (acres) 22,906 4,212 Increased 444% 

Wheat (acres) 10,614 18,989 Decreased 44% 

Hog Inventory 3,300 9,890 Decreased 67% 

Hogs Sold 7,160 25,059 Decreased 71% 

Cattle Inventory 180 427 Decreased 58% 

Cattle Sold 99 142 Decreased 30% 

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE AREA 

Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Hyde County has 

always had an abundance of fish and game, due to its diversity of lands and waters. Early in the 

twentieth century, sportsmen established clubs to protect game and wildlife. Later, as part of a 

comprehensive wildlife management program, the Service established Swanquarter NWR to conserve 

and restore habitat for native wildlife and migratory birds. The Service also manages the Mattamuskeet, 

Pocosin Lakes, and Alligator River NWRs, and the NCWRC manages the Gullrock Game Lands and the 

Dare County Bombing Range as Game Lands to provide hunting opportunities in the area. 

Recreation in the area is also based on the water in the ocean, sounds, bays, rivers, and lakes. 

Swimming in the ocean and sunbathing on the beach are the anchors of recreation on the Outer 

Banks of Hyde and Dare counties. Boat ramps provide access to the rivers and sounds. Numerous 

outfitters provide boats and guided tours. Many vendors sell and rent canoes, kayaks, sailboats, 

surfboards, and sailboards. There are numerous opportunities to fish in the surf, from piers, in small 

boats in the sounds and streams, and from large boats in the ocean. 

A variety of agencies and organizations provide environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities: the Service at Alligator River and Pocosin Lakes NWRs, the National Park Service 

at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the State of North Carolina at Pettigrew, Goose Creek, 

and Jockey’s Ridge State Parks and the State Aquarium, the Partnership for the Sounds at the 

Estuarium in Washington, the town of Manteo at Roanoke Island Festival Park, and the Nature 

Conservancy at Nags Head Woods. 

Many of the festivals in the area are focused on natural resources including Wings over Water 

throughout the county and Wildfest in Manteo. There is at least one fishing tournament every 

month from May to November. The Nature Conservancy at Nags Head Woods holds weeklong 

ecocamps throughout the summer. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Table 9. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties 

County Average 

Income1

Poverty 

Rate (%)1

Average 2004

Unemployment

Rate (%)2

2000 

Population1 Population Trend1

N. Carolina $35,320 12.6 5.5 +21% since 1990 

Counties in the Vicinity of Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Hyde $23,568 24.8 7.2 5,826 -37% since 1900 

Other Northeastern North Carolina Counties 

Beaufort $28,614 17.4 6.9 44,958 +6% since 1990 

Bertie $22,816 12.6 8.2 19,773 Same as 1990 

Camden $35,423 12.2 3.8 6,885 +16% since 1990 

Carteret $34,348 11.8 4.7 59,383 +13% since 1990 

Chowan $27,900 18.7 4.9 14,526 +7% since 1990 

Craven $33,214 13.8 4.9 91,436 +12% since 1990 

Currituck $36,287 10.8 2.8 18,190 +32% since 1990 

Dare $35,258 8.1 5.1 29,967 +32% since 1990 

Gates $30,087 15.4 4.2 10,516 Same as 1900 

Halifax $24,471 23.6 8.1 57,370 Same as 1950 

Hertford $23,724 23.1 8.0 22,601 Same as 1960 

Martin $26,058 20.1 7.1 25,593 Same as 1940 

Northampton $24,218 23.1 7.3 22,086 Same as 1980 

Pamlico $28,629 16.8 4.7 12,934 +14% since 1990 

Pasquotank $29,305 19.0 4.7 34,897 +11% since 1990 

Perquimens $26,489 19.5 4.8 11,368 Same as 1920 

Tyrrell $21,616 25.7 7.8 4,149 -17% since 1900 

Washington $27,726 20.5 7.3 13,723 Same as 1960 

1

 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of the United States 

2

 North Carolina Economic Security Commission, December, 2004 
36 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS 

Fish and wildlife are the focus of the refuge, but they are also important to the local economy. First, a 

considerable commercial fishery is present in area streams, lakes, and sounds. Striped bass, red 

drum, flounder, speckled trout, and gray trout are the major species harvested. Second, hunting and 

fishing are economically important to local businesses, both directly as the local population spends 

money and indirectly as an attraction that draws sportsmen from outside the county. 

Unfortunately, water pollution, channel dredging, and wetland clearing and draining have led to the 

loss of valuable fishery spawning grounds and the loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In the 

attempt to protect and restore some of these resources, Swanquarter NWR serves an important role, 

not only by providing habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, but also as a place where 

people can go to enjoy these resources through wildlife observation, wildlife photography, or more 

directly through fishing and hunting. 

There have been no studies performed on Swanquarter NWR or any other refuges in North Carolina 

on which to estimate the economic impact of outdoor recreation. The Service has surveyed all 

wildlife-dependent recreation participants in North Carolina. There has been a study of visitors to the 

interpretive facilities of a non-governmental organization in northeastern North Carolina. There are 

also numerous studies of ecotourists and birdwatchers on national wildlife refuges and other areas 

throughout the United States. 

The Service surveyed participants in wildlife dependent recreation in North Carolina in 2001. The survey 

documented an average expenditure of $69 per day by anglers, $74 per day by hunters, and $199 per 

day by wildlife observers and photographers. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001) 

The Partnership for the Sounds sponsored a study of the economic impact of their facilities. The 

study demonstrated that the average visitor spent $108 per visit, with a range of $63.70 to $332.55 

per day (Vogelsong 2001). A similar study of visitors at the Chincoteague 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 the 

shorebird migration spent $130 per day (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2000). 

Birdwatchers on eight national wildlife refuges in New Jersey reported a range of expenditures from 

$25 to $41 per day (Kerlinger 1994). 

Ecotourists on Dauphin Island, Alabama, spent an average of $60 per visitor per day (Kerlinger 1999). 

Bird watchers on High Island, Texas, from the local area reported an average expenditure of $46 per 

day: and non-residents reported $693 per trip (Eubanks, Kerlinger, Payne 1993). The average visitor 

to the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail spent $78 per day (Eubanks and Stoll 1999). 

Studies at the Santa Ana NWR in south Texas demonstrated a range of expenditures from $88 to 

$145 per day on nature based tourist activities. The Laguna Atascosa NWR in south Texas reported 

a range of $83 to $117 per day (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997). 

Bird watchers at the Salton Sea NWR in California spent an average of $57 per day (National 

Audubon Society 1998). 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

With improved facilities and staffing, Swanquarter NWR can continue to serve as an important 

commodity in the economic life of the community. Eco-tourism, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, wildlife photography, and environmental interpretation are increasingly being seen as a 

desirable industry. As the population increases and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife 

decreases, the refuge may become even more important to the local community. It can benefit the 

community directly by providing recreational opportunities for the local population, and indirectly by 

attracting tourists from outside the county to generate additional dollars to the local economy. 

TOURISM 

Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks of Dare, Currituck, and Hyde counties every year. Tourism in 

the area is based on the outdoor recreation opportunities described above and the cultural attractions in 

the area. Roanoke Island, on which Manteo is located, was the birthplace of Virginia Dare, the first 

English child born in America. The state legislature named the county in her honor. The county seat in 

Manteo has a historic district featuring old homes and limited development along the streams and the 

sound. Manteo also features Roanoke Island Festival Park, with a historic visitor’s center and a replica of 

the Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabethan Gardens managed by the National Park Service as a replica of a 

formal English garden, and Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, the site of the first settlement. 

Other cultural attractions include the National Park Service’s Wright Brothers Memorial, Bodie Island 

Lighthouse, and Cape Hatteras Lighthouse; North Carolina Maritime Museum; the Frisco Native 

American Museum; and the Chicamocomico Lifesaving Station. 

Cultural resources are the basis of many events that attract tourists: historical workshops, 

lectures, and programs at the North Carolina Maritime Museum; tours of historic homes and their 

gardens; readings of books on historical themes; Virginia Dare’s Birthday, National Aviation Day 

and Week at the Wright Brothers Memorial; Freedman’s Colony Celebration at Festival Park, and 

an Antique Fair at Festival Park. 

Swanquarter NWR and the other nearby refuges serve as additional attractions to tourists visiting the 

area at least seasonally. If the refuge had more facilities and staffing, tourists might stay longer in the 

area to enjoy the opportunities provided for wildlife-dependent recreation and interpretation. This 

could generate more income for the local economy. 

TRANSPORTATION 

In its early days, residents of the area relied on water transportation. The rivers and streams that 

crisscross and border the county served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication 

between almost every community in the area. Some of the important waterways in the area were the 

Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds and the Alligator River. While today these waterways are no longer 

necessary for most transportation needs of the county, they are still important as sources of income 

and for recreation. Ferries still provide access across the sounds. A ferry connects Swan Quarter to 

the outer banks where millions of tourists spend their vacations. 

In the twentieth century, with the popularity of automobiles, state and federal governments developed 

a network of highways connecting Hyde County to all areas in the eastern United States. U.S 

Highway 264 runs just south of the refuge and connects population centers in central North Carolina 

and Interstate 95 to Hyde County. State Route 94 runs north and south from Columbia and Tyrrell 

County to the refuge and connects Hyde County with U.S Highway 64. A number of smaller roads 

connect the various communities in the area. In addition, there are international airports in Raleigh, 

North Carolina, and Norfolk/Virginia Beach, Virginia. 
38 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Visitors can reach Swanquarter NWR via U.S. Highway 264. 

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Hyde County is a rural county in predominantly rural northeastern 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 art galleries. There has been a summer-long production of “The 

Lost Colony” annually at the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site commemorating the first English 

settlers on Roanoke Island in Dare County since 1936. Greenville, North Carolina, and East Carolina 

University, located 60 miles west of the refuge, offer the nearest opportunities for large theatrical or 

musical performances. Norfolk, Virginia, located 100 miles to the north, has the area’s largest art 

museums and venues for performing arts with national touring collections and companies. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The Swanquarter NWR currently covers 16,411 acres. The approved acquisition boundary is also 

16,411 acres (Table 1, Figure 6). 

There are many other protected areas in the vicinity of the refuge. The Service manages the 50,180-

acre Mattamuskeet NWR, 110,106-acre Pocosin Lakes NWR, and 152,260-acre Alligator River NWR. 

The NCWRC manages a total of 88,217 acres in Tyrrell, Hyde, Dare, and Washington counties: 

31,057-acre Gull Rock Game Land, 41,200 acres of the Dare County Bombing Range as Game 

Lands, 617-acre Scuppernong Game Land, 1,825-acre Lantern Acres Game Land, 614-acre Pungo 

River Game Land, 5,426-acre Bachelor Bay Game Land, 5,482-acre Van Swamp Game Land, 600-

acre J. Morgan Futch Game Land, and 1,394-acre New Lake Game Land. 

The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation manages the Pettigrew State Park (1,273 acres 

of land and 16,600 acres of water on Lake Phelps) in Washington County, the 1,665-acre Goose 

Creek State Park in Washington, and the 426-acre Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Dare County. The 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management protects the 18,000-acre Buckridge Coastal Reserve 

in southeastern Tyrrell County. 

The Conservation Fund owns the 9,700-acre Palmetto Peartree Preserve in northeastern Tyrrell 

County. The Nature Conservancy protects the 653-acre Scuppernong River Preserve in 

northwestern Tyrrell County. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Figure 6. Current boundary of the Swanquarter NWR 
40 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

The refuge is an important link to the other natural areas that together make outdoor recreation 

experiences possible. Carefully selected and managed staff, programs, and facilities will provide the 

wildlife-dependent environmental education, interpretation, and recreation opportunities the refuge’s 

visitors expect. A few commercial businesses have interests in guiding canoeing and kayaking tours 

and angling adventures. 

Hunting 

The Service allows waterfowl hunting on a portion of the refuge. The best access for hunting is from 

the Pamlico Sound by boat. Refuge hunting regulations are in keeping with the management 

objectives to ensure the activity continues at a level compatible with achievement of maintaining 

optimum populations of hunted species and other species that may be impacted by the hunt. For 

refuge hunts, a State license is required, and all State regulations apply. 

Fishing 

Swanquarter NWR offers fishing in Pamlico Sound from the Bell Island Pier and the adjacent 

waterbodies from March 1 to October 1. Spotted sea trout, redfish (puppy drum), and flounder are 

the most commonly sought species. State regulations apply; a State Fishing license is required for 

refuge fishing in most cases. 

Environmental Education 

Swanquarter NWR does not currently offer planned education programs. The staff does conduct 

programs when teachers request them if staff is available. University professors utilize the refuge as 

an outdoor classroom and research site. There are currently no visitor center or education facilities at 

Swanquarter NWR. The administrative office for Swanquarter NWR is on the Mattamuskeet NWR 

next to Mattamuskeet Lodge and has literature about the refuge. 

The refuge participates actively in an intern program, affording more specific environmental education 

opportunities to college students. The bookstores at Mattamuskeet and Pea Island NWRs on the Outer 

Banks of Dare County offer numerous books on the wildlife specific to Swanquarter NWR. 

Interpretation

Swanquarter NWR does not currently offer interpretive programs at the refuge. At the request of teachers 

or other community leaders, the staff, if available, will conduct activities or talks to convey messages 

related to the refuge wildlife and natural resources. In the past, a Swanquarter NWR brochure was made 

available to the public at the administrative office located on Mattamuskeet NWR. 

Wildlife Observation 

Opportunities are available to observe waterfowl and wading birds in Pamlico Sound, estuaries, and 

refuge ditches along the gravel road to the Bell Island Pier. Boating, canoeing, and kayaking 

opportunities are available for unique wildlife observation opportunities. The black bear population in 

Hyde County is one of the largest in northeastern North Carolina, and many visitors find it quite easy 

to get a glimpse of a bear in the wild. More fortunate visitors observe a red wolf, an alligator, or a 

bald eagle; however, these observations are usually a result of just being in the right place at the right 

time. While birdwatching is not a major attraction here, there is a wide variety of songbirds on the 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

refuge, and there is ample opportunity to view reptiles and small mammals. A number of plant 

species, terrestrial and hydrophytic, as well as the mature loblolly pine trees with an understory of 

saltmeadow cordgrass, are also readily observed. 

Wildlife Photography 

The waterbird and mammalian populations of Swanquarter NWR, together with the gravel roads and 

Bell Island Pier, offer unlimited opportunities for landside wildlife photography. Canoe and kayak trips 

on the Pamlico Sound and through backwaters of the refuge offer waterfront photographic 

opportunities. But, as is true with wildlife photography in most places, a great deal of patience and 

perseverance is needed to accomplish professional quality shots. 

Public Involvement 

The refuge offers volunteer opportunities for the general public, as well as organizations. These 

opportunities may include conducting wildlife surveys, leading wildlife tours, or presenting programs 

at area schools. Volunteers also often share their experiences with refuge visitors who may 

otherwise have little knowledge of the protection and management efforts conducted by volunteers 

and refuge staff to benefit wildlife. 

The intern program, while providing unique experiences for college students and graduates geared 

towards careers in environmental sciences, also provides additional volunteer service to maintain the 

high standards of the refuge. This program instills a sense of pride and public stewardship among 

the volunteers, ensures them of their role in ownership of the land, and heightens awareness about 

the critical need for protection of the human/natural interactions. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

The three national wildlife refuges--Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island were combined 

and are managed as one complex by the Service. Today, refuge staff administers Mattamuskeet, 

Swanquarter, and Cedar Island NWRs from an office located at the Mattamuskeet NWR in southcentral Hyde County. The current refuge staff is identified in Table 10. 

Refuge Infrastructure

There is very little infrastructure at the Swanquarter NWR. More than half the refuge is a wilderness 

area. One road provides access to the refuge from U.S. Highway 264 to the Bell Island Pier. A spur 

road extends from the entry road east approximately 2 miles. Currently there is one portable 

restroom located at the Bell Island Pier parking lot for public use. All former refuge administration 

buildings have been removed. 
42 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 10. Staff of Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island NWRs - 2007 

Position Status 

Percent of 

Time on 

Mattamuskeet 

Percent of 

Time on 

Swanquarter 

Percent of 

Time on 

Cedar Island 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13 PFT 85 5 10 

Assistant Manager, GS-0485-12 PFT 85 5 10 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), 

GS-0025-09 

PFT 90 10 0 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-09 PFT 100 0 0 

Heavy Mobile Equipment Operator, 

WG-5803-10 

PFT 100 0 0 

Crane Operator, WG-5725-10 PFT 100 0 0 

Maintenance Worker, 

WG-4749-08 

PFT 95 5 0 

Maintenance Worker, 

WG-4749-08 

PFT 0 0 100 

Forestry Technician, 

GS-0462-05 (Fire) 

PFT 90 10 0 

PFT = permanent full time, Fire = funded by fire budget 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

III. Plan Development 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and 

wildlife protection, habitat restoration, and management of threatened and endangered species. 

Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as applicable local 

ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining additional input 

by compiling a mailing list of likely interested government agencies, non-governmental agencies, 

businesses, and individual citizens. The Service invited these agencies, organizations, businesses, 

and citizens to participate in six public scoping meetings held on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 

2001 in Washington, Plymouth, Columbia, Swanquarter, and Manns Harbor, North Carolina. The 

planning team introduced the audience to the refuge and its planning process and asked them to 

identify their issues and concerns. The Service published announcements giving the location, date, 

and time for the public meeting in the Federal Register, and legal notices in local newspapers. The 

team also sent news releases to local newspapers and public service announcements to television 

and radio stations. Service personnel placed fifty posters announcing the meeting in local post 

offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The Service expanded the planning team’s identified issues and concerns to include those 

generated by the agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. 

These issues and concerns formed the basis for the development and comparison of the different 

alternatives described in the EA. A summary of the public scoping comments and the Service 

responses are provided in Appendix D. 

All public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues important to the 

public fall outside the scope of the decision to be made within this planning process. The team 

considered all issues that were raised throughout the planning process, and has developed a plan 

that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues. The team identified 

those issues that, in the team’s best professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A 

summary of the significant issues follows. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals are important 

responsibilities delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Three threatened or 

endangered animals use, or could use, Swanquarter NWR: the red-cockaded woodpecker, red wolf, 

and American alligator. 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers nest in pines on the southern part of the Alligator River NWR, 30 

miles east of the Swanquarter NWR, and the northeastern corner of the Pocosin Lakes NWR, 30 

miles north of the Swanquarter NWR. A breeding population also occurs on the adjacent 25,318-

acre Gull Rock Gameland Area, which borders the east side of the refuge. Adequate pine habitat 

does exist on the Swanquarter NWR; however, no aerial surveys have been conducted to 

determine the presence of a population. To provide optimal habitat for the red-cockaded 

woodpeckers at the Swanquarter NWR would require active management of the mixed 

pine/hardwood forest. 
44 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

The Service introduced red wolves to the area in 1987. The first animals were captive-bred animals 

that were offspring of the last wild red wolves in existence. The total population on the AlbemarlePamlico Peninsula is approximately 100 adults. Breeding pairs of red wolves occur on the adjacent 

Gull Rock Gamelands area but not on Swanquarter NWR; however, portions of the refuge are used 

by red wolves for hunting. There is a disparity in public attitudes and opinions toward the red wolves. 

Some local residents resent the Federal Government for introducing a predator to the area. Other 

residents appreciate the value of the red wolves in nature. 

American alligators are listed as threatened due to their similarity of appearance to crocodiles. 

Alligators do live and reproduce in the area in small numbers; however, their exact population is 

uncertain. They rely on marshes with healthy vegetation to survive. The careful management of 

refuge lands and other private and public lands adjacent to the refuge is very important to the 

persistence of that vegetation. 

Waterfowl 

The management of the refuge marshes and the open water of the Pamlico Sound (within the 

Proclamation Boundary) for waterfowl is important for meeting the refuge’s purposes. Habitat loss 

and fragmentation negatively affect waterfowl. In addition, increased turbidity in open waters is 

negatively impacting submerged aquatic vegetation upon which waterfowl feed. The refuge must 

maintain the marshes and open water to meet waterfowl habitat needs, including sufficient sanctuary 

areas that provide undisturbed resting and feeding areas. In doing so, the refuge supports waterfowl 

populations, which, in turn, provide hunting and wildlife observation opportunities. Providing 

undisturbed waterfowl sanctuaries and hunting opportunities are both important goals which must be 

carefully balanced to meet the needs of waterfowl, as well as hunters. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds, which are predominantly songbirds, are a species group of special 

management concern. Swanquarter NWR was created in accordance with the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929. Habitat loss and fragmentation, along with associated predation, have 

negatively impacted neotropical migratory bird populations. Providing habitat (i.e., pocosins, 

hardwood forests, pine forests, and brackish marshes) for these birds is essential to fulfilling the 

refuge’s purpose. Strategic forest and marsh habitat management, compatible with the refuge’s 

waterfowl habitat objectives, would contribute to the habitat needs of neotropical migratory birds, and 

provide observation opportunities for birders. 

Nuisance Species 

Invasive and exotic organisms which occur on the refuge include common reed (Phragmites 

australis), nutria (Myocaster coypus), and fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). Refuge personnel monitor 

the impact of these exotic species and determine control options as necessary. Compared to many 

southeastern refuges, Swanquarter NWR is relatively intact with native vegetation and vertebrates. 

Non-native species currently occur at relatively low levels and control actions are therefore minimal. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT

Global Warming and Sea Level Rise 

The entire refuge is within a few feet of sea level. Marshes and forests cover the majority of the 

refuge. Scientists predict that the sea level along the North Carolina coast will rise from 2 to 3 feet in 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

the next 100 years due to global warming. The Sea Level Affecting Marsh Model (SLAMM) predicts 

that by 2025 the sea level at Swanquarter NWR will rise between a minimum of 0.11 meters to a 

possible maximum of 0.21 meters; by 2050 it will rise between a minimum of 0.20 meters and a 

maximum of 0.42 meters; and by 2100 it will rise between a minimum of 0.37 meters and a maximum 

of 0.94 meters. SLAMM projects the amount of dry land on the refuge would decrease and possibly 

be eliminated, and total acres of transitional salt marsh, tidal flats, and estuarine open water would 

increase. That rise in water levels has initiated change and will continue to change the types of 

vegetative cover on the refuge. Grass-dominated brackish and freshwater marshes will expand into 

areas currently covered by loblolly and pond pine forests. 

As the habitats change, the wildlife species that inhabit those habitats will also change. Some 

species of waterfowl, songbirds, and mammals will lose access to cavities as trees decay and fall. 

Freshwater marshes will expand into former loblolly and pond pine forests and provide new marsh 

habitat for species of songbirds and waterfowl which are being displaced by the loss of marsh habitat 

adjacent to Pamlico Sound. The Service will be studying global warming and sea level rise to 

develop a system-wide strategy for management. 

Brackish Marsh 

Much of the natural brackish marshes in the region had a natural fire frequency of 1 to 3 years 

but has endured fire exclusion over the past half century or longer. Without prescribed fire, the 

marshes suffer from a lack of species diversity allowing only one to three species to dominate. 

The marshes at Swanquarter NWR are adjacent to Pamlico Sound; therefore large mats of thatch 

and storm debris drift up in long wide tide lines (storm rack), 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. However, some 

species do benefit by the presence of storm rack. Forester’s terns nest exclusively on storm rack 

and would not breed in the Pamlico Sound region without it. 

Forests 

The forest lands at Swanquarter NWR support, or have the potential to support, the red-cockaded 

woodpecker, migrating songbirds, and other indigenous wildlife such as the white-tailed deer. These 

habitats must be managed to maintain diversity of plant species, and to maintain the characteristics 

required by the wildlife that inhabits, or could inhabit, these forests. Management practices that could 

be used include prescribed fire, thinning, and timber harvesting. 

Open Water 

Increased turbidity in open waters is an issue. Suspended solids and other solids cloud the water, 

blocking sunlight from submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Excessive amounts of sediment may 

cover the plants completely. There is widespread recognition by the Service, state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the general public that SAV is on the decline in the region. SAV, a 

habitat itself, provides food and shelter for diverse communities of waterfowl, fish, shellfish, and 

invertebrates. The regional SAV decline has resulted in corresponding declines in migrating diving 

duck populations and fish nursery productivity. Like all green plants, SAV produces oxygen, which is 

important to the open water habitat. SAV also filters and traps sediment, which can bury bottom 

dwelling organisms like oysters. Currently, there is no water quality monitoring or monitoring of SAV 

at the Swanquarter NWR. 
46 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION

Cultural Resources 

There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The staff must conduct all 

management activities in a manner that avoids compromising sensitive sites. 

Law Enforcement and Refuge Regulation 

The refuge enforces applicable laws and regulations through the use of one full-time law enforcement 

officer shared with Mattamuskeet, Pocosin Lakes, and Cedar Island NWRs and headquartered at 

Mattamuskeet NWR. The combined areas total nearly 200,000 acres and require drives of as much 

as 4 hours between some areas. The extensive size of the territory greatly limits the amount of actual 

law enforcement conducted. There are concerns that illegal hunting activities at Swanquarter NWR 

are not being addressed adequately. 

VISITOR SERVICES

The Improvement Act established six priority wildlife-dependent public uses that are allowed on 

refuge lands when they are compatible and desirable for that specific refuge and its purposes. These 

priority public uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. Swanquarter NWR could support the priority public uses. Wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography attract thousands of visitors to Swanquarter NWR annually. 

The refuge’s Bell Island Pier provides fishing access to the Pamlico Sound. The Service permits 

hunting for waterfowl on 6,120 acres of marsh on the eastern side of the refuge during state hunting 

seasons. The refuge does not allow waterfowl hunting within the Proclamation Boundary of the 

Pamlico Sound or in other areas of the refuge. Currently, no educational or interpretive activities are 

conducted at the refuge. Accessing the refuge by motor vehicle, bicycle, and boat is an important 

issue in the public use program. 

Hunting and Fishing 

Currently, the Service permits hunting for waterfowl on Swanquarter NWR. An average of 400 

hunters participates annually. The Service provides opportunities for approximately 50,000 

angler-use days annually. People can fish from Bell Island Pier, from the shoreline, and from 

boats. Hunting and fishing are integral parts of rural North Carolina culture. It is not surprising 

that there is considerable state and local interest in providing additional hunting opportunities, 

especially for black bear, which is hunted on private lands surrounding the refuge. Any expanded 

hunting and fishing opportunities will be dependent upon providing safe, quality experiences that 

are compatible with refuge purposes. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

The refuge does not conduct planned public tours, educational programs, or interpretive 

programs. Local residents expressed interest in the refuge providing ecotourism opportunities, 

creating new public use programs, improving signage, and incorporating local culture and 

heritage of the area into refuge programs. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

 

Staffing and Facilities 

The staff headquartered at the Mattamuskeet NWR manages Swanquarter NWR. The lack of staff at 

Mattamuskeet NWR and assigned specifically to Swanquarter NWR and the lack of facilities have 

prevented the refuge from realizing its full potential. The refuge conducts too few wildlife inventories; 

has incomplete habitat/wildlife management plans; has few public use programs and facilities; and is 

not able to provide environmental education, interpretation, or wildlife observation opportunities. 

Comments received at the public scoping meetings suggested the refuge utilize volunteers for “refuge 

workdays,” manpower and maintenance, or other needs. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land 

that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

inhabitation, and is managed so as to conserve its natural conditions and which: 

• Generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint 

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

• Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

• Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size. 

• Does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management at the time of review; and 

• May contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

Approximately 8,800 acres of Swanquarter NWR are part of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. The Swanquarter Wilderness Area comprises about 54 percent of the total refuge. The 

remaining refuge lands total approximately 7,600 acres. However, these lands are not contiguous, and 

the largest tract contains the only two roads on the refuge, one of which provides access to the Bell Island 

Pier. Therefore, no additional lands meet the conditions to consider them possible wilderness areas. 
48 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats, considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. 

A requirement of the Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, 

and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife 

and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six priority wildlife-dependent public uses. 

These uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. 

Described below is the proposed CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This 

proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that would be used to 

achieve the refuge vision. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: Alternatives A – Current Management – 

No Action; B – Moderately Expanded Program; and C – Optimally Expand Programs. Each of these 

alternatives is described in the EA. The Service chose Alternative B – Moderately Expanded 

Programs – as the proposed management direction. 

Implementing the proposed alternative would result in enhanced wildlife populations and related 

habitats over the next 15 years. It also provides visitors with more opportunities to enjoy wildlifebased recreation. 

The refuge was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, therefore 

the plan focuses on providing quality habitat for migrating birds, as well as threatened and 

endangered species, particularly the red-cockaded woodpecker, the red wolf, and the American 

alligator, as well as other waterfowl and fish. The need for extensive inventorying and monitoring 

for baseline data is recognized. 

One of the primary objectives of the proposed plan is to improve the visitors’ access and experience. The 

plan provides greater opportunities for hunting and fishing by increasing the number of hunting and angler 

use days, and introducing bow hunting for white-tailed deer. Wildlife observation and wildlife photography 

opportunities would be enhanced by the development of a trail or boardwalk within 10 years of CCP 

approval, by providing a wildlife list for the refuge, and by making wildlife information accessible to visitors. 

Environmental education and interpretation would also be a focus area for the refuge. 

Refuge staff, partners, and volunteers in cooperation would provide the services required to 

protect and manage the refuge for the fish and wildlife resources, and for the use and enjoyment 

of the American people. 

VISION 

Swanquarter NWR functions as a vital part of the National Wildlife Refuge System as an important 

wintering area for migratory birds, such as ducks, geese, and swans, on the Atlantic flyway. The 

refuge maintains breeding habitat for a variety of migratory birds. The refuge protects and enhances 

a healthy brackish marsh ecosystem and an upland forest ecosystem, and maintains the natural and 
50 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

primitive character of the large wilderness area. The refuge provides habitat for threatened and 

endangered animals, particularly the red-cockaded woodpecker, red wolf, and American alligator. 

Visitors enjoy quality recreation opportunities for fishing by boat or from the Bell Island pier, crabbing, 

waterfowl and deer hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Visitors understand and 

appreciate the significance of the north Pamlico Sound ecosystems and the importance of refuge 

management activities. 

The refuge staff works with partners and volunteers to achieve the refuge’s goals. Essential scientific 

information is garnered through research conducted at Swanquarter NWR in cooperation with 

government agencies, non-governmental agencies, universities, and others. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns, 

and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public. Chapter V, 

Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated with the various strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the Improvement Act, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the purposes and 

vision of Swanquarter NWR. The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and 

strategies within the next 15 years. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Goal 

Conserve, enhance, and maintain healthy populations of migratory birds, wildlife, fish, and plants, 

including federal and state threatened and endangered species. 

Objective 

Within one to five years after reaching minimum staffing levels, conduct baseline surveys of birds, 

mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians to document species composition and population 

parameters, and conduct routine monitoring of wildlife. 

Discussion: 

Wildlife populations need to be adequately surveyed and monitored to determine if species exist on 

the refuge, to establish population trends, to identify management needs, and to evaluate the impact 

of management actions. If routine monitoring is not conducted, refuge staff would not be able to 

detect subtle changes in species or populations, which should trigger management changes. 

Monitoring after prescribed burns is essential to understanding the effects of the burn on the biota, 

such as determining the impacts or multiple ignition points on “secret birds” or determining if the burn 

helps enhance vegetative diversity. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Strategies: 

• Assist cooperating agencies and universities in conducting baseline surveys and other 

studies of water birds, other birds, fish, and other wildlife. 

• Document population densities of waterfowl, marsh birds, wading birds, and colonial 

nesting birds annually. 

• Conduct annual bimonthly aerial surveys and weekly ground surveys of waterfowl during 

the migration period (November-February). 

• Conduct midwinter waterfowl survey. 

• Conduct annual brood surveys of American black duck. 

• Annually monitor and investigate mortality of waterfowl from disease. 

• Support special banding programs as directed by the Service. 

• Conduct breeding season callback surveys of marsh birds every ten days along suitable 

habitat. 

• Conduct annual nesting and recruitment survey of wading and colonial nesting birds. 

• Conduct annual surveys to document the presence of threatened and endangered 

species. 

• Cooperate with the Red Wolf Recovery Program. 

• Work with volunteers to establish and conduct Christmas bird counts. 

• Conduct herd health checks on white-tailed deer every five years in cooperation with 

Southeastern Wildlife Disease Study Group. 

• Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to monitor and manage disease in wildlife as 

requested. 

• Monitor wildlife in conjunction with other activities, and initiate investigations as needed. 

• Staff and public note unusual wildlife observations. 

• Monitor the biotic community response to prescribed fire, and adjust Fire Management 

Plan as needed. 

• Evaluate the impacts of management activities on wildlife and adapt management as 

needed. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Goal 

Protect and enhance diverse habitats, rare plant assemblages, and nursery areas associated with the 

Pamlico-Core Sounds and the mid-Atlantic coastal plain. 

Discussion: 

Providing quality habitat for migrating birds, threatened and endangered species, fish and other 

wildlife is one of the purposes of the refuge. Animals need areas for nesting, resting, breeding, 

hunting, and feeding, and different species require different types of healthy habitat. Habitat loss and 

fragmentation negatively affect fish and wildlife. 

Objective 

Throughout the 15-year life of the CCP, actively manage and maintain quality habitat for threatened 

and endangered species that could and/or do utilize the refuge. 
52 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: 

By providing quality habitat for threatened and endangered species the Service would promote 

increased populations of these species. The red-cockaded woodpecker requires healthy stands of 

mixed pine hardwood forest, the American alligator requires healthy marsh habitat, and the red wolf 

needs adequate hunting grounds. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct prescribed burning in accordance with the Fire Management Plan, being mindful 

that Forester’s tern nest exclusively on storm rack along the perimeter of marsh areas. 

• Conduct thinning, timber harvesting of forests as needed. 

• Monitor and control nuisance and invasive species as needed by use of approved 

chemicals, by physical removal, or by prescribed burning. 

• Conduct surveys to determine the distribution of sensitive joint vetch, and/or suitable 

habitat for sensitive joint vetch on the refuge. 

Objective

Throughout the 15-year life of the CCP, actively manage and maintain quality habitat for neotropical 

migratory birds (songbirds). 

Discussion: 

Neotropical migratory birds utilize pocosins, hardwood forests, pine forests, and brackish marshes on 

the refuge. Providing habitat for these birds is in adherence with one of the refuge’s purposes. 

Healthy populations of songbirds at the refuge provide visitors with good observation opportunities. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct prescribed burning in accordance with the Fire Management Plan, being mindful 

that Forester’s tern nest exclusively on storm rack along the perimeter of marsh areas. 

• Conduct thinning, timber harvesting of forests as needed. 

• Monitor and control nuisance and invasive species as needed by use of approved 

chemicals, by physical removal processes, or by prescribed burning. 

Objective

Throughout the 15-year life of the CCP, actively manage and maintain quality habitat for waterfowl 

and fish. 

Discussion: 

Waterfowl utilize the marshes and open water areas of the refuge. Submerged aquatic vegetation in 

the open water provides food and shelter for diverse communities of waterfowl, fish, shellfish, and 

invertebrates. Providing for waterfowl and fish is one of the refuge’s purposes which must be 

balanced with providing opportunities for hunters and fishermen. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Strategies: 

• Conduct prescribed burning in accordance with the Fire Management Plan, being mindful 

that Forester’s tern nest exclusively on storm rack along the perimeter of marsh areas. 

• Cooperate with other agencies to identify and control erosion and sedimentation in and 

around the refuge to protect SAV. 

• Monitor and control nuisance and invasive species as needed by use of approved 

chemicals, by physical removal processes, or by prescribed burning. 

• Use only approved herbicides in accordance with label instructions when needed. 

• Support water quality monitoring conducted by university and state agencies. 

• Develop and implement a water quality and SAV monitoring plan within three years of 

reaching minimum staffing levels. 

• Check, maintain, and clean wood duck boxes as needed. 

Objective

Throughout the 15-year life of the CCP, maintain the health, integrity, and natural condition of the 

8,800 acre wilderness area by use of proper management. 

Discussion: 

Wilderness areas provide “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation.” It is an area of “undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, 

without permanent improvement or human habitation.” “It generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable” (Wilderness 

Act of 1964). Management of the wilderness area takes a somewhat hands-off approach. 

Strategies: 

• Inventory wilderness ecosystems to collect baseline data. Identify indicators and develop 

monitoring standards for those elements critical to ecological integrity. Provide feedback 

for adaptive management. 

• Conduct prescribed burning, where necessary, to mimic the natural fire cycle. 

• Monitor air quality by operation of IMPROVE site weekly. 

• Implement integrated exotic plant and animal management to include prevention, 

detection, quick elimination of spot infestations, and control of major occurrences, as 

needed. 

Objective 

Protect ecologically important land and resources on and near the refuge throughout the 15-year life 

of the CCP. 

Strategies 

• Protect existing refuge lands and purchase adjacent lands that are clearly beneficial to 

wildlife. (Purchased property acreage would total less than 10 percent of the existing 

refuge lands and would be purchased from willing landowners.) 

• Survey and post boundaries as needed. 

• Identify and pursue funding to purchase key properties to add to the refuge. 
54 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

• Assist adjacent landowners to prevent spread of noxious weeds onto the refuge. 

• Identify and monitor non-native pest animals (e.g., nutria, fire ants) that conflict with refuge 

objectives annually. 

• Develop and implement a Noxious Animal Management Plan within 5 years of reaching 

minimum staffing levels. 

• Cooperate with the State Health Department to monitor for mosquito born diseases. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Goal

Protect archaeological, cultural, and historic resources for future generations as examples of human 

interaction with the natural environment. 

Discussion: 

There are no known cultural resources on Swanquarter NWR. However, there may be resources 

unseen that could be disturbed by construction or land disturbance. 

Objective

Integrate cultural resource preservation into refuge programs, operations, and management plans to 

protect cultural resources in perpetuity. 

Strategies: 

• Prior to any non-emergency, ground-disturbing activity, the refuge will complete the 

“Request for Cultural Review Compliance” form and forward it to the Regional 

Archaeologist for review. 

• If cultural resources are discovered in an area, all efforts will be made to protect them (i.e., 

halting heavy equipment operation in the vicinity, and otherwise not further disturbing the 

site). 

• When step-down plans (e.g., fire management, road maintenance, safety, and emergency 

response) are written or rewritten for all refuge programs, a section addressing cultural 

resource management will be included. 

• Within 15-year life of the CCP, prepare and begin to implement a Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Goal

Develop programs and facilities to increase public use opportunities, including hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, on the 

Swanquarter NWR. 

Objective

Within five years of CCP approval, provide annual opportunities for public hunting use days as 

follows: waterfowl – 400-use-days; white-tailed deer – 100-use-days. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Discussion: 

This CCP improves on the current management by increasing the level of waterfowl hunting and 

initiating a deer hunting program with archery equipment. 

Strategies: 

• Provide waterfowl hunting opportunities in hunts on 6,000 acres for about 400 hunter days 

annually. 

• Provide opportunities for deer hunting with archery equipment for about 100 hunter days 

on the upland portions of the refuge within five years. 

• Cooperate with the NCWRC on enforcement of hunting regulations on a continuous basis. 

• Allow use of guides for waterfowl hunting and closely control guiding program through the 

use of special use permits. 

Objective

Within five years of CCP approval, provide fishing opportunities from the Bell Island Pier and from the 

shorelines of the entire refuge for 55,000-angler-use-days, twelve months each year. 

Discussion: 

This plan improves on the current management by increasing the level of angler use. 

Strategies: 

• Provide access for disabled anglers on the Bell Island Pier. 

• Cooperate with the NCWRC on enforcement of fishing and boating regulations on a 

continuous basis. 

• Increase the availability of refuge website information which is useful to fishermen 

including maps, hazards, species information, and links to tide and nautical charts. 

Objective

Throughout the 15-year life of the CCP, facilitate wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

by maintaining the facilities and/or developing new facilities and tools for the public. 

Discussion: 

The possibility of sighting songbirds, other migrating birds, pelicans, white-tailed deer, and other resident 

wildlife is an attribute of Swanquarter NWR. Currently, the entrance road, a spur road, and the Bell Island 

Pier are the featured areas for wildlife observation and wildlife photography. Enhancing the facilities 

would provide more opportunities for sightings and improve the visitor experience at the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Provide maintenance on the Bell Island Pier on an annual basis, or as needed. 

• Develop and maintain one interpretive trail or boardwalk within ten years after CCP 

approval. 

• Provide a wildlife list for Swanquarter NWR. 
56 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

• Evaluate special access under permitted conditions to commercial and educational 

photographers. 

Objective

Throughout the 15-year life of the CCP, review and evaluate proposed activities, including nonwildlife dependent public uses, on an annual basis. 

Discussion: 

The refuge is currently under-utilized with respect to public use activities. Allowing commercial 

ecotours, for instance, is a viable option to provide public use opportunities and give the refuge 

visibility. However, there have been limited inquiries about ecotourism in the past. 

Strategies: 

• Review and evaluate proposed activities on a case-by-case basis. 

• Conduct appropriate use and compatibility determinations on proposed uses. 

• Review, develop conditions for, and monitor compliance for up to ten special use permits 

annually. 

Objective

Increase environmental education and interpretive opportunities for the public. The material 

presented would include information regarding the importance of marsh habitat and upland forest 

habitat to migrating birds, threatened and endangered species, and other resident wildlife; the value 

of the red wolves in nature; the refuge’s role in protecting, managing, and conserving the habitat and 

wildlife; and the value of the wilderness area. Programs could incorporate elements of local heritage 

and culture. 

Discussion: 

The refuge currently conducts environmental education or environmental interpretation programs 

upon request when able. To better appreciate the refuge and the work the Service does, visitors 

need to understand the importance of the refuge and the critical role the Service has in its 

management. Disparate and negative attitudes and opinions regarding the introduction of red wolves 

to the area could be alleviated through education. Introducing local heritage and cultural information 

into the programs could increase awareness and interest in the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct two to ten programs for local school groups annually, or as requested. 

• Host university students who are performing research on a continual basis. 

• Develop and maintain one interpretive trail or boardwalk within 10 years of CCP approval. 

• Update and revise the Swanquarter NWR brochure, and make it available within one to 

three years of CCP approval. 

• Maintain a kiosk at Swanquarter NWR and/or a visitor contact station at Mattamuskeet 

NWR with wildlife exhibits and information related to Swanquarter NWR within five years 

of CCP approval. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Objective

Increase outreach efforts and implement an outreach program within five years of reaching the 

minimum staffing level. 

Discussion: 

The refuge’s current outreach efforts are very limited. The Service proposes to actively increase 

outreach efforts to make the public aware of the wildlife, habitat, refuge management, and public use 

opportunities on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Develop news releases for major events (e.g., National Wildlife Refuge Week, National 

Fishing Day, and International Migratory Bird Day) throughout the year. 

• Conduct one program annually to celebrate National Wildlife Refuge Week, National 

Fishing Week, or International Migratory Bird Day. 

• Serve as host to and assist with a “Nature Week,” sponsored by the Hyde County 

Extension Service, or serve as host to and assist with an “Environmental Field Day,” 

sponsored by the Hyde County Soil and Water Conservation District, annually. 

• Maintain an internet website for the refuge and update annually. 

• Develop a news release at least quarterly to announce activities and regulations on the 

refuge. 

• Organize and conduct a “Refuge Workday” enlisting volunteer support annually. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal

Provide administrative support and resources to ensure that the goals and objectives for refuge 

habitats, fish and wildlife species and populations, and public use are achieved. 

Discussion: 

Refuges must have appropriate staff, facilities, equipment, and resources to accomplish their goals 

and objectives. Keeping equipment and facilities in good condition is critical to meeting refuge goals 

and objectives. 

Objective 

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, provide a full complement of 13 full-time, well-trained staff 

assigned to Mattamuskeet NWR Complex and make available to share with Swanquarter and Cedar 

Island NWRs. 

Discussion: 

Currently, nine full-time staff members are assigned to the Mattamuskeet NWR Complex, who spend 

0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) on Swanquarter NWR. 
58 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

• Staff the complex with one manager, two assistant managers, one wildlife biologist, one 

administrative office assistant, two park rangers (one law enforcement, one public use), 

one heavy equipment mechanic, one heavy equipment operator, three maintenance 

workers (one dedicated to Cedar Island), and one forestry technician (firefighter). 

• Share 1.5 FTEs from the Refuge Complex Office with Swanquarter NWR. 

• Provide the staff with professional, technical, and leadership development training 

opportunities. 

• Recognize employee performance through the employee incentive program. 

Objective

Ensure public safety and protect refuge resources by encouraging voluntary compliance and 

enforcing refuge regulations as needed. 

Discussion: 

One full-time law enforcement officer is shared with Mattamuskeet, Pocosin Lakes, and Cedar Island 

NWRs and is headquartered at Mattamuskeet NWR. There are concerns that illegal hunting and/or 

fishing activities at Swanquarter NWR are not being addressed adequately. Protecting the natural 

resources of the refuge and ensuring the safety of refuge visitors are fundamental responsibilities of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Strategies: 

• Erect signage and/or make information available to make refuge visitors aware of refuge 

regulations and safety precautions within two years after CCP approval. 

• Eliminate hazards and/or control access to hazardous areas as needed. 

• Conduct routine patrols to maintain a law enforcement presence on the refuge once 

minimum staffing levels are met. 

• Coordinate with local, county, and state law enforcement agencies to facilitate cooperation 

and assistance in law enforcement activities on a regular basis. 

• Prosecute 10-50 violations annually. 

• Monitor activities on land adjacent to the refuge with respect to threatened and 

endangered species and migratory birds once minimum staffing levels are met. 

Objective 

Implement new refuge programs and activities or enhance current programs and activities by 

coordinating with other local, state, federal, public, and private agencies within five years of 

CCP approval. 

Discussion: 

The small staff at Mattamuskeet NWR (each of whom spends only 10 percent or less of their time working 

on Swanquarter NWR) has lacked the manpower and resources to develop and conduct recommended 

activities and programs. Sound fire management on the refuge and adjacent land and bird surveys rely 

on the refuge’s cooperation with other agencies and organizations. By partnering with agencies and 

organizations, more activities and programs could be implemented and/or enhanced. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Strategies: 

• Coordinate with the NCWRC and Audubon Society to conduct bird surveys and studies. 

• Coordinate with the North Carolina Division of Forestry and local fire departments to 

suppress wildfires. 

• Foster relationships and work with the Partnership for the Sounds, Swan Quarter Service 

Group, the Hyde County government, regional birding clubs, and other local civic and 

sportsmen’s clubs and organizations. 

• Coordinate with local, county, state law enforcement agencies to facilitate cooperation and 

assistance in law enforcement activities. 

• Pursue opportunities to conduct studies and research with universities, conservation 

groups, etc. 

Objective

Support and enhance designated refuge programs by recruiting volunteers to donate an annual 

combined total of 300 hours of service. The refuge staff would train the volunteers and coordinate all 

activities. 

 

Discussion: 

The refuge currently accepts volunteer efforts, but does not recruit volunteers. Volunteers provide 

assistance to the refuge by helping with maintenance, public use, and the biological programs on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Recruit college interns and community volunteers to assist in refuge programs and “refuge 

workdays.”

• Train and manage volunteers in accordance with Service policy.

Objective

Throughout the 15-year life of the CCP, manage administrative property and facilities in a manner 

that supports reaching refuge goals and objectives. 

 

Discussion: 

The staff is headquartered at the Mattamuskeet NWR. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain a total of 11 acres of administrative areas at Swanquarter NWR, including 4.5 

miles of gravel roads and roadside vegetation annually.

• Conduct two annual property inventories.

• Purchase and replace property as need and as funds are available. Dispose of property in 

a timely fashion.

• Repair or replace facilities such as the Bell Island Pier, ditches, and signs as needed.
60 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the Improvement Act. Congress has distinguished a 

clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national wildlife refuges. National wildlife 

refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation of the Nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Priority projects emphasize the protection and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, but considerable emphasis is placed on 

balancing the needs and demands for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this CCP for Swanquarter 

NWR, this section identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, partnerships 

opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management plan, and plan 

review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their associated costs for fish and wildlife 

population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge 

administration over the next 15 years. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs identified 

by the public, planning team, and refuge staff based upon available information. These projects were 

generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and strategies. The primary linkages 

of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary. The projects are listed 

in Tables 11 through 15, and summarized in Table 16. 

Table 11. Projects supporting wildlife strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, train new wildlife biologist (RONS 

97012 and 99005). 

Protect wildlife. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant manager and 

office assistant (RONS 02002 and 97034). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, train new wildlife biologist 

(RONS 97012 and 99005). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment to 

survey and protect wildlife. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 
62 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 12. Projects supporting habitat strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, train new wildlife biologist 

(RONS 97012 and 99005). 

Conduct prescribed burning. Use existing fire management officer, wildlife 

biologist, forestry technicians, and engineering 

equipment operators. 

Recruit, hire, train new forestry technician. 

Protect habitat. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, deputy manager, 

assistant manager, and office assistants. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant manager and 

office assistant (RONS 02002 and 97034). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, train new wildlife biologist 

(RONS 97012 and 99005). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment to 

manage habitat. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace facilities to 

manage habitat. 

Replace bulkheads and water control structures 

(various MMS projects). 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

Table 13. Projects supporting resource protection strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Maintain cooperation with agencies, 

organizations, and permit holders. 

Review permits and develop conditions for uses 

allowed by permits. 

Monitor pest animals and plants and permitted 

uses. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge 

manager (RONS 02002) and wildlife biologist 

(RONS 97012 and 99005). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing maintenance worker, and 

volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, train new equipment operators and 

tractor operator. 

Enforce regulations. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and office assistants. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge 

manager and office assistant (RONS 02002 and 

97034). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and wildlife biologist at Mattamuskeet 

Refuge. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge 

manager (RONS 02002) and wildlife biologist 

(RONS 97012 and 99005). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment as 

necessary. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace parking lots, and kiosks 

(various MMS projects). 
64 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 14. Projects supporting visitor services strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Plan, design, and conduct programs and 

outreach. 

Recruit, hire, train new park ranger (public use) 

(RONS 97023). 

Maintain education, interpretation, wildlife 

observation, and photography facilities. 

Use existing maintenance staff and volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, train new equipment operators and 

tractor operator. 

Protect visitors. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, deputy refuge 

manager, assistant manager, and office 

assistants. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant manager and 

office assistant (RONS 02002 and 97034). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing refuge manager, deputy manager, 

assistant manager, and wildlife biologist 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment to 

maintain facilities as necessary. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Develop, maintain, repair, and replace facilities 

as necessary. 

Develop interpretive trail or boardwalk. Replace 

parking lots, kiosks, boat ramp, and boat dock 

(various MMS projects). 

 Table 15. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge 

manager and office assistant (RONS 02002 and 

97034). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing maintenance staff. 

Recruit, hire, train new equipment operators and 

tractor operator. 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment as 

necessary. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace bulkheads, water control structures, 

parking lots, wildlife observation platforms, and 

kiosks (various MMS projects). 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Table 16. Summary of projects 

Station 

Rank/ 

Tier

Project 

Number

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring)

Positions Project Title 

1/1 97034 $122K 

($65K/$57K) 

1 Improve Office Efficiency and 

Public Relations 

2/1 97015 $160K 

($65K/$95K) 

1 Improve Management and 

Protection (Assistant Refuge 

Manager) 

3/1 97026 $146K 

($65K/$81K) 

1 Improve Recreational and Public 

Use Activities (Visitor Services 

Specialist) 

4/1 00013 $131K 

($65K/$66K) 

1 Improve Equipment and Facility 

Maintenance (Maintenance 

Worker) 

5/1 00015 $65.5K 

($32.5K/$33K) 

0.5 Improve Refuge Management 

Capabilities (Maintenance Worker) 

6/1 00002 $139K 

($65K/$74K) 

1 Enhance Resource and Visitor 

Protection (Law Enforcement 

Officer) 

7/1 97035 $133K 

($65K/$68K) 

1 Conduct Habitat Monitoring 

Studies (Wildlife Biologist) 

8/1 97001 $133K 

($65K/$68K) 

1 Improve Biological Monitoring on 

Three Refuges (Wildlife Biologist) 

9/1 00019 $108K 

($108K/$0) 

0 Conduct a Comprehensive Cultural 

Resource Survey 

1/2 00014 $133K 

($65K/$68K) 

1 Improve Habitat and Wildlife 

Management Programs 

Unranked Not 

Entered 

$50K 

($50K/$0) 

0 Develop an interpretive trail or 

boardwalk. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Currently the Service has approved a staff of nine permanent positions for the refuge to serve 

Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island NWRs (Figure 7). Of the nine, eight full time 

equivalents are located at Mattamuskeet NWR. Of the nine positions, one is funded for fire 

management. 

This CCP recommends adding another 4 FTE positions to existing staff for a total of 13 positions 

(Figure 8). Added would be one biologist, one refuge operations specialist, one maintenance worker, 

one park ranger (public use specialist), and one dedicated law enforcement officer (officer is currently 

shared with Pocosin Lakes NWR). The biologist would focus primarily on wildlife, fisheries, and 

habitat objectives and projects. The refuge operations specialist would assist the deputy refuge 

manager on all aspects of refuge management. The maintenance worker would be involved with 
66 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

maintenance and upkeep of facilities (e.g., roads, other structures, and infrastructure). The park 

ranger position would be crucial to our expanded visitor services, including education and outreach. 

The dedicated law enforcement officer would enable the refuge to improve protection of natural and 

cultural resources while providing greater security and safety for staff and the visiting public. The law 

enforcement officer would provide a law enforcement presence during hunting and fishing seasons, 

and thus reduce the probability and severity of violations. 

PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEERS OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this CCP is to establish partnerships with local volunteers, landowners, 

private organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. In the immediate vicinity 

of the refuge, opportunities exist to establish partnerships with sporting clubs, elementary and 

secondary schools, and community organizations. At regional and state levels, the Service might 

establish partnerships with organizations such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission and the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, The Nature Conservancy, 

Ducks Unlimited, and National Audubon Society. 

The refuge volunteer program and other partnerships generated would depend upon the number of 

staff positions the Service provides the refuge. As the Service commits staff and resources to the 

refuge, the refuge would take the opportunities to expand the volunteer program and develop 

partnerships. The refuges in the area depend on volunteers extensively, especially for their biological 

program. Volunteers currently do not contribute many hours of work at Swanquarter NWR; this CCP 

anticipates contributions of 300 hours. The refuge would utilize volunteers from the community and 

college interns. College interns rotate through work assignments in the visitor services, biology, and 

maintenance programs. The refuge provides quarters for college interns. 

The refuge volunteer program and other partnerships generated would depend upon the number 

of staff positions the Service provides the refuge. As the Service commits staff and resources to 

the refuge, the refuge would take the opportunity to expand the volunteer program and to develop 

and deepen partnerships. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Figure 7. Current staffing chart of Mattamuskeet NWR shared with Swanquarter NWR 

Figure 8. Proposed future staffing chart of Mattamuskeet NWR to be shared with Swanquarter 

NWR 

Refuge 

Manager 

GS-13 

Admin. 

Support 

Assistant 

GS-09 

Deputy Refuge 

Manager 

GS-12 

Park Ranger 

(LE) 

GS-09 

Engineering 

Equipment 

Operator 

WG-10 

Heavy Mobile 

Equipment 

Mechanic 

WG-10 

Forestry 

Technician 

GS-05 

Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-10 

Refuge 

Manager 

GS-13 

Admin. 

Support 

Assistant 

GS-09 

Deputy Refuge 

Manager 

GS-12 

Park Ranger 

(LE) 

GS-09 

Engineering 

Equipment 

Operator 

WG-10 

Heavy Mobile 

Equipment 

Mechanic 

WG-10 

Forestry 

Technician 

(Fire) 

GS-05

Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-10 

Refuge Operations 

Specialist 

GS-7/9 

Park 

Ranger 

GS-07 

Biologist 

GS-11/12 

Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-08 
68 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the direction of the refuge. A step-down management plan 

provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services. These plans (Table 

17) are also developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the 

identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to their 

implementation. 

Table 17. Refuge step-down management plans 

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan (Develop): This plan will 

describe inventory and monitoring techniques and time frames. The staff 

will inventory all plant communities and associations in the refuge, as 

well as all trust species (migratory birds including songbirds, neotropical 

passerines, and waterfowl), listed species (federal and state threatened, 

endangered and species of concern), key resident species, and monitor 

population trends. 

2013 

Habitat Management Plan (Develop): This plan will describe the 

overall desired future habitat conditions needed to fulfill the refuge’s 

purpose and objectives. The plan will include sections dealing with each 

habitat on the refuge. The staff will develop procedures, techniques, 

strategies and timetables for achieving desired future conditions into an 

overall plan. 

2013 

Marsh Management Plan (Develop): This plan will describe strategies 

for meeting refuge marsh management objectives. Also the plan will 

address scrub/shrub habitat management. 2014 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (Develop): This plan will address 

the complex issue of bringing exotic and nuisance plants and animals to 

a maintenance control level on the refuge. It will cover chemical 

pesticide use (aerial and ground application), mechanical eradication, 

and biological controls. The Nuisance/Exotic Animal and Plant control 

plans will be sections of this plan. 

2016 

Nuisance/Exotic Animal Control Plan (Update): This plan (as part of 

the Integrated Pest Management Plan) will describe survey, removal or 

control, and monitoring techniques for both terrestrial and aquatic 

nuisance and exotic animals (vertebrate and invertebrate). The plan will 

include wild dogs, feral cats, and resident Canada geese. 

2012 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Nuisance/Exotic Plant Control Plan (Develop): This plan (as part of 

the Integrated Pest Management Plan) will describe survey, removal or 

control, and monitoring techniques for both terrestrial and aquatic 

nuisance and exotic plants. 

2016 

Fire Management Plan (Update): This plan will describe wildland fire 

and prescribed fire management techniques that the staff will employ on 

the refuge. Wildfire control descriptions will include initial attack 

strategies and cooperative agreements with other agencies. 

2014 

Visitor Services Plan (Develop): This plan will describe the refuge’s 

wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, and interpretive 

programs. It will address specific issues or items such as access, facility 

requirements, site plans, and handicapped accessibility. The 

environmental education, fishing, hunting, and sign plans will be sections 

of this plan. 

2013 

Environmental Education Plan (Develop): This plan will reflect the 

objectives and strategies of the CCP and address environmental 

education guidelines following Service standards. 2016 

Hunting Plan (Update): This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) 

addresses specific aspects of the refuge’s recreational hunting program. 

It defines season structures, hunting areas, methods, access, 

handicapped accessibility, facilities needed, and refuge specific 

regulations. The plan currently identifies waterfowl hunting but will need 

to be updated to include bow hunting for deer. 

2010 

Fishing Plan (Update): This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) 

will address specific aspects of the refuge’s fishing program. It will 

define season structures, fishing areas, methods, access, handicapped 

accessibility, facilities needed, and refuge specific regulations. 

2010 

Sign Plan (Update): This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) will 

describe the refuge’s strategy for informing visitors via signage. It will 

incorporate Service guidelines. 

2010 
70 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Law Enforcement Plan (Update): This plan will provide a reference to 

station policies, procedures, priorities, and programs concerning law 

enforcement. 

2010 

Cultural Resources Management Plan (Develop): This plan will 

develop overall guidance for the management of all cultural and 

historical resources on the refuge. 

2023 

Wilderness Management Plan (Develop): This plan will describe 

strategies and approaches for maintaining the wilderness character of 

the area and allowing natural processes to occur, and for educating the 

public regarding the value of the wilderness area. 

2014 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven 

experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols would be adopted for 

the refuge. The habitat management strategies would be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information would be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations would include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable effects 

for target and non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the management projects would be 

made. Subsequently, the CCP would be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation activities would be 

described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This CCP would be reviewed annually as the refuge’s annual work plans and budgets are developed. 

It would also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision would occur if and when 

conditions change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological 

conditions or a major refuge expansion. The final CCP would be augmented by detailed step-down 

management plans to address the completion of specific strategies in support of the refuge’s goals 

and objectives. Revisions to the CCP and the step-down management plans would be subject to 

public review and NEPA compliance. 
Environmental Assessment 71

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge (Swanquarter NWR) in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Improvement Act). The Improvement Act requires the development of CCPs for all refuges. 

Following a public review and comment period on the Draft CCP/EA, a final decision would be made 

by the Service that will guide Swanquarter NWR management actions and decisions over the next 15 

years, provide understanding about the refuge and management activities, and incorporate 

information and suggestions from the public and refuge partners. 

The Draft CCP/EA proposes a management direction, which is described in detail through a set of goals, 

objectives, and strategies. The Draft CCP/EA addresses current management issues, provides long-term 

management direction and guidance for the refuge, and satisfies the legislative mandates of the 

Improvement Act. While the CCP provides general management direction, subsequent step-down plans 

will provide more detailed management direction and actions. 

The EA determines and evaluates a range of reasonable management alternatives. The intent is to 

support informed decision-making regarding future management of the refuge. Each alternative 

presented in this EA was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP. The 

predicted biological, physical, social, and economical impacts of implementing each alternative are 

analyzed in this EA. This analysis assists the Service in determining if the alternatives represent no 

significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or if the 

alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more detailed analysis through an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD). Following public review and comment, the 

Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 

This CCP is needed to address current management issues, to provide long-term management 

direction for the refuge, and to satisfy the legislative mandates of the Improvement Act, which 

requires the preparation of a CCP for all national wildlife refuges. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the EA is to meet the purpose(s) of the refuge and the goals identified in the CCP (for 

which we evaluate each alternative). The purpose is to ensure that Swanquarter NWR serves as a 

sanctuary for migrating birds; conserves threatened and endangered species; serves the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, restoration, and protection of fish, wildlife, 

and habitat resources; provides opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation; promotes 

awareness and appreciation of natural resources; administers and protects the wilderness character; 

and protects and preserves archaeological and historical resources. 

This EA addresses the need to adopt a 15-year management plan for the Swanquarter NWR that 

provides guidance for future refuge management and meets the requirements of the Improvement Act. 
72 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Service will select an alternative to 

implement the CCP for Swanquarter NWR. The finalized CCP will include a FONSI, which is a 

statement explaining why the selected alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. This determination is based on an evaluation of the Service and Refuge 

System mission, the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established, and other legal mandates. 

Assuming no significant impact is found, implementation of the CCP will begin and will be monitored 

annually and revised when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Swanquarter NWR is located on the Pamlico Sound in Hyde County, North Carolina. The refuge is 

located at the southern end of a broad float and swampy peninsula in northeastern North Carolina, 

and is surrounded by brackish marsh and cropland. The village of Swan Quarter (population of 275 

in the year 2000) is located at the northern boundary of the refuge, and the village of Engelhard 

(population of 1,561 in the year 2000) is fifteen miles east of the eastern boundary of the refuge. The 

major metropolitan area of Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina (population of 1,038,703 in 

the year 2000) is 180 miles west of the refuge, and Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Hampton Roads, Virginia 

(population 1,569,541 in the year 2000) is 150 miles north of the refuge. The Pamlico Sound borders 

the southern boundary of the refuge. This region is part of the physiographic area known as the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Service’s administrative ecosystem known as the Roanoke-TarNeuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem. 

This EA will identify management on refuge lands and waters. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service developed this CCP in compliance with the Improvement Act and Part 602 of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Manual (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning). The actions described 

within this CCP also meet the requirements of NEPA. The refuge staff achieved compliance with 

NEPA through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of an EA in this document, with a 

description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental consequences of the 

alternatives (Chapters III and IV in this section). When fully implemented, the CCP will strive to 

achieve the vision and purposes of Swanquarter NWR. 

The CCP’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

The laws that established the refuge and provided the funds for acquisition state the purposes. Fish 

and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows and 

encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or does not 

detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes. 
Environmental Assessment 73

COMPATIBILITY 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands 

and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be 

found to be compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In addition, “wildlifedependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not 

inconsistent with public safety.” 

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the system, as listed in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA recommendations, public involvement has been a 

crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft CCP/EA for Swanquarter NWR. This Draft 

CCP/EA has been written with input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation 

organizations, and employees of local and state agencies. The participation of these stakeholders 

and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management direction for Swanquarter NWR. 

The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are very grateful to each one who has 

contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process. The staff remains impressed by the 

passion and commitment of so many individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge. 

During the preplanning and public scoping phases of the CCP, a myriad of issues and concerns were 

raised. While some of these issues and concerns are important to the future of the refuge, many are not 

within the sole jurisdiction of the refuge and some are completely outside of the refuge’s control. Many of 

the issues and concerns raised represent opportunities for increased coordination with existing and 

potential partners. 

For more detailed information about the planning process and the identification of issues, see 

Section A, Chapter III, Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities. A complete summary 

of the issues and concerns is provided in Appendix D. 
74 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 75

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II, Refuge Overview. 
76 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 77

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies designed 

to achieve the refuge's purpose and vision, and the goals identified in the CCP; the goals of the Refuge 

System; and the mission of the Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the significant issues, 

concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the public during public scoping. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection, restoration, and management of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other 

resources, as well as compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Refuge staff assessed the biological 

conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the 

development of refuge goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the alternatives. As a result, each 

alternative presents different sets of objectives for reaching refuge goals. Each alternative was evaluated 

based on how much progress it would make and how it would address the identified issues related to fish 

and wildlife populations, habitat management, resource protection and conservation, visitor services, and 

refuge administration. A summary of the three alternatives is provided in Table 18. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals and sets of objectives were developed to 

help achieve the refuge’s purpose and the mission of the Refuge System. Objectives are desired 

conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into three 

alternatives. These alternatives represent different management approaches for managing the 

refuge over a 15-year time frame while still meeting the refuge purposes and goals. The three 

alternatives are summarized below. A comparison of each alternative follows the general description. 

ALTERNATIVE A – CURRENT MANAGEMENT – NO ACTION 

This alternative represents the current management of the refuge. Under this alternative, the Service 

would protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 16,411 acres of refuge lands for resident wildlife, 

waterfowl, migratory nongame birds, and threatened and endangered species. The refuge staff 

would implement management programs with inventory data only on waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, 

and red wolves. They would direct all refuge management actions towards achieving the refuge’s 

primary purposes (conserving migratory habitat for waterfowl; and helping to meet the habitat 

conservation goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other 

national, regional, and state goals to protect and restore red wolf and neotropical breeding bird 

populations. The Service would practice active habitat management through prescribed burning in 

marshes and forests, management of invasive species, and firebreak maintenance. 

The Service would maintain the current levels of wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation). 

The refuge roads would be available for vehicular and pedestrian access to support wildlifedependent recreation to the extent that these opportunities do not interfere substantially with or 

detract from the achievement of wildlife conservation. The staff would maintain four miles of roads 

and a fishing pier. The refuge would continue quality waterfowl hunting programs for 300 annual 

users consistent with sound biological principles. The Service would permit fishing for 50,000 anglers 

from the fishing pier, along the shoreline of the Pamlico Sound, and banks of the ditches and streams 
78 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

annually. Visitors can observe and photograph wildlife anywhere on the refuge. The staff would 

conduct environmental education programs when requested by teachers as staff is available, and 

participate in one outreach event annually. They would allow the refuge to be used as an outdoor 

classroom and research site. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would develop a Land Protection Step-down Plan and seek 

acquisition of property from willing sellers within an expanded acquisition boundary (10 percent or 

less of current area) if the Service approves one. The Service would make acquired lands part of 

the refuge, available for compatible public wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental 

education opportunities. Purchases from willing sellers would be the preferred option to expand 

conservation efforts in the acquisition area. Other important land protection options include 

outreach and partnerships with adjacent landowners, hunt clubs, and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NCRS) through conservation easements, cooperative agreements, and 

federal programs, such as the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). These land conservation 

options would promote the linkage of forest and brackish marsh tracts and contribute to overall 

natural resource conservation within the acquisition area. 

The Service would maintain the refuge as funding allows. The staff for Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, 

and Cedar Island NWRs would have nine full-time equivalents (FTE) with eight people headquartered 

at Mattamuskeet NWR and one at Cedar Island NWR. The volunteer program would have no annual 

target, but would accept volunteers who would be coordinated by a collateral duty staff member. 

ALTERNATIVE B – MODERATELY EXPAND PROGRAMS – PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative represents a moderate increase over the current management of the refuge. Under 

this alternative, the Service would protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 16,411 acres of refuge 

lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory nongame birds, and threatened and endangered 

species. The refuge staff would implement management programs with inventory data on waterfowl, 

colonial nesting birds, land birds, wading birds, shorebirds, marsh birds, reptiles, amphibians, and red 

wolves. They would direct all refuge management actions towards achieving the refuge’s primary 

purposes (conserving migratory habitat for waterfowl; and helping to meet the habitat conservation 

goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other national, 

regional, and state goals to protect and restore red wolf and neotropical breeding bird populations. 

The Service would practice active habitat management through prescribed burning in marshes and 

forests, management of invasive species, and firebreak maintenance. The staff would actively 

monitor the response of wildlife and habitat to management activities and adapt management plans 

to the results of the monitoring. 

The Service would moderately increase the current levels of wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). The refuge roads would be available for vehicular and pedestrian 

access to support wildlife-dependent recreation to the extent that these opportunities do not 

interfere substantially with or detract from the achievement of wildlife conservation. The staff 

would maintain four miles of roads, and a fishing pier, and construct and maintain an 

interpretive trail or boardwalk. The refuge would continue quality waterfowl hunting programs 

for 400 annual users and initiate a deer hunting program for 100 annual users with archery 

equipment consistent with sound biological principles. The Service would permit fishing for 

55,000 anglers from the fishing pier, along the shoreline of the Pamlico Sound, and banks of 

the ditches and streams annually. Visitors can observe and photograph wildlife anywhere on 

the refuge. The staff would conduct two to ten environmental education programs for local 

school students, participate in two outreach programs annually, and maintain a visitor contact 
Environmental Assessment 79

station at Mattamuskeet NWR. The Service would continue to allow the refuge to be used as 

an outdoor classroom and research site. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would develop a Land Protection Step-down Plan and seek 

acquisition of property from willing sellers within an expanded acquisition boundary (10 percent or 

less of current area) if the Service approves one. The Service would make acquired lands part of 

the refuge, available for compatible public wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental 

education opportunities. Purchases from willing sellers would be the preferred option to expand 

conservation efforts in the acquisition area. Other important land protection options include 

outreach and partnerships with adjacent landowners, hunt clubs, and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NCRS) through conservation easements, cooperative agreements, and 

federal programs, such as the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). These land conservation 

options would promote the linkage of forest and brackish marsh tracts and contribute to overall 

natural resource conservation within the acquisition area. 

The Service would maintain the refuge as funding allows. The staff for Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, 

and Cedar Island NWRs would have thirteen full-time equivalents (FTE) with twelve people 

headquartered at Mattamuskeet NWR and one at Cedar Island NWR. The volunteer program would 

have an annual target of 300 hours and would be coordinated by a collateral duty staff member. 

ALTERNATIVE C – OPTIMALLY EXPAND PROGRAMS 

This alternative represents a substantial increase over the current management of the refuge. Under 

this alternative the Alternative B activities would be expanded further, including monitoring and 

surveying of wildlife, wilderness area management, and the public use programs. The Service would 

protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 16,411 acres of refuge lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, 

migratory nongame birds, and threatened and endangered species. The refuge staff would 

implement management programs with inventory data on waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, land birds, 

wading birds, shorebirds, marsh birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, and mammals. They 

would direct all refuge management actions towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes 

(conserving migratory habitat for waterfowl; and helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other national, regional, and state 

goals to protect and restore red wolf and neotropical breeding bird populations. The Service would 

practice active habitat management through prescribed burning in marshes and forests, management 

of invasive species, and firebreak maintenance. The staff would actively monitor the response of 

wildlife and habitat to management activities and adapt management plans to the results of the 

monitoring. Moist-soil units, wetlands, and impoundments would be constructed (if adjacent suitable 

cropland were acquired) and/or managed for the benefit of birds and mammals. 

The Service would optimally expand the current levels of wildlife-dependent recreation activities 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation). The refuge roads would be available for vehicular and pedestrian access to support 

wildlife-dependent recreation to the extent that these opportunities do not interfere substantially with 

or detract from the achievement of wildlife conservation. The staff would maintain four miles of roads, 

a fishing pier, and construct and maintain an interpretive trail or boardwalk, as well as develop a 

canoe trail. The refuge would continue quality waterfowl hunting programs for 400 annual users and 

initiate a deer hunting program for 200 annual users with archery equipment and primitive firearms 

consistent with sound biological principles. The Service would permit fishing for 65,000 anglers from 

the fishing pier, along the shoreline of the Pamlico Sound, and banks of the ditches and streams 

annually. Visitors can observe and photograph wildlife anywhere on the refuge and a photo blind 

would be constructed. The staff would conduct ten to fifteen environmental education programs for 
80 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

local school students, participate in four outreach programs annually, and maintain a visitor contact 

station at Mattamuskeet NWR. The Service would continue to allow the refuge to be used as an 

outdoor classroom and research site. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would develop a Land Protection Step-down Plan and seek acquisition 

of property from willing sellers within an expanded acquisition boundary (10 percent or less of current 

area) if the Service approves one. The Service would make acquired lands part of the refuge, available 

for compatible public wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education opportunities. 

Purchases from willing sellers would be the preferred option to expand conservation efforts in the 

acquisition area. Other important land protection options include outreach and partnerships with adjacent 

landowners, hunt clubs, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) through conservation 

easements, cooperative agreements, and federal programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program 

(WRP). These land conservation options would promote the linkage of forest and brackish marsh tracts 

and contribute to overall natural resource conservation within the acquisition area. 

The Service would maintain the refuge as funding allows. The staff for Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, 

and Cedar Island NWRs would have fifteen and a half full-time equivalents (FTE) with fourteen and a 

half people headquartered at Mattamuskeet and one at Cedar Island. The volunteer program would 

have an annual target of 1,000 hours and would be coordinated by a collateral duty staff member. 

One or two interns would be hosted annually. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. These common 

features are listed below to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

The maintenance and operation of the refuge’s administrative facilities would continue, regardless of 

the alternative selected. Periodic upgrading of facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility and 

to support staff and management needs. The staff has identified funding needs for several projects, 

including providing additional facilities and equipment to support refuge operation and maintenance. 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS 

Coordination and cooperation between Service staff and local, state, and federal agencies, as well as 

with universities and non-governmental organizations would continue, regardless of the alternative 

selected. Refuge operations, such as the fire management program, research, education and 

outreach efforts, depend on and are enhanced by the contributions from experts and volunteers 

outside of the refuge staff. 

EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

As the refuge’s visitor services program develops, the staff would continue to assess the program and 

its potential impact on refuge resources. The refuge would change the program as needed to 

address any impacts identified and to respond to anticipated wildlife population increases. To ensure 

a quality wildlife-dependent recreation experience while achieving the ‘wildlife first’ mandate, the 

Service would limit the number of users and conflicts among the users by the following: (1) permitting 

uses; (2) designating roads, trails, and sites for specific kinds of wildlife-dependent recreation use; 

and (3) permitting uses at certain times of the year. 
Environmental Assessment 81

There are a number of situations that may warrant future refuge closures or restrictions on access. 

Examples of these situations include, but are not limited to, the following: protection of threatened or 

endangered species; protection of nesting birds and bear den sites; restriction of recreation activities 

to achieve specific wildlife population objectives; minimization of conflicts with other refuge 

management programs; and limitations from inadequate funds and/or staff to administer use. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

The staff would develop a Land Protection Step-Down Plan. If the Service approves the plan and an 

expanded acquisition boundary (expansion less than 10 percent of current area), the refuge would 

give the acquisition of land adjacent to Service-owned lands a high priority. All land acquisitions are 

subject to contaminant surveys. 

Funding for land acquisition would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, or donations from conservation organizations. The Service could use conservation 

easements and leases sometimes to obtain minimum interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives if 

the refuge staff could adequately manage uses of the areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service could 

negotiate management agreements with local, state, and federal agencies, and accept conservation 

easements. Public or private conservation organizations may own some tracts of interest to the Service. 

The Service would work with interested organizations to identify additional areas needing protection and 

provide technical assistance if needed. The acquisition of private lands is entirely contingent on the 

landowners and their willingness to participate. 
82 Swanquarter Na

 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY ISSUE Table 18. Comparison of alternatives by management program or issue for Swanquarter NWR 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Fish No active surveying or 

monitoring being conducted by refuge staff. Support cooperating agencies and universities with monitoring of fish when possible. 

Cooperate with and assist agencies and universities to conduct baseline surveys of waters on the refuge to document species composition and population parameters. 

Cooperate with agencieconduct baseline surverefuge to document speand population paramepopulations periodically cooperating agencies a

Invertebrate Species 

No active monitoring or surveying being conducted by refuge staff. Support cooperating agencies and universities with studies when possible. 

Manage refuge resources to protect invertebrate species. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Manage refuge resourcinvertebrate species. Asagencies and universitieneeded. Monitor and suselected habitats. 

Land Birds Have completed point 

counts to establish baseline data for the wet pine flatwoods habitat. Staff and public note unusual land bird observations. Support cooperating agencies and universities with studies when possible. 

Have completed point counts to establish baseline data for the wet pine flatwoods habitat. Complete point counts for other major habitat types. Establish and participate in Christmas bird count. Staff and public note unusual land bird observations. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Have completed point cbaseline data for the wehabitat. Complete point major habitat types. Estparticipate in Christmas Establish one Monitorinand Survivorship (MAPhabitat type. Staff and pland bird observations. agencies and universitieneeded. 
Environmental Assessment 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Mammals Cooperate with the Red 

Wolf Recovery Program. Staff and public note unusual mammal observations. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Conduct herd health checks on white-tailed deer every five years in cooperation with Southeastern Wildlife Disease Study Group. Collect harvest data on deer as needed. Cooperate with the Red Wolf Recovery Program. Staff and public note unusual mammal observations. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Conduct herd health chdeer every five years in Southeastern Wildlife DCollect harvest data on Develop inventory withireaching minimum stafffurbearers and small mhabitats according to thCooperate with the Red Program. Staff and pubmammal observations. agencies and universitieneeded. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

No active monitoring or surveying being conducted by refuge staff. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Develop baseline data of reptile and amphibian species occurrence. Conduct annual alligator survey within one year after reaching minimum staffing levels. On a continual basis, monitor and manage refuge resources to protect federal and state listed reptile and amphibian species. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Same as Alternative B. 
84 Swanquarter Na

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Shorebirds No active monitoring. Staff 

and public note unusual shorebird observations. 

Establish and participate in annual Christmas bird count. Staff and public note unusual shorebird observations. 

Establish and participatChristmas bird count. CJune) and fall (July-Sepsurveys every 10 days certain years. Staff and shorebird observations. 

Marsh Birds Assist cooperating agencies 

and universities with studies as needed. 

Establish and participate in annual Christmas bird count. Conduct breeding season callback survey every 10 days along suitable habitat. Staff and public note unusual marsh bird observations. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Establish and participatChristmas bird count. Cseason callback survey along suitable habitat. Emanagement guidelines marsh birds within fifteepublic note unusual maobservations. Assist coand universities with stu

Wading and Colonial Nesting Birds 

Conduct annual nesting survey of colonial nesting birds. Staff and public note unusual wading bird observations. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Establish and participate in annual Christmas bird count. Conduct annual nesting and recruitment survey of wading and colonial nesting birds. Evaluate the impacts of management activities on wading and colonial nesting birds. Post and protect nesting colonies. Staff and public note unusual wading bird observations. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Establish and participatChristmas bird count. Cnesting and recruitment and colonial nesting birimpacts of managemenwading and colonial nesprotect nesting coloniesand colonial nesting birmanaged and restored public note unusual wadobservations. Assist coand universities with stu
Environmental Assessment 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Waterfowl Conduct monthly aerial 

surveys during the migration period (November-February) annually. Conduct midwinter waterfowl survey. Monitor and investigate mortality of waterfowl from disease annually. Staff and public note unusual waterfowl observations. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Establish and participate in annual Christmas bird count. Conduct bimonthly aerial surveys and weekly ground surveys during the migration period (NovemberFebruary) annually. Conduct midwinter waterfowl survey. Conduct brood surveys of American black duck annually. Monitor and investigate mortality of waterfowl from disease annually. Support special banding programs as directed by the Service. Staff and public note unusual waterfowl observations. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Establish and participatChristmas bird count. Caerial surveys and weeduring the migration peannually. Conduct midwsurvey. Conduct brood black duck annually. Ermonitor 25 new wood dyears of full staffing. Momortality of waterfowl frannually. Support specas directed by the Servimpacts of recreational boating on the ecology waterfowl when fundednote unusual waterfowl cooperating agencies astudies as needed. 

Administrative Areas 

Maintain a total of 11 acres of administrative areas, including 4.5 miles of gravel roads and roadside vegetation annually. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
86 Swanquarter Na

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Brackish Marsh 

Manage 12,300 acres of brackish marsh. Conduct occasional prescribed burning. 

Manage 12,300 acres of brackish marsh. Conduct regular prescribed burning. Monitor the effects of burning on plant diversity and productivity and adapt the fire management plan accordingly. Evaluate the effectiveness of created openings in the marsh for migratory birds. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Cypress-Gum Swamp 

Protect 600 acres of cypress-gum swamp. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest 

Protect and manage 2,500 acres of estuarine fringe loblolly pine forest. Conduct occasional prescribed burning. Cooperate with North Carolina Forest Service and others on wildland fire activities as needed. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Low Pocosin Protect 700 acres of low 

pocosin. Conduct occasional prescribed burning. 

Protect 700 acres of low pocosin. Conduct regular prescribed burning. 

Same as Alternative B. 
Environmental Assessment 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Managed Wetlands (Impoundments) 

None. Same as Alternative A. Construct, manage and 

units and submerged aqcropland is acquired anManage impoundments Manage to produce subvegetation, native emerproducing vegetation, aConduct annual vegetaconduct appropriate invand correlate data to veMonitor water levels wecommon reed and alligaInstall and maintain pumwater control structures levels efficiently. Assist agencies and universitieneeded. 

Pine Savanna Protect 250 acres of pine 

savanna. Conduct occasional prescribed burning. 

Protect 250 acres of pine savanna. Conduct regular prescribed burning. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Capital Property 

Conduct two annual property inventories on property. Purchase and replace property as funds are available; dispose of excess property in a timely fashion. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
88 Swanquarter Na

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Office Space and Utilities 

Staff headquartered at the Mattamuskeet NWR. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Personnel Manage personnel for 

maximum performance and efficiency. Recognize employee performance annually through the employee incentive program. The staff equivalent to 0.5 FTE from the Mattamuskeet NWR Complex Office is shared between Mattamuskeet and Swanquarter NWRs. Provide staff professional, technical and leadership development training as allowable under current funding levels. 

Manage personnel for maximum performance and efficiency. Recognize employee performance annually through the employee incentive program. The staff equivalent to 1.5 FTE from the Mattamuskeet NWR Complex Office would be shared between Mattamuskeet and Swanquarter NWRs. Provide staff professional, technical and leadership development training as funds are available. 

Manage personnel for mperformance and efficieemployee performance the employee incentive equivalent to 3 FTE from NWR Complex Office wbetween Mattamuskeet NWRs. Provide staff proand leadership developmandated by Service p

Real Property Manage 16,411 acres of 

land with roads, ditches, Bell Island Pier and signage. Repair or replace facilities as funding is available. 

Manage 16,411 acres of land with roads, ditches, Bell Island Pier, other public use facilities, and signage. Repair or replace facilities as needed. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Maintenance Facilities 

None at present. None planned. Same as Alternative B. 
Environmental Assessment 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Land Protection (Existing Area Plus <10% of Existing Area) 

Protect existing refuge lands/habitats (16,411 acres) and purchase lands adjacent to refuge (less than 10% of the existing refuge area) from willing landowners when opportunities arise. Survey and post boundaries as needed. 

Protect existing refuge lands/habitats (16,411 acres) and purchase lands adjacent to refuge (less than 10% of the existing refuge area) from willing landowners when opportunities arise. Survey and post boundaries as needed. Identify and pursue funding to purchase key properties to add to the refuge. 

Protect existing refuge (16,411 acres) and purcto refuge (less than 10% refuge area) from willing opportunities arise. Suboundaries as needed. identify key parcels to aActively pursue funding key properties. 

Cultural Resources 

Surveys have been conducted around existing facilities. As new development is planned, regional and state archeologists will be contacted. 

Surveys have been conducted around existing facilities. As new development is planned, regional and state archaeologists will be contacted. Prepare and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

Same as Alternative B. 
90 Swanquarter Na

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Interagency Coordination and Cooperative Agreements 

Coordinate continuously with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Forest Service, universities, and other local, state, and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations to conduct refuge operations, research, environmental education, and fire management. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Law Enforcement 

Conduct occasional patrols to provide a minimal law enforcement presence on the refuge. Coordinate with local, state and federal law enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal laws. Prosecute 10 violations annually. Monitor activities on land adjacent to the refuge associated with endangered species and migratory birds. 

Conduct routine patrols to maintain a law enforcement presence on the refuge. Coordinate with local, state, and federal law enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal laws. Prosecute 10-50 violations annually. Monitor activities on land adjacent to the refuge associated with endangered species and migratory birds. Enforce regulations as needed. 

Same as Alternative B. 
Environmental Assessment 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Permits Review, develop conditions 

for, and monitor compliance for up to 5 special use permits annually. 

Review, develop conditions for, and monitor compliance for up to 10 special use permits annually. 

Review, develop conditcompliance for up to 15 annually. 

Pest Animals and Insects 

Identify non-native pest animals (nutria, fire ants) that conflict with refuge objectives annually. Control pest animals when possible. Cooperate with the State Health Department to monitor for mosquito born diseases. 

Identify and monitor non-native pest animals (nutria, fire ants) that conflict with refuge objectives annually. Develop and implement a Noxious Animal Management Plan within five years of reaching minimum staffing levels. Cooperate with the State Health Department to monitor for mosquito born diseases. 

Monitor non-native pest ants) that conflict with rannually. Develop and Animal Management Plof reaching minimum stCooperate with the StatDepartment to monitor diseases. 

Pest Plants Monitor non-native and 

invasive pest plants (common reed) that conflict with refuge objectives annually. Control pest plants when possible. 

Monitor non-native and invasive pest plants (common reed) that conflict with refuge objectives annually. Control pest plants as needed. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Restoration No activity at present. None planned. Assist adjacent 

private landowners when possible to prevent spread of noxious weeds onto refuge. 

Restore habitat on new easements. Assist adjalandowners to prevent sweeks onto the refuge. 
92 Swanquarter Na

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Water Quality Conduct refuge 

management activities to minimize impacts on water quality. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with monitoring when able. 

Conduct refuge management activities to minimize impacts on water quality. Cooperate with other agencies to identify and control erosion and sedimentation in and around the refuge to protect SAV. Support water quality monitoring conducted by university and State agencies. Develop and implement water quality and SAV monitoring plan within three years of reaching minimum staff levels. Monitor salinity and other parameters in the sound and tidal creeks according to plan. Assist cooperating agencies and universities with monitoring. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Wilderness Areas and other Special Area Designations 

Allow natural processes to dominate on 8,800 acres of the Swanquarter National Wilderness Area. Conduct prescribed burning to mimic the natural fire cycle. Monitor air quality by operation of IMPROVE site weekly. 

Evaluate habitats and determine the necessity to nominate areas for special designation. Allow natural processes to dominate on 8,800 acres of the Swanquarter National Wilderness Area. Conduct prescribed burning to mimic the natural fire cycle. Monitor air quality by operation of IMPROVE site weekly. Initiate baseline monitoring of vegetation in wilderness area within two years of reaching minimum staffing levels. 

Evaluate habitats and dnecessity to nominate adesignation. Allow natudominate on 8,800 acreSwanquarter National WConduct prescribed burnatural fire cycle. Monitoperation of IMPROVE establish and operate a station. Initiate regular bof vegetation in wildernyears of reaching minim
Environmental Assessment 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention 

Cooperate with state and federal agencies to monitor and manage disease in wildlife as requested. 

Monitor white-tailed deer in cooperation with the Southeastern Wildlife Disease Study Group every five years. Cooperate with state and federal agencies to monitor and manage disease in wildlife as requested. Monitor other wildlife in conjunction with other activities. Initiate investigations as needed. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Commercial Ecotours 

Review and evaluate proposed activities on a case-by-case basis. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Environmental Education 

Conduct two programs annually, as requested, to local school groups. Host university students performing research. 

Conduct two to ten programs for local school groups, or as requested. Host university students performing research. 

Conduct ten to fifteen pschool groups, or as reqcontact area schools anavailability of the Refugprograms. Host universperforming research. 
94 Swanquarter Na

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Fishing Provide fishing from Bell 

Island Pier and the shorelines on the entire refuge twelve months each year. Provide access for disabled anglers on the Pier. Cooperate with NCWRC on enforcement of fishing and boating regulations annually. 

Provide fishing from Bell Island Pier and the shorelines on the entire refuge for 55,000 angler use days twelve months each year. Provide access for disabled anglers on the Pier. Cooperate with NCWRC on enforcement of fishing and boating regulations annually. 

Provide fishing from Beshorelines on the entire angler use days twelve Provide access for disaPier. Cooperate with NCenforcement of fishing aregulations annually. 

Hunting Provide waterfowl hunting 

opportunities in hunts on 6,000 acres for about 300 hunter days annually. Cooperate with NCWRC on enforcement of hunting regulations annually. 

Provide waterfowl hunting opportunities in hunts on 6,000 acres for about 400 hunter days annually. Provide opportunities for deer hunting with archery equipment for about 100 hunter days on the upland portions of the refuge within five years. Cooperate with NCWRC on enforcement of hunting regulations annually. 

Provide waterfowl huntihunts on 6,000 acres fodays annually. Provide deer hunting with archeprimitive weapons for adays on the upland portwithin five years. Coopeon enforcement of huntannually. 
Environmental Assessment 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Interpretation Maintain a kiosk to inform 

the public about the refuge and its resources annually. Maintain a visitor contact station with a brochure rack and wildlife exhibits in the refuge office at Mattamuskeet NWR annually. Update/revise the refuge brochure as needed. 

Maintain a kiosk to inform the public about the refuge and its resources annually. Maintain a visitor contact station with a brochure rack and wildlife exhibits in the refuge office at Mattamuskeet NWR annually. Update/revise the refuge brochure as needed. Develop and maintain one interpretative trail or boardwalk within ten years of plan approval. 

Maintain a kiosk to infothe refuge and its resouMaintain a visitor contabrochure rack and wildlrefuge office at Mattamannually. Develop and interpretative trail or boyears of plan approval. refuge brochures as the identified. Update/revise annually. 

Non-Wildlife Dependent Public Uses 

Evaluate non-wildlife dependent activities on a case-by-case basis. Conduct compatibility determinations on proposed uses. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
96 Swanquarter Na

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Outreach Represent the refuge in 

contact with the general public on a daily basis. Respond to daily requests from the public about refuge activities and resources. Issue one news release annually. Participate in at least one Service outreach initiative annually. Cooperate with print and video media to promote refuge activities. Maintain an internet web site. 

Represent the refuge in contact with the general public on a daily basis. Respond to daily requests from the public about refuge activities and resources. Issue four news releases annually, and develop news releases for special events. Participate in at least two Service outreach initiatives annually. Cooperate with print and video media to promote refuge activities. Maintain an internet web site and update annually. 

Represent the refuge in general public on a daildaily requests from the activities and resourcesreleases annually, and releases for special eveleast four Service outreannually. Initiate contacvideo media to promote Maintain an internet wemonthly. 

Refuge Support 

Cooperate with partners for environmental education programs. Support relationships with birding groups, the Hyde County government, and local civic organizations. 

Cooperate with partners for environmental education programs. Foster relationships with regional birding clubs, the Hyde County government, and local civic organizations. 

Cooperate with partners education programs. Fowith regional birding clugovernment, and local cDevelop refuge Friends 
Environmental Assessment 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Special Events 

No activity. Conduct one program annually to 

celebrate National Wildlife Refuge Week, National Fishing Week, or International Migratory Bird Day. Serve as host to and assist with a Nature Week sponsored by the Hyde County Extension Service, or host an Environmental Field Day sponsored by the Hyde County Soil and Water Conservation District annually. Organize and conduct a “Refuge Workday” enlisting volunteer support. 

Conduct two programs celebrate National WildNational Fishing Week, Migratory Bird Day. Hosover Water Festival annFish and Wildlife ServicFair exhibit annually. Seassist with a Nature WeHyde County Extension Environmental Field DaHyde County Soil and WDistrict annually. Organ“Refuge Workday” enlissupport. 

Visitor Protection 

Provide visible law enforcement presence on the refuge by staff from Mattamuskeet NWR. Identify safety hazards and ensure the safety of visitors by eliminating hazards; and controlling access into hazardous areas. 

Provide visible law enforcement presence on the refuge by staff from Mattamuskeet NWR. Identify safety hazards and ensure the safety of visitors by eliminating hazards; and controlling access into hazardous areas. Make information available to refuge visitors regarding refuge regulations and safety precautions. 

Provide visible law enfoon the refuge by staff frNWR. Staff dedicated to assist with the identificaIdentify safety hazards safety of visitors by elimand controlling access areas. Make informatiovisitors regarding refuge safety precautions. 

Volunteer Program 

Accept volunteers as they offer to serve. 

Utilize and administer 300 hours of volunteer service to assist the staff in conducting refuge activities annually. 

Utilize and administer 1volunteer service to assconducting refuge activone or two interns annu
98 Swanquarter Na

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Wildlife Observation 

Facilitate wildlife observation opportunities on the refuge. Maintain the Bell Island Pier annually, or as needed. 

Facilitate wildlife observation opportunities on the refuge. Maintain the Bell Island Pier annually, or as needed. Develop and maintain one interpretative trail or boardwalk within ten years of plan approval. Provide wildlife list. Provide signage and observation binoculars at the Pier within ten years of plan approval. Develop a canoe trail within fifteen years of plan approval and maintain the canoe trail annually. 

Facilitate wildlife observon the refuge. Maintain annually, or as needed. maintain one interpretaboardwalk within five yeapproval. Provide signabinoculars at the Pier wplan approval. Develop fifteen years of plan appthe canoe trail annuallyMaintain a record of unobservations. 
Environmental Assessment 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Wildlife Photography 

Facilitate wildlife photography opportunities on the refuge. Maintain the Bell Island Pier annually. Evaluate special access under permitted conditions to commercial and educational photographers. 

Facilitate wildlife photography opportunities on the refuge. Maintain the Bell Island Pier annually, or as needed. Develop and maintain one interpretative trail or boardwalk within ten years of plan approval. Evaluate special access under permitted conditions to commercial and educational photographers. 

Facilitate wildlife photogon the refuge. Maintain annually, or as needed. maintain one interpretaboardwalk within five yeapproval. Construct a pspecial access under peto commercial and educphotographers. 
100 Swanquarter Na

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Program or Issue for Swanquarter National Wildl

Wildlife 

Program or Issue 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Moderately Expand Programs – 

Proposed Alternative) 

Alternat

(Optimally Expa

Staffing 

Staffing 9 FTE Assigned to 

Mattamuskeet Refuge Complex and Available to Share with Swanquarter Refuge: 1. Manager 2. Assistant Manager 3. Administrative Office 

Assistant 

4. Park Ranger (Law 

Enforcement) 

5. Heavy Mobile 

Equipment Mechanic 

6. Heavy Equipment 

Operator 

7. Maintenance Worker 8. Forestry Technician 

(Firefighter) 

9. Maintenance Worker 

(Dedicated to Cedar Island) 

13 FTE Assigned to Mattamuskeet Refuge Complex and Available to Share with Swanquarter Refuge: 1. Manager 2. Assistant Manager - Primary 3. Assistant Manager - Secondary 4. Wildlife Biologist 5. Administrative Office Assistant 6. Park Ranger (Law Enforcement) 7. Park Ranger (Public Use) 8. Heavy Mobile Equipment 

Mechanic 

9. Heavy Equipment Operator 10. Maintenance Worker 11. Maintenance Worker 12. Forestry Technician (Firefighter) 13. Maintenance Worker (Dedicated 

to Cedar Island) 

15.5 FTE Assigned to MRefuge Complex and Awith Swanquarter Refug1. Manager 2. Assistant Manager 3. Assistant Manager 4. Wildlife Biologist 5. Biological Technicia6. Administrative Offic7. Office Clerk (half tim8. Park Ranger (Law E9. Park Ranger (Public 10. Heavy Mobile Equip11. Heavy Equipment O12. Heavy Equipment O13. Maintenance Worke14. Maintenance Worke15. Forestry Technician 16. Maintenance Worke

Cedar Island) 
Environmental Assessment 101

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This section analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can be 

reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the three alternatives described in Chapter III of 

this EA. For each alternative, the expected outcomes are portrayed through the 15-year life of the CCP. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects would be the same under each alternative and are summarized under seven 

categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, land acquisition, cultural 

resources, refuge revenue-sharing, and other effects. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information 

and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

None of the management alternatives described in this EA would disproportionately place any 

adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and environmental education is 

anticipated to provide a benefit to the residents residing in the surrounding communities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under 

its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change impacts 

as part of long-range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperatures commonly referred to as global warning. In relation to comprehensive planning for 

national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be 

considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Research and 

Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 
102 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts—grasslands, 

forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert—are effective both in preventing carbon emissions 

and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The conclusions of the 

Department of Energy’s report noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and 

may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges. The actions proposed in this CCP would conserve or restore land and water, and would 

thus enhance carbon sequestration. This, in turn, contributes positively to efforts to mitigate 

human-induced global climate changes. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

All management activities that could affect the refuge’s natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, soils, water and air, and historical and 

archaeological resources, would be managed to comply with all laws and regulations. In particular, 

any existing and future oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport operations on the refuge 

would be managed identically under each of the alternatives. Thus, the impacts would be the same. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Funding for land acquisition from willing sellers within an approved expanded acquisition boundary for 

Swanquarter NWR would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, Corps of Engineers mitigation programs, or donations from conservation and 

private organizations. Conservation easements and leases can be used to obtain the minimum 

interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives if the refuge staff can adequately manage uses of the 

areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service can negotiate management agreements with local, state, 

and federal agencies, and accept conservation easements. Some tracts within the refuge acquisition 

boundary may be owned by other public or private conservation organizations. The Service would 

work with interested organizations to identify additional areas needing protection and provide 

technical assistance if needed. The acquisition of private lands is entirely contingent on the 

landowners and their willingness to participate. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All alternatives afford additional land protection and low levels of development, thereby producing 

little negative effect on the refuge’s cultural and historic resources. Potentially negative effects could 

include logging, construction of new trails or facilities, and development of water impoundments. In 

most cases, these management actions would require review by the Service’s Regional Archaeologist 

in consultation with the State of North Carolina Historic Preservation Office, as mandated by Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the determination of whether a particular 

action within an alternative has the potential to affect cultural resources is an on-going process that 

would occur during the planning stages of every project. 

Service acquisition of land with known or potential archaeological or historical sites provides two 

major types of protection for these resources: protection from damage by federal activity and 

protection from vandalism or theft. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that any actions 

by a federal agency which may affect archaeological or historical resources be reviewed by the State 

Historic Preservation Office, and that the identified effects must be avoided or mitigated. The 

Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust, 

and avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. 
Environmental Assessment 103

Land acquisition by the Service would provide some degree of protection to significant cultural and historic 

resources. If acquisition of private lands does not occur and these lands remain under private ownership, 

the landowner would be responsible for protecting and preserving cultural resources. Development of offrefuge lands has the potential to destroy archaeological artifacts and other historical resources, thereby 

decreasing opportunities for cultural resource interpretation and research. 

REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING 

 

Annual refuge revenue-sharing payments to Hyde County would continue at similar rates under each 

alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the payments would increase accordingly. 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Each of the alternatives would have similar effects or minimal to negligible effects on soils, water 

quality and quantity, noise, transportation, human health and safety, children, hazardous materials, 

waste management, aesthetics and visual resources, and utilities and public services. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

This section describes the potential environmental consequences of adopting each refuge 

management alternative. The planning team selected the following impact topics for analysis: effects 

on the biological environment, effects on the physical environment, effects on the social environment, 

and effects on the economic environment. They chose these topics based on the important issues 

and concerns raised at the public scoping meeting and the planning team meetings. Each alternative 

portrays the expected outcomes for fish and wildlife species through the next 15 years, varying with 

the intensity of management. Table 20 outlines a comparison of the effects of Alternatives B and C to 

the existing condition (Alternative A). 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Each alternative would protect existing habitat important to migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. Alternative B would provide data on more species on the refuge 

and control of more invasive weeds than Alternative A. Alternative C would provide data on all 

species on the refuge and control of more invasive weeds than Alternative B. 

The increased public use provided in Alternatives B and C could adversely affect the refuge’s wildlife 

populations due to disturbance and habitat trampling. Hunting is a dispersed activity and the effects 

of a small number of hunters would be spread over 6,000 acres identified for waterfowl hunting and 

over the upland portions of the refuge for deer hunting. The other activities would be concentrated on 

the Bell Island Pier, the new interpretive trail or boardwalk, and the roads. However, nesting and 

foraging habitat for waterfowl, marshbirds, wading birds, songbirds, and mammals would improve 

under Alternatives B and C because of the improved marsh management. Populations of all wildlife 

species would increase slightly under Alternative C. 

Each alternative would protect sites important to migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

land birds. Alternatives B and C have the potential to provide better habitat than Alternative A. 

The deer population on the refuge is currently at a healthy carrying capacity. Under Alternatives B and C, 

habitat management actions could increase the deer population slightly. The refuge’s natural habitats 

provide a relatively poor source of forage for deer. Under Alternatives B and C, the staff would monitor 

deer populations and use hunting to manage their populations in order to provide a compatible 
104 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

recreational activity and prevent habitat damage. Hunting would also ensure the health of the deer herd 

and minimize the negative effects to other wildlife species and habitat. Waterfowl management would 

also be carefully balanced to meet the needs of the waterfowl as well as the hunters. 

The staff would develop an integrated pest management plan under Alternatives B and C. Whenever 

possible, all alternatives would consider techniques other than pesticides to control these species. 

However, the staff would use some quantity of pesticides on an as needed basis. 

If the Service approves a Land Protection Plan and expanded acquisition boundary (expanded by 

less than 10 percent of the current refuge area), Alternatives B and C would provide additional 

protection to wetlands beyond the protection afforded by existing wetland regulations. They would 

also protect landscape characteristics, such as habitat connectivity, and would provide sufficient 

proprietary interest in properties to restore habitats for wildlife. 

Under all public use alternatives, the plan would concentrate the level of recreation use and groundbased disturbance from pedestrians on Bell Island Pier and the interpretive trail or boardwalk. 

Despite this and dispersed activities, including hunting, public use could still have a negative effect on 

wildlife populations. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

A critical issue on the refuge is the water quality in the Pamlico Sound and the streams, bays, and 

ditches around it. Non-point pollution has caused a decrease in water quality over the years. 

Submerged aquatic vegetation has also decreased due to the decreased lower water quality as well 

as disturbance from some types of commercial fishing practices. The submerged aquatic vegetation 

provides the food for the fish and diving ducks that made Hyde County an outstanding waterfowl and 

fish production areas. 

None of the alternatives in this CCP would affect the water quality from sources off the refuge except 

through education and outreach efforts. All the alternatives would mandate the management of the 

refuge to minimize water pollution. 

All alternatives would have no adverse effect on soil formation processes on lands the refuge 

acquires by maintaining perennial natural vegetation on most of the refuge’s area. Some 

disturbances to surface soils and topography would occur at those locations selected for public use 

facilities, maintenance operations, and habitat management. 

All alternatives would have no adverse effect on the water quality in individual streams and wetlands 

due to a relatively low level of soil disturbance and pesticide application. Other positive effects would 

result from the protection of groundwater recharge areas, runoff prevention, sediment retention, and 

minimizing non-point source pollution. 

Each alternative would protect the aesthetic characteristics associated with natural habitats. The staff 

would carry out habitat management activities designed to improve habitat composition and structure 

in such a way to minimize any short- term adverse aesthetic effects. 

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 

Alternative A provides recreation opportunities for the six priority public uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation). The 

NCWRC sets statewide seasons and bag limits for hunting and fishing. The refuge permits waterfowl 
Environmental Assessment 105

hunting on a portion of the refuge. The refuge has a 27,082-acre proclamation boundary 

encompassing waters of Pamlico Sound adjacent to refuge lands that is closed to waterfowl hunting. 

The refuge provides fishing opportunities on the Bell Island Pier and along the shoreline of the 

Pamlico Sound and banks of ditches and streams. The refuge staff does not plan for the other 

priority public uses, but does accommodate requests for access and programs. The staff does not 

conduct planned environmental education programs, but does conduct programs when teachers 

request them and allows the refuge to be used as an outdoor classroom and research site. It also 

maintains a 2-mile access road to a 1,000-foot fishing pier and a two mile service road. 

Under Alternatives B and C, opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation would increase. Alternatives B and 

C would also stimulate eco-tourism and potentially increase tourism expenditures in the 

surrounding local communities. Alternative C would provide substantially more opportunities for 

all public uses than Alternative B. 

All alternatives would allow public access by vehicle, foot, canoe, kayak, and bicycle to facilitate 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Under Alternatives B and C, the Service would construct 

an interpretive trail or boardwalk, and under Alternative C a canoe trail would be developed. The 

refuge staff would develop more education and interpretive programs and tours. Alternative C would 

provide programs for more visitors than Alternative B. 

Alternative B would allow deer hunting with archery equipment. Alternative C would allow deer 

hunting with archery equipment and primitive firearms. Alternatives B and C would provide more 

opportunities than Alternative A. 

Visitor use management on refuges concentrates on the experience, not the number of people 

coming into a refuge. The types and intensity of visitor activities would vary from one habitat to 

another depending on its size, habitat type(s), and wildlife uses. Because much of the land in the 

area is currently in private ownership, the general public realizes only minimal access privileges 

on that land. Since the refuge is held in the public trust, it represents opportunities for public 

access to natural habitats. 

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The wildlife-dependent recreational activities described under Alternatives B and C (i.e., expanded 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation) would increase visitation to the refuge and generate greater purchases 

of local goods and services in the economy of the surrounding communities. An estimated 53,000 

refuge visits were reported in 2003 before Hurricane Isabel destroyed the Bell Island Pier. 

Refuge visitation to support priority public uses would generally build over time as the staff develops 

visitor service programs and facilities and the Service provides operational funds. Initially, much of 

the public use on the refuge is expected to come from local, county, and state residents, and tourists 

visiting the area for another purpose. An increase in the number of spring and fall tourists would be 

predicted for hiking and wildlife observation and photography. The number of visitors would depend 

on the season and would grow if the refuge land base increases or more public use programs are 

provided. Programs developed for school children would involve children coming to the refuge to 

gain an awareness of the refuge’s wildlife and habitats. It could also involve refuge personnel 

presenting programs concerning the refuge to area schools. 
106 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Many of the wildlife-dependent recreational activities offered have yet to be discovered by local 

citizens. As a generator of economic benefits, each alternative identifies hunting and wildlife 

observation as important tourist attractions. Under Alternatives B and C, development of wildlifedependent recreation programs and facilities and improved publicity would lead to greater economic 

benefit from increased tourism. Alternative B would provide programming for 60,000 visitors; 

Alternative C would provide programming for 67,000 visitors. 

The current 53,000 visitors spend an estimated $5,300,000 on the area economy assuming an expenditure 

of $100 per visitor day (Vogelsang 2001). The 60,000 visitors in Alternative B would represent an additional 

$700,000; the 67,000 visitors in Alternative C would represent an additional $1,400,000. 

Land acquisition within an expanded approved acquisition boundary would decrease the gross 

property tax revenues of Hyde County. However, there would be an increase in refuge revenuesharing payments. Because the Service is a federal agency, it is not subject to state and local taxes. 

Under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service would make annual payments 

to the counties to offset the loss of property tax revenues. These annual refuge revenue-sharing 

payments for owned and acquired lands are computed on whichever of the following formulas is 

greatest: (1) three-fourths of 1 percent of the fair market value of the lands acquired in fee title; (2) 25 

percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title 

within the counties. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act also requires that Service lands be appraised 

every five years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. 

In 2004, Hyde County received a revenue-sharing payment of $6,589 for 16,411 acres with an 

appraised value of $1,885,300 at Swanquarter NWR. This was 47 percent of the amount due to the 

county under the Revenue Sharing Act, as Congress did not appropriate sufficient funding to pay the 

full amount. If fully funded, revenue sharing would have paid $14,140 to Hyde County. 

The State of North Carolina recommends that counties tax undeveloped land based on the present use of 

the land. The state publishes a use-value manual based on the area of the state (Major Land Resource 

Area or MLRA) and the soil series of the land. Swanquarter NWR is in the Tidewater Area (MLRA 153B). 

In Hyde County, the refuge has 700 acres of Class I soils in natural vegetation, 200 acres of Class III 

soils in natural vegetation, 3,100 acres of Class V soils in natural vegetation, and 12,411 acres of 

Class VI soils in natural vegetation (Table 19). The Hyde County tax rate is $.95 per $100 of 

assessed value. The county would have taxed $1,013,440 of assessed value; $9,628 if the 16,411 

acres ($0.59 per acre) of land were privately owned. The revenue-sharing payment was $6,589 ($.40 

per acre), .68 percent of the amount the state recommends for taxes. 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

Under Alternative A—the no-action alternative—there are numerous unavoidable impacts, including 

law enforcement, that are not adequate for ensuring safety and enforcing refuge regulations due to 

lack of staff availability; degradation of the biological functions of native plant communities and wildlife 

habitat due to the invasion of exotic plants and nuisance animals; and a decrease in biodiversity due 

to less active management of wildlife and habitat. If these issues are not addressed over time, they 

will continue to impact refuge resources. 
Environmental Assessment 107

Table 19. North Carolina present use value calculation 

Series Approximate 

Acreage 

Class Value/Acre Total Value 

Roper 200 I (Forestry) 

Hyde 50 I (Forestry) 

Yonges 50 I (Forestry) 

Brookman 200 I (Forestry) 

Argent 200 I (Forestry) 

Total 700 I (Forestry) $440 $308,000

Stockade 200 III (Forestry) 

Total 200 III (Forestry) $115 $23,000

Belhaven 1,300 V (Forestry) 

Pungo 1,200 V (Forestry) 

Scuppernong 500 V (Forestry) 

Dorovan 100 V (Forestry) 

Total 3,100 V (Forestry) $60 $186,000

Longshoal 7,900 VI 

Delway 3,000 VI 

Backbay 1,500 VI 

Udorthents 11 VI 

Total 12,411 VI $40 $496,440

Grand Total 16,411 $1,013,440
108 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 20. A comparison of the effects of Alternatives B and C to Alternative A 

Area of Concern Alternative B Alternative C 

Wildlife 

Fish Population No Difference No Difference 

Invertebrate Population No Difference No Difference 

Land Bird Population No Difference Slight Increase 

Mammal Population No Difference Slight Increase 

Marsh Bird Population No Difference Slight Increase 

Reptile and Amphibian Population No Difference No Difference 

Shorebird Population No Difference Slight Increase 

Wading Bird Population No Difference Slight Increase 

Waterfowl Population No Difference Slight Increase 

Wildlife Habitat 

Administrative Areas No Difference No Difference 

Brackish Marsh Slight Improvement Slight Improvement 

Cypress-Gum Swamp Condition No Difference No Difference 

Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest No Difference No Difference 

High Pocosin No Difference No Difference 

Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 

Condition 

No Difference No Difference 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Condition 

No Difference No Difference 

Pest Animal Populations Slight Decrease Slight Decrease 

Pest Plant Populations Slight Decrease Moderate Decrease 

Natural Heritage Area Condition No Difference No Difference 

Wildlife Disease Level No Difference No Difference 

Effect on Social Environment: 

Hunting Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Fishing Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Environmental Education Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Interpretation Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Wildlife Observation Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Wildlife Photography Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Outreach Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Cultural Resources No Difference No Difference 

Effect on Physical Environment 

Water Quality No Difference No Difference 

Soil Quality No Difference No Difference 

Air Quality No Difference No Difference 

Visual Quality No Difference No Difference 

Effect on Economic Environment 

Local Expenditures Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Local Property Taxes Slight Decrease Slight Decrease 
Environmental Assessment 109

Alternative B, the proposed alternative, also has some unavoidable impacts. These impacts are 

expected to be minor and/or short-term in duration. However, the refuge would attempt to minimize 

these impacts whenever possible. The following sections describe the measures the refuge would 

employ to mitigate and minimize the potential impacts that would result from implementation of the 

proposed alternative. 

WATER QUALITY FROM SOIL DISTURBANCE AND USE OF HERBICIDES 

Soil disturbance and siltation due to water management activities; road and ditch maintenance; and 

the construction of an interpretive trail or boardwalk, and other facilities would be expected to be 

minor and of short duration. To further reduce potential impacts, the refuge would use best 

management practices to minimize the erosion of soils into water bodies. 

Foot traffic on new and extended foot trails would be expected to have a negligible impact on soil 

erosion. To minimize the impacts from public use, the refuge would include informational signs that 

request trail users to remain on the trails in order to avoid causing potential erosion problems. 

Long-term herbicide use for exotic plant control could result in a slight decrease in water quality in 

areas prone to exotic plant infestation. Through the proper application of herbicides, however, this 

would be expected to have a minor impact on the environment, with the benefit of reducing or 

eliminating exotic plant infestations. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of the 

activity involved. While some activities, such as wildlife observation, may be less disturbing than 

others, all of the public use activities proposed under the proposed alternative would be planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the proposed alternative are not considered 

to be significant. Nevertheless, the refuge would manage public use activities to reduce impacts. 

Providing access for fishing opportunities allows the use of a renewable natural resource without 

adversely impacting other resources. Hunting would also be managed with restrictions that 

ensure minimal impact on other resources. General wildlife observation could result in minimal 

disturbance to wildlife. If the refuge determines that impacts from the expected additional visitor 

uses are above the levels that are anticipated, those uses would be discontinued, restricted, or 

rerouted to other less sensitive areas. 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Negative impacts could result from the creation, extension, and maintenance of trails that 

require the clearing of nonsensitive vegetation along their length. This is expected to be a 

minor short-term impact. 

Increased visitor use may increase the potential for the introduction of new exotic species into 

areas when visitors do not comply with boating regulations at the boat ramps and other access 

points, or with requests to stay on trails. The refuge would minimize this impact by enforcing 

the regulations for access to the refuge’s water bodies, and by installing informational signs that 

request users to stay on the trails. 
110 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use increases, unanticipated conflicts between different user groups could occur. If this 

should happen, the refuge would adjust its programs, as needed, to eliminate or minimize any public 

use issues. The refuge would use methods that have proven to be effective in reducing or eliminating 

public use conflicts. These methods include establishing separate use areas, different use periods, 

and limits on the numbers of users in order to provide safe, quality, appropriate, and compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed alternative is not expected to negatively affect the owners of private 

lands adjacent to the refuge. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property values, 

less intrusion of invasive exotic plants, and increased opportunities for viewing more diverse wildlife. 

However, some negative impacts that may occur include a higher frequency of trespass onto 

adjacent private lands, and noise associated with increased traffic. To minimize these potential 

impacts, the refuge would provide informational signs that clearly mark refuge boundaries; maintain 

the refuge’s existing parking facilities; use law enforcement; and provide increased educational 

efforts. 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 

Land acquisition efforts by the Service could lead to changes in land use and recreational use patterns. 

However, most of the non-Service-owned lands near the refuge are currently undeveloped. If these lands 

are acquired as additions to the refuge, they would be maintained in a natural state, managed for native 

wildlife populations, and opened to wildlife-dependent public uses, where feasible. 

Potential development of an interpretive trail or boardwalk and other improvements could lead to 

minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soils, and some wildlife species. Efforts would be made 

to use recycled products and environmentally sensitive treated lumber for any construction project. 

All construction activities would comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; 

the National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and other 

applicable regulatory requirements. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts 

can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can 

also accumulate over the course of time, from actions in the past, the present, and the future. 

Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially canceling out each other’s effect on a 

resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an 

incremental impact on the resource. In addition, sometimes the overall effect is greater than merely the 

sum of the individual effects, such as when one more reduction in a population crosses a threshold of 

reproductive sustainability, and threatens to extinguish the population. 
Environmental Assessment 111

A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects, because actions do not take 

place in a vacuum: there are virtually always some other actions that have affected that resource in some 

way in the past, or are affecting it in the present, or would affect it in the reasonably foreseeable future. So 

any assessment of a specific action’s effects must in fact be made with consideration of what else has 

happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else would likely happen to it. 

The refuge is not aware of any past, present, or future planned actions that would result in a significant 

cumulative impact when added to the refuge’s proposed actions, as outlined in the proposed alternative. 

Nevertheless, because of concerns expressed about the cumulative effects of hunting on certain 

national wildlife refuges, the potential cumulative impacts of the hunting program at Swanquarter 

NWR will be analyzed. 

Waterfowl

Wildlife disturbance associated with waterfowl hunting has a negative impact on diurnal and nocturnal 

use of an area by waterfowl (Cronan 1957; McNeil et al., 1992; Paulus 1984), and over-hunting could 

have a negative impact on the waterfowl population. However, at Swanquarter NWR waterfowl 

hunting is only allowed on a 6,120-acre-area of marsh, which includes Great Island and portions of 

the marshes just north of Great Island bordering Juniper Bay. Hunting is not allowed within the 

27,000 acres of adjacent waters within the Presidential Proclamation Area. Waterfowl can utilize the 

Presidential Proclamation Area for resting and feeding while adjacent areas are hunted. In addition, 

public waterfowl hunting provides an economical means for statistical data collection. Random 

checks of hunters can provide kill ratio, population composition, and bird habitat data, as well as the 

possibility of organ collection (e.g., gizzards) for various studies. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service annually prescribes frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times 

when hunting may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed. These 

frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of season and limits for recreation and 

sustenance; aid federal, state, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; 

and permit harvests at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. Because the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed 

unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates 

regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the frameworks from which States may select season 

dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options for each migratory bird hunting season. Thus, in 

effect, federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds. Acknowledging 

regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has administratively divided the nation into four 

flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each flyway (e.g., Atlantic, 

Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of 

one member from each state and province in that flyway. Swanquarter NWR is within the Atlantic 

Flyway. Service biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and 

provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of status reports and 

presentations to flyway councils and other interested parties to ensure the best decisions regarding 

hunting programs could be made. The Service considers factors such as population size and trend, 

geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the 

number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. Mitigation measures, such as afternoon closure of 

hunting, or reducing the total take of waterfowl, would be implemented to minimize negative impacts 

to the waterfowl population as needed. With proper management and cooperation between the 

Service and the states, waterfowl hunting would not cause a significant negative impact at 

Swanquarter NWR. 
112 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Deer

Home range size in mammals often decreases as population density increases (Sanderson 1966). 

Bridges (1968) and Smith (1970) both observed a threefold increase in home-range size following a 

die-off in a Florida deer population. Adult bucks generally have larger home ranges than does, and 

these ranges can vary in size due to many environmental factors. In Florida, minimum home ranges 

averaged 1,539 acres for two mature bucks, 606 acres for two does, and 378 acres for a buck fawn 

(Smith 1970). Deer hunting at Swanquarter NWR, therefore, would be expected to have only local 

impacts on the population due to restricted home ranges of white-tailed deer. 

Hunters make extensive use of the area around the refuge for deer hunting. White-tailed deer are 

considered to be browsers because they primarily consume woody vegetation. However, white-tailed 

deer will eat almost any available form of plant life. Because of this adaptability, it is impossible to 

single out one habitat as greatly superior to others. Interaction of deer and habitat is a combination of 

food preference and utilization, quantity and quality of food, and availability of cover (Halls 1984, 

Halls and Ripley 1961). However, best estimates suggest a much lower carrying capacity for pocosin 

habitat than other habitat types. For example, Monschein (1981) reported the best estimate for 

pocosin habitat is about 6 deer per-square-mile; about 18 deer per-square-mile along pocosin 

borders; and 35-40 deer per-square-mile for coastal bottomland hardwoods. Basic differences 

involve the quantity, quality, and availability of food. 

 

Since establishment of the refuges on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, periodic abomasal parasite 

counts, necropsy findings, laboratory tests, and general physical condition indicate that the health of 

the deer population is fair to good. It was concluded in 1985, 1992, and 1998, by the Southeastern 

Cooperative Wildlife Study that Swanquarter deer were within an optimal stocking density for the 

nutritional capacity of the habitat. 

Under Alternatives B and C, habitat management actions could increase the deer population slightly. 

The refuge’s natural habitats provide a relatively poor source of forage for deer. Under Alternatives B 

and C, the staff would monitor deer populations and use hunting to manage their populations in order 

to provide a compatible recreational activity and prevent habitat damage. Hunting would also ensure 

the health of the deer herd and minimize the effects to other wildlife species and habitat. With proper 

management, deer hunting could maintain herd health and protect habitat at the refuge. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance, but still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

The actions proposed for implementation under the proposed alternative include facility development, 

wildlife and population management, resource protection, public use, and administrative programs. 

These actions would result in both direct and indirect effects. Facility development, for example, 

would most likely lead to increased public use, a direct effect; and it, in turn, would lead to indirect 

effects, such as increased littering, noise, and vehicular traffic. 

Other indirect effects that may result from implementing the proposed alternative include minor 

impacts from siltation due to the disturbance of soils and vegetation while expanding or creating new 

foot trails; and construction of a boardwalk and/or interpretive display at the refuge. 
Environmental Assessment 113

Anticipated indirect effects or impacts are thought to be minimal and/or short-term issues. Best 

management practice during construction of facilities, proper management of the refuge, and 

education of the public would deter impacts. As issues arise, the Service would also utilize adaptive 

management to minimize negative impacts. 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions proposed under the proposed alternative are 

dedicated to maintaining the long-term productivity of refuge habitats. The benefits of this plan for 

long-term productivity far outweigh any impacts from short-term actions, such as the construction of a 

boardwalk and/or interpretive display, or creation of new trails. While these activities would cause 

short-term negative impacts, the educational values and associated public support gained from the 

improved visitor experience would produce long-term benefits for the refuge’s entire ecosystem. 

The key to protecting and ensuring the refuge’s long-term productivity is to find the threshold where 

public uses do not degrade or interfere with the refuge’s natural resources. The plans proposed 

under the proposed alternative have been carefully conceived to achieve that threshold. Therefore, 

implementing the proposed alternative would lead to long-term benefits for wildlife protection and land 

conservation that far outweigh any short-term impacts. 
114 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 115

V. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative, which are presented in this Draft CCP/EA. It lists 

the meetings that have been held with the various agencies, organizations, and individuals who were 

consulted in the preparation of the Draft CCP/EA. 

The Service formed a planning core team composed of representatives from various Service divisions to 

prepare the Draft CCP/EA (Table 21). Initially, the team focused on identifying the issues and concerns 

pertinent to refuge management. The team met on several occasions from December 2000 to June 

2002. A biological review team (Table 22) met on the refuges in the ecosystem four times between 

December 1999 and December 2000 to assess the habitats on the refuges and the needs of wildlife 

species in the ecosystem, and to make recommendations on land management and acquisition needs. 

The core team also sought the contributions of experts (Table 23) from various fields. 

Table 21. Swanquarter NWR comprehensive conservation core planning team members 

Name and Title Station, Refuge, Location 

Bruce Freske, Refuge Manager 

Jerry Fringeli, Assistant Manager 

Chris Smith, Law Enforcement Officer 

Don Temple, Former Manager 

John Stanton, Former Wildlife Biologist 

Dan Sheill, Former Law Enforcement Officer 

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge 

Swan Quarter, North Carolina 

Robert Glennon, Former Natural Resource Planner

David Brown, Former Habitat Protection Biologist 

Former Ecosystem Planning Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 
116 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 22. Swanquarter NWR comprehensive conservation biological review team members 

Name and Title Station, Refuge, Location 

Bob Noffsinger, Former Supervisory Wildlife 

Management Biologist 

Migratory Bird Field Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Frank Bowers, Former Migratory Bird Coordinator Southeast Regional Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Chuck Hunter, Former Nongame Migratory Bird 

Coordinator 

Southeast Regional Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Ronnie Smith, Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Assistance Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

John Stanton, Former Wildlife Biologist Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Swan Quarter, North Carolina 

Wendy Stanton, Wildlife Biologist Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Columbia, North Carolina 

Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Biologist Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Ralph Keel, Former Wildlife Biologist Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Suffolk, Virginia 

John Gallegos, Wildlife Biologist Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

David Allen, Nongame Wildlife Biologist North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

New Bern, North Carolina 
Environmental Assessment 117

Table 23. Expert contributors to the Swanquarter NWR comprehensive conservation plan and 

their area(s) of expertise 

Expert Area of Expertise 

Bill Grabill, Former Refuge Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Refuge Management 

Rufus Croom, District Conservationist 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

Plymouth, North Carolina 

Soil and Water Conservation 

Federal Land Conservation Programs 

John Gagnon, Soil Scientist 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

Soil Science 

Kevin Moody, Former NEPA Specialist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

National Environmental Policy Act 

John Ann Shearer, Private Lands Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

Wetland Management 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

Richard Kanaski, Regional Archaeologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Savannah, Georgia 

Cultural Resources 

To expand the range of issues and to generate potential alternatives, the core planning team (Table 21) 

met in January 2001. Shortly thereafter, on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23 in Washington, Swan 

Quarter, Plymouth, Columbia, and Manns Harbor, the planning team held public meetings to gain the 

insights of local citizens and their perceptions of the issues and concerns facing the refuge. 

The issues and alternatives generated from these meetings, coupled with the input of the planning 

team, are summarized in Chapters 1 and 3 of this environmental impact statement. 
118 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 119

APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in a management plan. Analysis of results helps 

managers determine whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alluvial: Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing 

water. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated 

need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of objectives 

and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Anadromous: Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to 

fresh water to breed. 

Approved Acquisition 

Boundary: 

A project boundary that the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

approves upon completion of the detailed planning and environmental 

compliance process. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as biodiversity. 

Biological Integrity: The biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, 

and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the 

natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and 

communities. 

Canopy: A layer of foliage; generally the upper-most layer, in a forest stand. It 

can be used to refer to mid- or under-story vegetation in multi-layered 

stands. Canopy closure is an estimate of the amount of overhead tree 

cover (also canopy cover). 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat 

or area. 
120 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Categorical Exclusion: A category of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the 

national wildlife refuge [50 CFR 25.12 (a)]. A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan:

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: See Issue 

Conservation 

Easement: 

A legal document that provides specific land-use rights to a secondary 

party. A perpetual conservation easement usually grants conservation 

and management rights to a party in perpetuity. 

Cooperative 

Agreement: 

A simple habitat protection action in which no property rights are 

acquired. An agreement is usually long-term and can be modified by 

either party. Lands under a cooperative agreement do not necessarily 

become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Corridor: A route that allows movement of individuals from one region or place to 

another. 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the 

National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 
Appendices 121

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses, 

among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the nature and 

extent of known cultural resources, previous research, management 

objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, and a general 

statement on how program objectives should be met and conflicts 

resolved. An overview should reference or incorporate information from 

a field office’s background or literature search described in Section VIII 

of the Cultural Resource Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 

FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Cypress and Tupelo 

Swamp: 

Found in low-lying areas, swales, and open ponds that hold water 

several months, if not all of the year. Large hollow trees are used as 

bear den sites. 

Deciduous: Pertaining to perennial plants that are leafless for some time during the 

year. 

Designated Wilderness 

Area:

An area designated by the U.S. Congress to be managed as part of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service Manual 610 

FW 1.5). 

Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be 

natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecological Succession: The orderly progression of an area through time in the absence of 

disturbance from one vegetative community to another. 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in 

the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or 

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

Endemic Species: Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose 

distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 
122 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need 

for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Health: It is the composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and 

other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the 

natural abiotic processes that shape the environment. 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Estuary: The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area 

where the tide meets a river current. 

Even-Aged Forests: Forests that are composed of trees with a time span of less than 20 

years between oldest and youngest individuals. 

Fauna: All the vertebrate or invertebrate animals of an area. 

Federal Trust Species: All species where the Federal Government has primary jurisdiction 

including federally threatened or endangered species, migratory birds, 

anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 

Fee-title: The acquisition of most or all of the rights to a tract of land. There is a 

total transfer of property rights with the formal conveyance of a title. 

While a fee title acquisition involves most rights to a property, certain 

rights may be reserved or not purchased, including water rights, 

mineral rights, or use reservation (the ability to continue using the land 

for a specified time period, or the remainder of the owner’s life). 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 
Appendices 123

Floodplain Woods: Bottomland Hardwood Forests. Consists of hardwoods (old growth and 

mid-succession age timber) and cypress tupelo stands found on low 

ridges that drain slowly and are subject to flooding. Species include 

overcup, willow, water oaks, sweetgum, and green ash. Old growth—

typically exceeding 120 years of age. Red oaks were removed in the 

1940s. Mid-succession—logged timber that may need restoration to 

improve wildlife habitat. Missing several key oak species. 

Fragmentation: The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches. 

The disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and small patches. 

Geographic 

Information System: 

A computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial data. 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

Ground Story (flora): Vascular plants less than one meter in height, excluding tree seedlings. 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives.

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Herbaceous Wetland: Annually or seasonally inundated with vegetation consisting primarily of 

grasses, sedges, rushes, and cattail. 

Historic Conditions: These are the composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems 

resulting from natural processes that we believe, based on sound 

professional judgment, were present prior to substantial human related 

changes to the landscape. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Indicator Species: A species of plant or animals that is assumed to be sensitive to habitat 

changes and represents the needs of a larger group of species. 

Informed Consent: The grudging willingness of opponents to “go along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 

In-holding: Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national wildlife refuge. 
124 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision [e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K)]. 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative 

Management Concern: See Issue 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA 

with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making (40 CFR 

1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service is 

required to develop 15-year comprehensive conservation plans for all 

national wildlife refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the six 

public uses given priority status within the Refuge System (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission 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. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; game ranges; wildlife management areas; or 

waterfowl production areas. 
Appendices 125

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the Refuge System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Neotropical Migratory 

Bird: 

A bird species that breeds north of the United States/Mexican border 

and winters primarily south of that border. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States. 

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (P.L. 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Making objectives attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Planning Area: A planning area may include lands outside existing planning unit 

boundaries that are being studied for inclusion in the unit and/or 

partnership planning efforts. It may also include watersheds or 

ecosystems that affect the planning area. 

Planning Team: A planning team prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. A 

team generally consists of the planning team leader; refuge manager 

and staff biologists; staff specialists or other representatives of Service 

programs, ecosystems or regional offices; and state partnering wildlife 

agencies as appropriate. 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

Proposed Alternative: This is the alternative determined (by the decision-maker) to best 

achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 
126 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May occur from natural 

ignition or intentional ignition. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that require protective measures and/or 

management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority species 

include the following: (1) State-listed and candidate species; (2) 

species or groups of animals susceptible to significant population 

declines within a specific area or statewide by virtue of their inclination 

to aggregate (e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of recreation, 

commercial, and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

conservation planning process. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of federal, state, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

“The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit.” For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 602 FW 106 S). 

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior, and recommended for designation by the 

President to Congress. These areas await only legislative action by 

Congress in order to become part of the Wilderness System. Such 

areas are also referred to as “pending in Congress” (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 
Appendices 127

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were not), 

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal 

Refuge Operating 

Needs System: 

This is a national database that contains the unfunded operational 

needs of each refuge. Projects included are those required to 

implement approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal 

mandates. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge 

Seral Forest: A forest in the mature stage of development, usually dominated by 

large, old trees. 

Sink: A habitat in which local mortality exceeds local reproductive success for 

a given species. 

Sink Population: A population in a low-quality habitat in which birth rate is generally less 

than the death rate and population density is maintained by immigrants 

from source populations. 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that is medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Source: A habitat in which local reproductive success exceeds local mortality for 

a given species. 

Source Population: A population in a high-quality habitat in which birth rate greatly exceeds 

death rate and the excess individuals leave as migrants. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, and safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 
128 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP, the study area includes the lands within the 

currently approved refuge boundary and potential refuge expansion 

areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

Trust Species: Species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has primary 

responsibility, including most federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, anadromous fish once they enter the inland 

coastal waterways, and migratory birds. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Understory: Any vegetation with canopy below or closer to the ground than 

canopies of other plants. 

Unit Objective: See Objective 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other 

mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 
Appendices 129

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study area must meet the 

following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; and 

 Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3) 

Wildlife Corridor: A landscape feature that facilitates the biologically effective transport of 

animals between larger patches of habitat dedicated to conservation 

functions. Such corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffic, 

including frequent foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the once 

in a lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. These are transition habitats 

and need not contain all habitat elements required by migrants for longterm survival or reproduction. 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Recreation: 

A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 specifies 

that these are the six priority general public uses of the system. 
130 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DU Ducks Unlimited 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE environmental education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FR Federal Register 

FTE full-time equivalent 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PFT Permanent Full Time 

PUNA Public Use Natural Area 

RM Refuge Manual 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also Service) 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

USC United States Code 
Appendices 131

Appendix B. References and Literature Citations 

Allen, T. G. 1998. Black bear population dynamics and habitat use in coastal North Carolina. MS 

Thesis, Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville. 131 pp. (AR) 

Barick, F.B. and T.S. Critcher. 1975. Wildlife and land use planning with particular reference to 

coastal counties. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC. 168 pp. (AR) 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Stackhole Books, Harrisburg, 

PA. 544 pp. (AR) 

Bookhout, T.A.. 1994. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth edition. 

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD 740pp. 

Bridges, R.J. 1968. Individual white-tailed deer movement and related behavior during the winter and 

spring in northwestern Florida. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Georgia, Athens. 86pp. 

Cowardin, L. et. al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services FWS/OBS-79/31. 

131 pgs.(AR) 

Cronan, J.M., Jr. 1957. Food and feeding habitats of the scaups in Connecticut waters. 

Auk 74:459-468. 

Daniel, C.C., III. 1981. Hydrology, geology and soils of pocosins: a comparison of natural and 

altered systems. 

Eubanks, T., P. Kerlinger, and R.H. Payne 1993. High Island, Texas, A Case Study in Avitourism, 

Birding 25(6):415-420).(AR) 

Eubanks, Ted, and John Stoll. 1999. Avitourism in Texas: Two Studies of Birders in Texas and Their 

Potential Support for the Proposed World Birding Center. Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Contract No. 44467. (AR) 

Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowen and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and trends of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States: 1950's to 1970's. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 32pp. (AR) 

Fredrickson, L.H. and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1988. Waterfowl Use of Forested Wetlands of the Southern 

United States: An Overview. Pages 307-323 in M.W. Weller, editor. Waterfowl in Winter. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. (AR) 

Halls, L. K. 1984. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stockpole Books. Harrisburg, 

PA 870p. (AR) 

Halls, L. K. and T. H. Ripley. 1961. Deer browse plants of southern forests. U.S. Forest Service 

South and Southeast Forest Experiment Station, 78 pp. (AR) 
132 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy 

and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Atlanta, Georgia. (AR) 

Hamilton, R. J. 1978.Ecology of the black bear in southeastern North Carolina. M. S. 

Thesis.University of Georgia. Athens. (AR) 

Hamilton, R. J. and L. Marchinton. 1977. Denning and related activities of black bears in the coastal 

plain of North Carolina. Pages 121-126 In Bears their biology and management. Bear 

Biology Association Conference Series No. 3 Kalispell, Montana (AR) 

Hardy, D. M. 1974 Habitat requirements of the black bear in Dare County, North Carolina. MS 

Thesis. Virginia Technical Institute, Blacksburg, Va. 121 pp. (AR) 

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy 

and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Atlanta, Georgia. (AR) 

Hefner, J.H. and J.D. Brown. 1984. Wetland trends in the southeastern United States. 

Wetlands 4:1-11. 

Hester, J. Jr. and B. Copeland. 1975. Nekton population dynamics in the Albemarle Sound and 

Neuse River estuaries. Univ. North Carolina Sea Grant College, Raleigh. 

UNC-SG-5-02. 129 pp. (AR) 

Hunter, W.C., D.N. Pashley and R.E.F. Escano.1992. Neotropical migratory land bird species and 

their habitats of special concern within the Southeast region. Pages 159-169 in D.M. (AR) 

Hunter, W.C., L.H. Peoples, and J.A. Collazo. 2001. South Atlantic Coastal Plain Partners in Flight 

Bird Conservation Plan. (AR) 

Johnson, H., S. Winslow, D. Crocker, B. Holland, Jr., J. Gillikin and D. Taylor. 1980. Biology and 

management of mid-Atlantic anadromous fishes under extended jurisdiction. N.C. 

Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Marine Fisheries, 

Morehead City. Special Science Report 36. 204 pp. 

Kerlinger, P. 1994. The Economic Impact of Birding Ecotourism on Communities Surrounding Eight 

National Wildlife Refuges. (AR) 

Kerlinger, P. 1999. Birding Tourism and Dauphin Island. (AR) 

Landers, J. L., R.J. Hamilton, A. S. Johnson, and R. L. Marchinton. 1979. Foods and habitat of black 

bears in south eastern North Carolina. J. Wildi. Manage 43(l):143-153. (AR) 

Lee, D. S., M. K. Clark, and J. B. Funderburg Jr. 19 8 2. A preliminary survey of the mammals of 

mainland Dare County, North Carolina. Pages 20-61 In E. F. Potter, ed. A survey of the 

vertebrate fauna of mainland Dare County, North Carolina. N.C. Biological Survey, 

Raleigh, N.C. (AR) 

Lilly, J. P. 1981. A history of swamp land development in North Carolina. 

Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow. 2000. The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological 

Symposium. (AR) 
Appendices 133

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of 

nocturnal habits in waterfowl. Biol. Rev. 67:381 – 419. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New 

York, New York. 722 pp. (AR) 

Monschein, T. 1981. Values of pocosins to game and fish species in North Carolina. Pages 155-170 

In C. Richardson, ed. Pocosin Wetlands. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, 

Stroudsburg, PA (AR) 

National Audubon Society. 1998. Campaign on HR 3267. (AR) 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2000. Wildlife-Associated Recreation on the 

New Jersey Delaware Bayshore. (AR) 

North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2006. 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2002. Largest Employers by County. (AR) 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2004. Unemployment Rates by County. (AR) 

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 2001. North Carolina Coastal Plain 

Paddle Trails Guide. (AR) 

North Carolina State University. 1974. Status of Black Bear in North Carolina (Research) Habitat 

Suitability for Black Bear, Annual Job Progress Report. Project W-56-2-VI-C. (AR) 

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 48:371-380. 

Peacock, S. L. and J. M. Lynch. 1982. Natural areas inventory of mainland Dare County, North 

Carolina. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Office of 

Coastal Management CEIP Report No. 27. (AR) 

Reincke, K. J., and C. K. Baxter. 1996. Waterfowl habitat management in the Mississippi alluvial 

valley. Pages 159-167 in J. T. Ratti, ed., Seventh International Waterfowl Symposium. 

Riggs, S.R. and D.K. Belknap. 1988. Upper Cenozoic processes and environments of continental 

margin sedimentation: eastern United States, p. 131-176 in Sheridan, R.E., and J.A. Graw, 

eds. The Geology of North America, Vol 1-2, the Atlantic Continental Margin, U.S. Geological 

Society of America. (AR) 

Robison, T.M. 1977. Public water supplies of North Carolina, Northern Coastal Plain. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, pp. 49-50(AR) 

Sanderson, G.C. 1966. The study of mammal movement – a review. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 30(1):215-235. 

Schafale, M.P. and Weakely, A.S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North 

Carolina. Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC. 325 pp. (AR) 
134 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Sharitz, R. and J. Gibbons. 1982. The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina 

bays: a community profile. U.S. Dep. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv., Div. Biol. Serv., Wash., D.C. 

FWS/ OBS-82/04. 93 pp. AR) 

Schmidt, P.R. 1993. Memorandum - Information request regarding impacts of hunting on national 

wildlife refuges. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory 

Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 7pp. 

Skaggs, R. W., J. Gilliam, T. Sheets and J. Barnes. 1980. Effect of agricultural land development on 

drainage water in the North Carolina tidewater region. Water Resources Res. Institute, Univ. 

North Carolina, Raleigh. Rpt. No. 159. 

Smith, F.H., Jr. 1970. Daily and seasonal variation in movements of white-tailed deer on Elgin Air 

Force Bae, Florida. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Georgia, Athens. 58 pp. 

Tetterton B. and G. Tetterton. (1998) North Carolina County Fact Book. Vols. I and II. Broadfoot’s of 

Wendell, Wendell, NC. (AR) 

Titus, James G. and Vijay Narayanan. 1995. The probability of sea level rise. U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. EPA 230-R95-008. Washington, D.C. 186 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Draft environmental impact statement Prulean Farms, Inc. 

Dare County September 1982. Wilmington District, Regulatory Functions Branch, 

Wilmington, N.C. (AR) 

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 1997. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. (M) 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Forest Statistics for the Northern Coastal 

Plain of North Carolina, 2000. Resource Bulletin SRS-83, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. (M) 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Soil Survey of Hyde 

County, North Carolina. (M) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric soils of the State of North 

Carolina 1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with 

the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington, DC. unpaginated. (AR) 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General Profile, 

Hyde County, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (AR) 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Economic Census, Hyde County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (AR) 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program. 2000. Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimates for Hyde County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (AR) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Nature-Based Tourism. (AR) 
Appendices 135

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 1997b. Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Prepared by Andrew Laughland and 

James Caudill. 118 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Significant wildlife resource areas of North Carolina. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Asheville Area Office. Asheville, NC. 139 pp. 

 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation. (AR)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation - North Carolina. (AR)

Vogelsang, Hans, 2001. Assessing the Economic Impact of Ecotourism Developments on the 

Albemarle/Pamlico Region. (AR)

Watts, B. D. and B. J. Paxton. 2002. Investigating the distribution, population status, and habitat 

requirements of the Wayne’s Black-throated Green Warbler in the northern South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series. CCBTR-02-08. 

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 21 pp 

Whitehead, D.R. 1972. Development and environmental history of the Dismal Swamp. 

Ecol. Monogr. 42: 301-305. 
136 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 137

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive 

Orders 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies 

with respect to identification of information to be made public; 

publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance of records; 

attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and 

hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments, or objects of 

antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The 

Act authorizes the President to designate as national monuments 

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on lands owned or 

controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

and exercise their traditional religions, including access to important 

sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American society 

more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act of 1965, 

as amended 

Authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to enter into 

cooperative agreements with states and other non-federal interests 

for conservation, development, and enhancement of anadromous 

fish and contribute up to 50 percent as the federal share of the cost 

of carrying out such agreements. Reclamation construction 

programs for water resource projects needed solely for such fish 

are also authorized. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended. 

This Act strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with federal funds, or leased by a federal agency, must 

comply with standards for physical accessibility. 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale or transport of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by 

the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or 

for the religious purposes of Indians. 
138 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, 

reforestation, conservation of natural resources and protection of 

fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were 

established under authority of this Act. 

Cave Resources Protection 

Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on federal lands, including allowing the 

land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the 

public, and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on federal lands. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. 

This Act and its amendments charge federal land managers with 

direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and related values” of 

land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, 

as amended 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the restoration 

and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of the Act requires that 

federally permitted activities comply with the Clean Water Act 

standards, state water quality laws, and any other appropriate state 

laws. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with 

regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) 

Identifies undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS). The objectives of the act are to 

minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful federal expenditures, 

and minimize the damage to natural resources by restricting most 

federal expenditures that encourage development within the CBRS. 

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 

Reauthorized the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), 

expanded the CBRS to include undeveloped coastal barriers along 

the Great Lakes and in the Caribbean, and established “Otherwise 

Protected Areas (OPAs).” The Service is responsible for 

maintaining official maps, consulting with federal agencies that 

propose spending federal funds within the CBRS and OPAs, and 

making recommendations to Congress about proposed boundary 

revisions. 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration 

(1990) 

Authorizes the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

participate in the development of a Louisiana coastal wetlands 

restoration program, participate in the development and oversight 

of a coastal wetlands conservation program, and lead in the 

implementation and administration of a national coastal wetlands 

grant program. 
Appendices 139

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

Commerce to encourage coastal states to develop and implement 

coastal zone management plans and requires that “any federal 

activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone” shall be 

“consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies” of a state’s coastal zone management plan. The law 

includes an Enhancement Grants Program for protecting, restoring, 

or enhancing existing coastal wetlands or creating new coastal 

wetlands. It also established the National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System, guidelines for estuarine research, and financial 

assistance for land acquisition. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the states to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to 

import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for 

the determination and listing of threatened and endangered species 

and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires refuge 

managers to perform internal consultation before initiating projects 

that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

This Act established the Office of Environmental Education within 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop and 

administer a federal environmental education program in 

consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Estuary Protection Act of 

1968 

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies and the states, to study and inventory estuaries of 

the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, and 

to determine whether such areas should be acquired for protection. 

The Secretary is also required to encourage state and local 

governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their 

planning activities relative to federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the 

Secretary was required to establish conditions to ensure the 

permanent protection of estuaries. 
140 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Estuaries and Clean 

Waters Act of 2000 

This law creates a federal interagency council that includes the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator for the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The council is 

charged with developing a national estuary habitat restoration 

strategy and providing grants to entities to restore and protect 

estuary habitat to promote the strategy. 

Food Security Act of 1985, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

The Act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who 

convert wetlands for the purpose of planting after enactment of the 

law are ineligible for most farmer program subsidies. It also 

established the Wetland Reserve Program to restore and protect 

wetlands through easements and restoration of the functions and 

values of wetlands on such easement areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

The purpose of this law is to minimize the extent to which federal 

programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction 

projects and the management of federal lands. 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the federal government. Advisory committees 

may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory 

unless otherwise specified and meetings must be open to the 

public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

Provided that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, or 

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized mining coal 

on refuges. 

Federal-Aid Highways Act 

of 1968 

Established requirements for approval of federal highways through 

national wildlife refuges and other designated areas to conserve the 

natural beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is 

directed to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other 

federal agencies before approving any program or project requiring 

the use of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other federal, State 

and local agencies, farmers’ associations, and private individuals in 

measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of 

such weeds. The Act requires each Federal land-managing 

agency, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, to designate an 

office or person to coordinate a program to control such plants on 

the agency’s land and implement cooperative agreements with the 

states, including integrated management systems to control 

undesirable plants. 
Appendices 141

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry 

but also includes the inherent right of every citizen and resident to 

fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment and to maintain and 

increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to take such steps as may be required for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources including, but not limited to, research, 

development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or 

exchange of land and water or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. 

Improvement Act of 1978 This act was passed to improve the administration of fish and 

wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, including the 

Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It 

authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and 

personal property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes 

the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to 

carry out volunteer programs. 

Fishery (Magnuson) 

Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised of 

federal and state officials, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. It 

provides for regulation of foreign fishing and vessel fishing permits. 

Freedom of Information Act, 

1966 

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions; official, published and unpublished policy statements; 

final orders deciding case adjudication; and other documents. 

Special exemptions have been reserved for nine categories of 

privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Geothermal Steam Act of 

1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related 

resources on public lands. Section 15 c of the Act prohibits issuing 

geothermal leases on virtually all Service-administrative lands. 
142 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals 

and to safeguard U.S. crop production from harmful foreign 

species, this Act prohibits interstate and international transport and 

commerce of fish, wildlife or plants taken in violation of domestic or 

foreign laws. It regulates the introduction to America of foreign 

species. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

This Act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus 

federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer 

continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for 

matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for 

land acquisition by various federal agencies, including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, as amended 

The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act established a federal 

responsibility to conserve marine mammals with management 

vested in the Department of the Interior for sea otter, walrus, polar 

bear, dugong, and manatee. The Department of Commerce is 

responsible for cetaceans and pinnipeds, other than the walrus. 

With certain specified exceptions, the Act establishes a moratorium 

on the taking and importation of marine mammals, as well as 

products taken from them. 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve 

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition 

with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of the 

commission was expanded by the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, 

restoration, and enhancement proposals recommended by the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the “Duck Stamp Act,” requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the 

United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet 

Union for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by 

special regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, 

capture, possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export or import any 

migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands. 
Appendices 143

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

deposits of coal, oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons; sulphur; 

phosphate; potassium; and sodium. Section 185 of this title 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over federal 

lands for pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (i.e., gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on federal or Indian lands. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for environmental 

impacts of federal actions. It stipulates the factors to be considered 

in environmental impact statements, and requires that federal 

agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related decisionmaking and develop means to ensure that unqualified 

environmental values are given appropriate consideration, along 

with economic and technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program 

of matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic, and historic values of some important trails. National 

recreation trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior or 

Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the 

consent of the involved state(s), and other land managing 

agencies, if any. National scenic and national historic trails may 

only be designated by Congress. Several national trails cross units 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single federal law that governed the 

administration of the various national wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of a 

refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the refuge was established. 
144 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

This Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. This Act defines the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of six priority wildlife-dependent public uses, 

establishes a formal process for determining compatible uses of 

Refuge System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as 

responsible for managing and protecting the Refuge System, and 

requires the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for 

all refuges outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grant program to fund projects that promote 

the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the united States, 

Latin America, and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, the United States, and 

Mexico. The North American Wetlands Conservation Council was 

created to recommend projects to be funded under the Act to the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Available funds may be 

expended for up to 50 percent of the United States’ share cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United 

States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on federal lands). 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational 

use, when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary 

purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish 

and wildlife-dependent recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public 

uses. 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities 

for conservation of non-game species. The funding formula is no 

more that 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, and at 

least 1/3 state funds. 
Appendices 145

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government 

within the county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the 

United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides 

authority for the Service to review and comment on the effects on 

fish and wildlife activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted 

by the Corps of Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated 

sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable 

waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Departments of Interior and 

Defense with state agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It 

requires the Secretary of each military department to use trained 

professionals to manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his 

jurisdiction, and requires that federal and state fish and wildlife 

agencies be given priority in management of fish and wildlife 

activities on military reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of 

the General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred, without 

reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has 

particular value for migratory birds, or to a state agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes. 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as 

amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell 

their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires 

that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property. 
146 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, 

industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife needs. The act also 

established a grant program to assist States in participating in the 

development of related comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of 1968, as amended 

This Act selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or 

other similar values; conserves them in a free-flowing condition; 

and protects their local environments. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

This Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to review every 

roadless area of 5,000 acres or more and every roadless island 

regardless of size within the National Wildlife Refuge System and to 

recommend suitability of each such area. The Act permits certain 

activities within designated wilderness areas that do not alter 

natural processes. Wilderness values are conserved through a 

“minimum tool” management approach, which requires refuge 

managers to use the least intrusive methods, equipment, and 

facilities necessary for administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

program within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 
Appendices 147

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic 

sites, the Service will consult with Federal and State 

Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the 

use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources 

of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent 

federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse 

impacts associated with occupancy and modification 

of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling 

their respective authorities, federal agencies “shall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize 

the impact of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare, and to restore and conserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains.” 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted 

by off-road vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977) Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

and take action to minimize the destruction, loss of 

degradation of wetlands, and to conserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring federal agencies to use the state process to 

determine and address concerns of state and local 

elected officials with proposed federal assistance and 

development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice (1994) Requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 
148 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EOs and other actions in 

connection with transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with state, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private 

sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to comprehensive conservation planning 

is the National Vegetation Classification System 

(NVCS), which is the adopted standard for vegetation 

mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of 

regional and national summaries, which in turn, can 

provide an ecosystem context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Federal agencies are directed to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunities in cooperation with states and 

tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The Act directs Federal 

agencies to conserve, protect, and restore rivers and 

their associated resources important to our history, 

culture, and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Federal agencies are directed to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a 

cost effective and environmentally sound manner, 

accurately monitor invasive species, provide for 

restoration of native species and habitat conditions, 

conduct research to prevent introductions and to 

control invasive species, and promote public 

education on invasive species and the means to 

address them. This EO replaces and rescinds EO 

11987, Exotic Organisms (1977). 
Appendices 149

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

(2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds 

by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
150 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 151

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

The Service invited these agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in six public 

scoping meetings on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001 in Washington, Swan Quarter, Plymouth, 

Columbia, and Manns Harbor, North Carolina. The staff introduced the audience of 176 citizens to 

the refuge and its planning process and asked them to identify their issues and concerns. The 

Service published announcements giving the location, date, and time for the public meetings in the 

Federal Register and legal notices in local newspapers. The staff also sent news releases to local 

newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio stations. Service personnel 

placed fifty posters announcing the meeting in local post offices, local government buildings, and 

stores. 

The planning team expanded the issues and concerns to include those generated by the agencies, 

organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. These issues and concerns 

formed the basis for the development and comparison of the objectives in the different alternatives 

described in the EA. 

The issues raised at the meetings are on the next pages, followed by worksheets the workshop 

participants completed at each workshop. 
152 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Scoping Meetings - Comments 

February 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 2001 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Wildlife - General Survey fish and wildlife 

populations. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Conduct biological assessment 

and inventory of flora and fauna 

inhabiting the refuge. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Assess impacts of waterfowl 

management. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Conduct more fish research. Addressed in the plan. 

 Fully staff refuge to survey and 

manage habitats. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Utilize volunteers from community 

to survey fish and wildlife. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Share data with other agencies. Addressed in the plan. 

Wildlife-Red Wolf Remove all wolves from Hyde 

County. 

Red Wolf Recovery Program 

Concern. 

 Control the red wolf population. Red Wolf Recovery Program 

Concern. 

 Involve Hyde County residents in 

the red wolf program. 

Red Wolf Recovery Program 

Concern. 

 Seek compromises in red wolf 

management. 

Red Wolf Recovery Program 

Concern. 

Habitat-General Survey habitats. Addressed in the plan. 

 Increase habitat restoration. Addressed in the plan. 

 Increase exotic and invasive 

species eradication. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Fully staff refuge to survey and 

manage habitats. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Utilize volunteers from community 

to survey and manage habitat. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Share data with other agencies. Addressed in the plan. 

 Consider impacts of water 

management activities on fish and 

aquatic resources. 

No water management activities 

at Swanquarter Refuge. 

 Maintain ditches. Addressed in the plan. 
Appendices 153

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

 Check, maintain, and clean wood 

duck boxes. 

Addressed in the plan. 

Habitat – Wilderness 

Area 

Address impacts to the 

Wilderness Area separately. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Increase public awareness of 

Wilderness Areas. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Do not allow motorized watercraft 

within the Wilderness Area. 

Outside of F&WS jurisdiction. 

 Conduct baseline surveys of 

plants and animals in the 

Wilderness Area. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Prescribed fire in the Wilderness 

Area should be similar to natural 

occurrences, e.g. not human 

induced on islands. 

Addressed in the plan. 

Public Use-General Increase access to refuge. Addressed in the plan. 

 Assess appropriateness of 

hunting, fishing, and trapping on 

the refuge, and any proposed 

changes to these programs. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Assess impacts of recreational 

activities on native flora and 

fauna. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Continue other public use 

activities. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Develop appropriate signage 

indicating where existing facilities 

are. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Increase programs to attract more 

people. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Provide more ecotourism 

opportunities. 

Addressed in the plan. 

Public Use-General Recognize the importance of the 

refuge to Hyde County. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Expand public uses other than 

hunting and fishing. 

Addressed in the plan. 
154 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

 Open the refuge roads and trails 

to horseback riding. 

Limited roadways/trails prohibit 

horseback riding at Swanquarter 

Refuge. Would interfere with 

other uses. Allowed on 30 miles of 

levees at nearby Mattamuskeet 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Public Use-Hunting Develop other areas on the refuge 

for hunting. 

Addressed in the plan. 

Public Use – Fishing Continue providing access to Bell 

Island fishing. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Increase checks of fish limits. Addressed in the plan. 

Public Use - Trapping Develop a trapping program for 

furbearers, predators, beavers, 

and nutria. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Increase trapping program for 

nuisance or over populated 

furbearers 

Addressed in the plan. 

Public Use – 

Environmental Education 

Develop education programs at 

other refuges in the area. 

In plan at other refuges, but 

Swanquarter Refuge would be 

used also. 

Public Use - 

Interpretation 

Incorporate local culture and 

heritage of the area into refuge 

programs. 

Done at Mattamuskeet Refuge, 

but could be done for 

Swanquarter Refuge too. 

Resource Protection – 

Land Protection 

Do not acquire land. Land protection plan would be 

developed and consider all 

options for land protection. 

 Acquire land from willing 

landowners to improve 

connectivity among conservation 

lands. 

Land protection plan would be 

developed and consider all 

options for land protection. 

 Do not consider corridors as a 

basis for land protection. 

Land protection plan would be 

developed and consider all 

options for land protection. 

 Re-evaluate existing surveys used 

to acquire land. 

Land protection plan would be 

developed and consider all 

options for land protection. 

 Cooperate with private 

landowners to manage land for 

wildlife. 

Addressed in the plan. 

Resource Protection – 

Pest Plants 

Control common reed. Addressed in the plan. 
Appendices 155

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Administration – General Separate Mattamuskeet, 

Swanquarter, and Cedar Island for 

management purposes. 

Consolidation of staff is essential 

to be fiscally sound. 

Administration – 

Financial Management 

Use acquisition funds for refuge 

management. 

Acquisition funds are dedicated 

for acquisition and cannot be used 

for management. 

Administration – 

Financial Management 

Pursue funding opportunities for 

wildlife and habitat surveys and 

habitat management. 

The staff applies for grants and 

will continue to apply. 

Administration – Property 

Management 

Use volunteers to maintain 

property. 

Addressed in the plan. 

 Develop partnership with major 

stakeholders in the region to 

optimize land/water management 

on and off the refuge. 

Addressed in the plan. 

Administration – 

Planning 

Involve local citizens and experts 

in the planning process. 

Part of the planning process. 

SWANQUARTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PLANNING ISSUES WORKSHEET 

ACTIVITY WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

Keep the Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

WILDLIFE HABITAT ACTIVITIES 

Prescribed Burning 40% 7% 33% 20%

Forest Thinning 47% 7% 33% 13%

Mechanical Vegetation Management 

(Mowing, Disking) 

60% 7% 20% 13%

Chemical Vegetation Management 62% 6% 19% 13%

Shoreline Maintenance 29% 12% 47% 12%

Planting, Seeding, Clearing for Habitat 

Improvement 

56% 6% 31% 6%

Special Protection Status (Wilderness) 38% 23% 31% 8%
156 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

ACTIVITY WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

Keep the Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES AND 

FACILITIES 

Fishing and Crabbing 38% 6% 56% 0%

Hunting 41% 6% 41% 12%

Environmental Education 

(School Students) 

41% 0% 53% 6%

Environmental Education 

(School Teachers) 

38% 0% 56% 6%

Wildlife Interpretation 

(Formal Programs) 

40% 0% 47% 13%

Wildlife Interpretation 

(Printed Material) 

27% 0% 60% 13%

Wildlife Interpretation 

(Interpretative Signs) 

33% 7% 47% 13%

Wildlife Photography Opportunities 38% 0% 62% 0%

Wildlife Observation Opportunities 31% 0% 69% 0%

Vehicle Parking Lots 38% 15% 46% 0%

Access for Fishing, Boating, Canoeing 40% 0% 60% 0%

LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Visitor Protection 73% 0% 20% 7%

Wildlife Protection 53% 0% 47% 0%

Trespass Violations 47% 0% 53% 0%

Littering/Dumping Violations 18% 0% 82% 0%

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Road and Firebreak Maintenance 57% 7% 36% 0%

Facilities Maintenance (Signs, 

Buildings) 

54% 0% 38% 8%

Boundary Posting 50% 7% 43% 0%
Appendices 157

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If a proposed use is not appropriate, it will 

not be allowed and a compatibility determination will not be undertaken. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

• Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are 

determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still determine if these uses 

are compatible. 

• Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers take of wildlife 

under such regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the 

activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee. This law provides 

the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The Act does not authorize any particular use, but rather authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible and “under such regulations 

as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses that, when compatible, are 

legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The law states “. . . it is the policy of the 

United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general 

public use of the System . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general 

public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and 

management; and . . . when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational 

use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . 

ensure that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other 

general public uses in planning and management within the System . . . .” The law also states “in 

administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: . . . issue 

regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the standards set in the Act by providing 

enhanced consideration of priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere 

with our ability to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
158 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not 

interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development or 

protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. §410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. The Service must comply with Executive Order 11644 when allowing use of 

off-highway vehicles on refuges. This order requires the Service to designate areas as open or 

closed to off-highway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize 

conflict among the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; 

and amend or rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. 

Furthermore, Executive Order 11989 requires the Service to close areas to off-highway vehicles 

when it is determined that the use causes or will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, 

vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take 

precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use

A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions. 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

• Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

• Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

• Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

• Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 
Appendices 159

• Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and the Service’s role in managing and protecting these resources. 

• Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

• Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

• Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 
160 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: __Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge___ _______________________________ 

Use: __Animal Control – Nuisance Species ___________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 161

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: __Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge___ _______________________________ 

Use: __Bicycling, Jogging, Walking, and Walking Dogs__ ________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
162 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: __Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge___ _______________________________ 

Use: __Hunting – Waterfowl (Guided) ___________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 163

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: __Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge___ _______________________________ 

Use: __Photography/Filming – Commercial ___________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
164 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: __Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge___ _______________________________ 

Use: __Picnicking ___________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 165

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: __Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge___ _______________________________ 

Use: __Research ___________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
166 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: __Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge___ _______________________________ 

Use: __Tree Harvest – Firewood/Other ___________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 167

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: __Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge___ _______________________________ 

Use: __Wildlife Observation – Guiding or Outfitting _____________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
168 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: __Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge___ _______________________________ 

Use: __Horseback Riding ___________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

 X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate__X___ Appropriate____ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 169

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determination 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: animal control–

nuisance species; bicycling/jogging/walking/walking dogs; environmental education/interpretation; 

fishing; hunting–waterfowl; hunting–waterfowl (guided); photography, photography/filming – 

commercial; picnicking; research; tree harvest-firewood/other; wildlife observation; and wildlife 

observation-guiding or outfitting. A description and anticipated biological impacts for each use are 

addressed separately in this compatibility determination. 

Refuge Name: Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: 1932 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: The refuge was acquired under the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge, as reflected in the refuge’s 

authorizing legislation, is to protect and conserve migratory birds, and other wildlife resources through 

the protection of wetlands, in accordance with the following laws: 

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929) 

The refuge’s purpose and importance to migratory birds, particularly waterfowl, is: To preserve 

wintering habitat for waterfowl and wintering and production habitat for wood ducks to meet the 

habitat goals presented in the Ten-Year Waterfowl Habitat Acquisition Plan and the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, is: 

... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 
170 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive 

Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year (50 CFR Subchapter C; 43 

CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed were considered separately. Although for 

brevity, the preceding sections from Uses through Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and Policies 

are only written once within the CCP, they are part of each descriptive use and become part of that 

compatibility determination if considered outside of the CCP. 

(1) Animal Control – Nuisance Species

Description of Use: 

Shooting or trapping of nutria, a non-native exotic species, by volunteers or hired professionals. 

This activity would be managed through special use permits. Nutria are found throughout the 

refuge marshes and anywhere where freshwater is present. They feed extensively on marsh 

vegetation and create channels in marshes which fragment the marsh and make it more 

vulnerable to destruction from storms. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer this use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

This use may cause minor, temporary disturbance to some wildlife. However, a reduction in 

nutria would benefit wildlife species that depend on marsh vegetation, particularly the muskrat, 

which is a native species. 
Appendices 171

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Law enforcement patrols and guidance through special use permits will be used to minimize 

violations. Disturbance to other wildlife and visitors will be monitored and special use permits 

amended or suspended if unacceptable disturbance is observed. Issuance of permits will be limited 

to a maximum of 10 per year. 

Justification: 

Animal control is necessary to reduce damage to marshes and roadways caused by nutria, a non 

native exotic species. Only submerged traps would be permitted and would be set in a manner to 

prevent accidental capture of non target animals. All shooting and trapping would occur in places 

and/or times of day which would minimize conflict with other refuge visitors. Allowing volunteers or 

private professionals to control nutria would lessen the amount of time refuge staff have to spend 

conducting this activity. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(2) Bicycling, Jogging, Walking, Walking Dogs

Description of Use: 

Bicycling, jogging, walking, and walking dogs on refuge roads for pleasure, wildlife observation, and 

wildlife photography. Foot travel is allowed throughout the refuge. Bicycles are limited to roads. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

These uses may cause minor, temporary disturbance to wildlife and may lead to impacts from 

violations of refuge regulations such as removing plants and harassing wildlife, littering, and 

vandalism. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
172 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Law enforcement patrols and educational activities will be used to minimize violations. Current 

regulations limiting access to the refuge to daylight hours only will be maintained and enforced. Bicycles 

will be restricted to roads. Dogs must be kept on a leash and under control of the owner at all times. 

Justification: 

The roads on the refuge are maintained primarily for refuge management purposes and these 

recreational uses have little impact on them. Although foot travel is authorized elsewhere, it does not 

usually result in significant impacts to vegetation and other resources. These activities are generally for 

pleasure or for wildlife observation and should promote respect for natural resources and support for the 

refuge. Some people enjoy having a dog as a companion while enjoying the outdoors. This activity is not 

harmful to wildlife as long as the dog is kept on a leash and is under control of the owner. Historically, 

participation in these activities has been extremely low on the refuge. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(3) Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Description of Use: 

Environmental education including teaching individuals (students), on- or off-site, about refuge 

resources and management programs; conducting teacher workshops, on- and off-site, so that 

teachers may become knowledgeable of refuge resources and management programs; providing 

teachers with educational tools necessary to teach students about the refuge. Educational 

activities could be conducted on-site, focusing on environmental or natural resource subjects and 

led by teachers or other non-refuge staff. 

Environmental education activities may include use of refuge structures, exhibits, roads, and waters. 

Availability of Resources: 

The refuge only has resources to conduct this use on a limited basis. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Environmental education activities conducted off refuge should have no biological impacts on refuge 

resources. Activities held on-refuge will be both classroom and hands-on in nature. Field (hands-on) 

activities may result in some trampling of vegetation and minor wildlife disturbance in localized areas. 

These impacts are not expected to be significant. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
Appendices 173

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

If necessary, the location of environmental education activities will be moved around to minimize adverse 

impacts. Currently, the demand for this use at Swanquarter NWR is fairly low. This activity is not 

expected to significantly increase disturbance to wildlife in the area or result in other negative impacts. 

Justification: 

Environmental education activities result in negligible impacts on refuge resources and often provide 

significant support for refuge programs and purposes by providing individuals with an understanding 

and appreciation of natural resource functions, natural processes, and man’s relationship and 

dependence on them. Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses identified in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(4) Fishing

Description of Use: 

Recreational fishing for all fish and blue crabs will be allowed in accordance with state 

regulations. Fishing in Pamlico Sound is not under the jurisdiction of the refuge but rather the 

State of North Carolina. The refuge’s primary contribution to fishing is through access of which 

the Bell Island Pier is the only managed facility on the refuge. All boat ramps in the area are 

private or state owned. Very limited amounts of fishing may occasionally occur along the 

shoreline or islands of the refuge. All refuge lands, including the Bell Island Pier, are only open to 

the public during the day - nighttime access is prohibited. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Recreational fishing and crabbing have been occurring on the refuge since its establishment. The 

Bell Island Pier was first constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corp in the 1930s, but has been 

rebuilt or repaired many times after damage from hurricanes. No adverse impacts on the fisheries 

resources are expected from continuing these activities. During peak fishing periods, excessive 

littering at the Bell Island Pier parking lot is expected. However, an agreement with a local prison 

provides routine cleanup of the area. Some wildlife disturbance may occur. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
174 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Fishing and crabbing will be authorized in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations 

(including refuge-specific). An active law enforcement program will strive to ensure compliance with 

all regulations through education and enforcement activities. Law enforcement patrols at times of 

high fishing pressure will be conducted to minimize wildlife disturbance. 

Justification: 

At Swanquarter NWR, sport fishing and crabbing provide substantial recreational opportunities for the 

public and accounts for the majority of its public use. Providing this recreational opportunity to the 

public results in favorable public opinion and allows the consumptive use of a renewable, sustainable 

resource without significant adverse impacts on wildlife populations, habitat, or other refuge 

purposes. Fishing is one of the priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(5) Hunting - Waterfowl

Description of Use: 

Waterfowl hunting consists of ducks, geese, swans, and American coots on the refuge. 

Hunting of all waterfowl during the general waterfowl hunting season is in accordance with state 

seasons and bag limits. Hunting will not be controlled through a lottery and no user fees will be 

charged. Hunting will be restricted to approximately 6,120 acres of land on the east portion of the 

refuge as identified in refuge specific regulations. All access to the refuge waterfowl hunting area is 

by boat due to location on refuge islands and marshes. Hunting on the open waters of Pamlico 

Sound, which is identified as the Presidential Proclamation Area (27,000 acres), is prohibited. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer this use at its current level 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

This use is estimated to result in the removal of approximately 400 birds per year from wintering 

waterfowl and coot populations that generally peak at between 10,000 and 50,000 birds. The hunt is 

expected to cause temporary disturbance to wildlife in the hunt area and displace waterfowl and other 

species to other areas of the refuge. Some trampling of vegetation and other minor habitat 

disturbance may occur from hunters walking to the blinds and blind maintenance activities. This use 

may lead to some violations of refuge regulations, including taking non-game species, removing 

plants, and littering. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 
Appendices 175

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

All federal regulations governing the take of migratory species will apply. Hunting will be allowed from 

temporary blinds only – no permanent blinds may be constructed. Law enforcement patrols will be 

conducted to help ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 

Justification:

Waterfowl and coots are renewable resources which can sustain a reasonable level of consumptive 

recreation. This recreational opportunity can be provided to the public without significant adverse 

impacts on wildlife populations, habitat, or other refuge purposes and should promote favorable 

public opinion. Hunting is one of the priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(6) Hunting – Waterfowl (Guided) 

Description of Use: 

Waterfowl hunting consists of ducks, geese, swans, and American coots on the refuge with the use of a 

guide. 

Hunting of all waterfowl during the general waterfowl hunting season is in accordance with state seasons 

and bag limits. Hunting will be restricted to approximately 6,120 acres of land on the east portion of the 

refuge as identified in refuge specific regulations. All access to the refuge waterfowl hunting area is by 

boat due to location on refuge islands and marshes. Hunting on the open waters of Pamlico Sound, 

which is identified as the Presidential Proclamation Area (27,000 acres), is prohibited. 

Prospective guides must contact the refuge and request a special use permit to guide on the refuge. 

Individuals with no wildlife violations or revocation of previous special use permits within the previous 

five years will be granted a one-year special use permit on a “first come – first served” basis. A 

maximum of five special use permits for guiding will be issued per year and guiding will only be 

allowed Monday through Friday to reduce conflicts with non-guided hunters. An annual user fee of 

$100 will be assessed. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer this use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

This use is estimated to result in the removal of approximately 200 additional birds (400 birds from 

other hunters) per year from wintering waterfowl and coot populations that generally peak at between 

10,000 and 50,000 birds. The hunt is expected to cause temporary disturbance to wildlife in the hunt 

area and displace waterfowl and other species to other areas of the refuge. Some trampling of 

vegetation and other minor habitat disturbance may occur from hunters walking to the blinds and 

blind maintenance activities. This use may lead to some violations of refuge regulations, including 

taking non-game species, removing plants, and littering. There may be occasional conflicts with non- 
176 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

guided hunters if guides use a site excessively, however, if necessary, these conflicts can be easily 

managed through amendments of the special use permit to specifically reduce the weekly use of a 

specific site by a guide. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

All federal regulations governing the take of migratory species will apply. Hunting will be allowed from 

temporary blinds only – no permanent blinds may be constructed. Law enforcement patrols will be 

conducted to help ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 

Justification:

Waterfowl and coots are renewable resources which can sustain a reasonable level of consumptive 

recreation. This recreational opportunity can be provided to the public without significant adverse 

impacts on wildlife populations, habitat, or other refuge purposes and should promote favorable 

public opinion. Hunting is one of the priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. 

The waterfowl hunting area at Swanquarter NWR is comprised of a complex of islands and marshes 

intersected with numerous channels or separated by large expanses of water. The area can be very 

difficult, even dangerous, to negotiate during high winds or low light conditions. Many hunters are 

afraid to hunt the area due to improper equipment or lack of knowledge. Professional guides can 

offer these hunters a much safer experience.

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(7) Wildlife Photography

Description of Use: 

This activity involves photographing wildlife on the refuge. This activity may involve the use of 

temporary blinds. Access to the refuge for this purpose may be by vehicle, boat, bicycle, or foot. 

Foot travel is generally allowed throughout the refuge. Bicycles are limited to roads. Motorized 

vehicles are limited to improved roads. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The act of photographing wildlife in itself may cause some insignificant, temporary wildlife 

disturbance. Minor impacts to habitat and vegetation may result from installing photography blinds 
Appendices 177

and related equipment. The various modes of transportation used to observe wildlife may have 

somewhat more significant impacts in that they may lead to violation of refuge regulations, such as 

plant removal, wildlife disturbance, littering, and vandalism. Some animals may be killed or injured 

when crossing refuge roads. 

 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Law enforcement patrols and educational activities will be used to minimize violations. Current 

regulations limiting access to the refuge to daylight hours only will be maintained and enforced. 

Justification:

Wildlife photography is an activity which the public generally expects to be able to participate in on a 

wildlife refuge. Wildlife photography often promotes respect for natural resources and support for the 

refuge. The impacts of this use are generally not significant and can be controlled with law 

enforcement and education. Wildlife photography is one of the priority public uses identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(8) Photography/Filming – Commercial

Description of Use: 

This use involves photographing and filming refuge wildlife, habitats, public use, and related 

operations for profit-oriented productions or uses. This activity may involve the use of temporary 

blinds. Access to the refuge for this purpose may be by vehicle, boat, or foot. Special use permits 

will be used to manage this activity. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. A user fee of $50 for photography 

and $500 for filming will be assessed. However, these fees may be waived, at the discretion of the 

refuge manager, if the photography/filming is being conducted primarily to promote the refuge and 

display the refuge to the public or to raise funds for the refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The act of filming or photographing wildlife may cause some insignificant, temporary wildlife 

disturbance. Minor impacts to habitat and vegetation may result from installing photography blinds 

and related equipment. 
178 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Commercial photography will be authorized through special use permits which will include any special 

conditions necessary to ensure the activity is compatible with refuge purposes. This may include an 

option for the refuge manager to review and edit scripts that describe or interpret Service policy and 

management. Generally, this use will be authorized only when the desired product is educational or 

interpretive in nature. All regulations governing recreational photography will apply to commercial 

photography unless specifically altered by the special use permit. 

Justification:

The biological impacts of this activity by an individual or small group are minor and requests for the 

activity at Swanquarter NWR are very limited. If the number of requests increases, the use can be 

limited by limiting the number of special use permits issued. Therefore, significant biological impacts 

from this use are not expected. Commercial photography/filming may be used to promote refuge 

resources and programs, to educate the general public about wildlife and habitat management, and 

to foster responsible land ethics and support. Therefore, it can lead to increased support for refuge 

programs and purposes. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(9) Picnicking

Description of Use: 

This use involves picnicking at the Bell Island Pier/parking lot and refuge waterfowl hunting area. The 

refuge pier, parking lot, and waterfowl hunting area are rarely a destination for the sole purpose of 

picnicking, rather, most picnicking is associated with fishing, crabbing, hunting, and wildlife observation. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Picnicking mostly occurs at the Bell Island Pier and parking lot. Although some increase in littering 

and other violations of refuge regulations may be associated with this use, these impacts are minor. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 
Appendices 179

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Law enforcement patrols and educational activities will be used to minimize violations. The Bell 

Island Pier and parking lot, as well as the rest of the refuge, are closed to public access during 

nighttime hours, which reduces littering and vandalism. 

Justification: 

Picnicking occurs primarily in conjunction with other uses of the refuge, such as fishing, hunting, or 

wildlife observation. Picnicking lends itself to enjoyment of wildlife and other natural resources. This, 

in turn, leads to an appreciation of natural resources and support for the refuge. The impacts of this 

use are generally not significant and can be controlled with law enforcement and education. There is 

no other nearby area available where refuge visitors may have a picnic. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(10) Research

Description of Use:

Research is a systematic data collection activity usually conducted by non-staff research scientists. 

The research is generally oriented towards discovering or verifying some fact(s) related to natural 

resources. The use may include collecting samples (e.g., vegetation, animals, animal products, and 

soil), collecting measurements, and other research activities. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Research activities may result in some trampling of vegetation; minor, temporary wildlife disturbance; 

and negligible removals of vegetation, animals, soil, or other system components. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
180 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Research activities will only be authorized through special use permits and will include any special 

conditions necessary to ensure the activity is compatible with refuge purposes. Only research directly 

related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and generally related to refuge purposes will 

be authorized. Sampling and other activities will be limited so as to ensure animal mortality and 

habitat destruction are negligible. Permit restrictions and other refuge regulations will be enforced 

through an active law enforcement program. 

Justification:

Research activities can be limited so as to cause minimal negative impacts to refuge resources. The 

information obtained is often directly or indirectly related to refuge activities and can be used to improve 

management practices. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(11) Tree Harvest-Firewood/Other

Description of Use: 

This use involves the harvest of trees for firewood or other uses. Only trees may be harvested which 

reduce the labor of refuge staff that would otherwise be needed to remove the trees. Most trees 

harvested will be trees which have fallen within a road right-of-way. Occasionally, trees may need to 

be harvested which are part of another approved project, such as a new fire-break or trail. This 

activity will be managed through the use of special use permits. 

 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. This activity will actually reduce 

refuge labor costs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

These uses may cause minor, temporary disturbance to wildlife and may lead to impacts from 

violations of refuge regulations, such as removing plants and harassing wildlife, littering, and 

vandalism. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Tree harvest activities will only be authorized through special use permits and the permits will include 

any special conditions necessary to ensure that the activity is compatible with refuge purposes. Only 

tree harvests directly related to a refuge project will be authorized. Permit restrictions and other 

refuge regulations will be enforced through an active law enforcement program. 
Appendices 181

Justification: 

Tree harvest by the public will not increase tree removal from the refuge, it will only reduce refuge 

labor costs, as refuge staff would otherwise need to remove the trees as the trees removed are those 

which are having a negative impact on a refuge project, such as hindering road access. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

(12) Wildlife Observation 

Description of Use: 

This use involves observing wildlife on the refuge. This activity may involve the use of temporary 

blinds. Access to the refuge for this purpose may be by vehicle, boat, bicycle, or foot. Foot travel is 

generally allowed throughout the refuge. Bicycles are limited to refuge roads. Motorized vehicles are 

limited to improved roads. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The act of observing wildlife in itself may cause some insignificant, temporary wildlife disturbance. 

The various modes of transportation used to observe wildlife may have somewhat more 

significant impacts in that they may lead to violation of refuge regulations, such as plant removal, 

wildlife disturbance, littering, and vandalism. Some animals may be killed or injured from vehicles 

crossing refuge roads. 

 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Law enforcement patrols and educational activities will be used to minimize violations. Current 

regulations limiting access to the refuge to daylight hours only will be maintained and enforced. 

Justification:

Wildlife observation often promotes respect for natural resources and support for the refuge. The 

impacts of this use are generally not significant and can be controlled with law enforcement and 

education. Wildlife observation is one of the priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 
182 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

(13) Wildlife Observation – Guiding or Outfitting 

Description of Use: 

This use involves observing wildlife on the refuge through the use of a guide or outfitter. This activity 

may involve the use of temporary blinds. Access to the refuge for this purpose may be by vehicle, 

boat, bicycle, or foot. Foot travel is generally allowed throughout the refuge. Bicycles are limited to 

refuge roads. Motorized vehicles are limited to improved roads. This activity will be managed 

through the use of special use permits. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. A user fee of $50 per tour will be 

assessed. However, these fees may be adjusted either higher or lower at the discretion of the refuge 

manager, if the revenue generated from the tours is significantly more than currently anticipated. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The act of observing wildlife in itself may cause some insignificant, temporary wildlife disturbance. 

The various modes of transportation used to observe wildlife may have somewhat more 

significant impacts in that they may lead to violation of refuge regulations, such as plant removal, 

wildlife disturbance, littering, and vandalism. Some animals may be killed or injured from vehicles 

crossing refuge roads. 

 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Guided or outfitted tours will be authorized through the use of special use permits which will include 

any special conditions necessary to ensure the activity is compatible with refuge purposes. 

Law enforcement patrols will be used to minimize violations and ensure permit compliance. 

Justification: 

Wildlife observation often promotes respect for natural resources and support for the refuge. The impacts 

of this use are generally not significant and can be controlled with law enforcement and education. 

Guided and outfitted wildlife observation may be used to promote refuge resources and programs, to 

educate the general public about wildlife and habitat management, and to foster responsible land 

ethics and political support. Therefore, it can lead to increased support for refuge programs and 

purposes. It also introduces novices to refuges who without assistance might not visit a refuge. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 
Appendices 183

 

APPROVAL OF COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the comprehensive 

conservation plan. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the 

comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature becomes part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________________

 (Signature and Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ____________________________________________________ 

 (Signature and Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________________________________________

 (Signature and Date) 

Regional Chief: ____________________________________________________ 

 (Signature and Date) 

 
184 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 185

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

Originating Person: Bruce Freske

Telephone Number: 252-473-1131

E-Mail: bruce_freske@fws.gov

Date: 

Project Name: Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife 

II. State/Agency: North Carolina/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): Implementation of 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge by adopting 

the proposed alternative that provides guidance, management direction and operation plans 

for the next 15 years.
186 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species habitat and occurrence map: See Figures 5 and 9. 

B. Complete the following table:

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Threatened 

Green Sea Turtle Threatened 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Endangered 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Endangered 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Endangered 

American Alligator Threatened 

Piping Plover Threatened 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered 

Red Wolf Threatened 

West Indian Manatee Endangered 

Shortnose Sturgeon Endangered 

Seabeach Amaranth Threatened 

Sensitive Joint Vetch Endangered 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species 

VI. Location (attach map): See Figure 1. 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Roanoke - Tar - Neuse - Cape Fear No. 34 

B. County and State: Hyde, North Carolina 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 

 Latitude: 35.3432, Longitude: -76.2788 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Immediately south of Swanquarter, 

North Carolina 
Appendices 187

E. Species/habitat occurrence:

Loggerhead Sea Turtle – No record of occurrence near mainland Hyde County within the 

past 20 years. 

Green Sea Turtle – No record of occurrence near mainland Hyde County within the past 20 years. 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle – No record of occurrence near mainland Hyde County within the past 20 years. 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle – No record of occurrence near mainland Hyde County within the past 20 

years. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle – No record of occurrence near mainland Hyde County within the past 20 

years ago. 

American Alligator – Observed on the refuge wherever freshwater pools 

or streams are present. 

Piping Plover – No record of occurrence near mainland Hyde County within the past 20 years. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker - Record of occurrence in mainland Hyde County within the past 20 

years. Current record of occurrence near the refuge but has not been documented on the refuge. 

Generally located in open stands of mature loblolly pine. Forested habitats on the refuge which could 

possibly harbor RCW’s include: Mixed Pine Hardwood, Pond Pine Pocosin, and Estuarine Fringe 

Loblolly Pine. 

Red Wolf - Experimental population established and monitored on the 

refuge. One to two packs hunt on the refuge at a given time but no dens 

are known to have been located on the refuge. 

West Indian Manatee - Record of occurrence in Hyde County near Swanquarter Refuge within the 

past 20 years. 

Shortnose Sturgeon – Record of occurrence in Hyde County near Swanquarter Refuge within the 

past 20 years. 

Seabeach Amaranth – No record of occurrence in mainland Hyde County within the past 20 years. 

Sensitive Joint Vetch - Record of occurrence in mainland Hyde County within 20 years near 

Swanquarter Refuge. 
188 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 9. Sensitive species in relation to Swanquarter NWR 
Appendices 189

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B 

(attach additional pages as needed). 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Green Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea 

Turtle 

Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

American Alligator Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Piping Plover Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Lack of understory management. 

Red Wolf Disturbance by staff and visitors. 

West Indian Manatee Disturbance by boaters and anglers. Water quality 

degradation and lack of submerged aquatic vegetation. 

Shortnose Sturgeon Disturbance by boaters and anglers. Water quality 

degradation and lack of submerged aquatic vegetation. 

Seabeach Amaranth Trampling of plants by staff and visitors before seed 

maturation. 

Sensitive Joint Vetch Trampling of plants by staff and visitors before seed 

maturation. Lack of understory management. 
190 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects. 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

Loggerhead Sea 

Turtle 

Restrict access to nesting area. 

Green Sea Turtle Restrict access to nesting area. 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Restrict access to nesting area. 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea 

Turtle 

Restrict access to nesting area. 

Leatherback Sea 

Turtle 

Restrict access to nesting area. 

American Alligator Increase law enforcement in areas where alligators and 

the public may meet to reduce potential harassment or 

illegal killing of alligators. 

Piping Plover Restrict access to nesting area. 

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

Restrict access to nesting area. Allow pines to grow old 

enough to develop cavities. Manage understory to 

maintain height below cavities. 

Red Wolf Increase law enforcement in areas where red wolves and 

the public may meet to reduce potential harassment or 

illegal killing of red wolves. 

West Indian Manatee Restrict access when manatees are in the area. 

Cooperate with state agencies to monitor and improve 

water quality. 

Shortnose Sturgeon Cooperate with state agencies to monitor and improve 

water quality. 

Seabeach Amaranth Restrict access to areas with plants until after seed 

maturation. 

Sensitive Joint Vetch Restrict access to areas with plants until after seed 

maturation. 
Appendices 191

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

DETERMINATION1

RESPONSE1

NE NA AA 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle X Concurrence 

Green Sea Turtle X Concurrence 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle X Concurrence 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle X Concurrence 

Leatherback Sea Turtle X Concurrence 

American Alligator X Concurrence 

Piping Plover X Concurrence 

Roseate Tern X Concurrence 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker X Concurrence 

Red Wolf X Concurrence 

West Indian Manatee X Concurrence 

Eastern Cougar X Concurrence 

Shortnose Sturgeon X Concurrence 

Seabeach Amaranth X Concurrence 

Sensitive Joint Vetch X Concurrence 

 1DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED:

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional but a Concurrence is recommended for a 

complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested is a Concurrence. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for 

listed species is Formal Consultation. Response Requested for proposed or candidate species is Conference. 
192 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

 3/31/08 

____________________________ ________ 

Signature (originating station) Date

______Refuge Manager________ 

Title

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

_____________________________ _________

Signature Date 

_____________________________ ____________________ 

Title 

 Office 
Appendices 193

Appendix H. Wilderness Review 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is 

managed so as to conserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management at the time of review; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands within Swanquarter NWR were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for 

wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Approximately 8,800 acres of Swanquarter 

NWR are part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. This designation was made in 1974. 

No additional land in the refuge was found to meet these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge 

lands for wilderness designation is not further analyzed in this plan. 

 
194 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 195

Appendix I. Refuge Biota 

Total Species - 253, Breeding Species - 77 

A = Abundant, C = Common, F = Fairly Common, U = Uncommon, O = Occasional, R = Rare 

*species with confirmed breeding records 

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Anhinga R R 

Avocet, American R R R 

Bittern, American* U U U U 

Bittern, Least* O U U U 

Blackbird, Brewer’s R 

Blackbird, Red-winged* A A A A 

Blackbird, Rusty O 

Blackbird, Yellow-headed R R 

Bluebird, Eastern* U U O 

Bobolink O O 

Bobwhite, Northern* U U U U 

Brant R R 

Bufflehead C C 

Bunting, Indigo* U U U 

Bunting, Snow R 

Canvasback U U 

Cardinal, Northern* C C C C 

Catbird, Gray* U U U U 

Chat, Yellow-breasted O O R 

Chickadee, Carolina* C C C C 

Chuck-will’s Widow* U U U 

Coot, American C O A C 

Cormorant, Double-crested C U C C 

Cowbird, Brown-headed* C U U C 

Creeper, Brown O O 

Crow, American* C C C C 

Crow, Fish* C C C C 

Cuckoo, Black-billed R R R 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed* U U 

Dove, Mourning* C C C C 

Dowitcher, Long-billed O U U 

Dowitcher, Short-billed O U U 

Duck, American Black* U O C C 

Duck, Fulvous Whistling R R 

Duck, Long-tailed U U 

Duck, Ring-necked C C 
196 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Duck, Ruddy C C 

Duck, Wood* U U C C 

Dunlin O U U O 

Eagle, Bald (Threatened)* O O U U 

Eagle, Golden R R 

Egret, Cattle U U R 

Egret, Great A A A A 

Egret, Snowy C C C C 

Falcon, Peregrine U U 

Finch, House U U U 

Finch, Purple O O U 

Flicker, Northern* C C C C 

Flycatcher, Acadian U U 

Flycatcher, Great Crested* U U O 

Gadwall U O C C 

Gannet, Northern R U 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-Gray* O O O O 

Godwit, Hudsonian R 

Goldeneye, Common U U U 

Goldfinch, American U U 

Goose, Canada* C C C C 

Goose, Greater White-fronted R R 

Goose, Snow C C 

Grackle, Boat-tailed U U U U 

Grackle, Common* C C C A 

Grebe, Eared O O 

Grebe, Horned U U 

Grebe, Pied-billed* U U C C 

Grosbeak, Blue* U U U 

Grosbeak, Evening R 

Gull, Bonaparte’s O U U 

Gull, Great Black-backed O C C 

Gull, Herring C C C C 

Gull, Laughing C C C O 

Gull, Ring-billed C C C C 

Harrier, Northern U C C 

Hawk, Broad-winged O R 

Hawk, Cooper’s U U U U 

Hawk, Red-shouldered U U U U 

Hawk, Red-tailed* U U C C 

Hawk, Rough-legged R 

Hawk, Sharp-shinned* U U U U 

Heron, Great Blue* A A A A 

Heron, Black-crowned Night* U U U U 
Appendices 197

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Heron, Green* C C C 

Heron, Little Blue U U U U 

Heron, Tri-colored U U U U 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night R 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated* U U O R 

Ibis, Glossy U U U U 

Ibis, White O O O 

Jay, Blue* U U U U 

Junco, Dark-eyed U U U 

Kestrel, American C C 

Killdeer* O O O U 

Kingbird, Eastern* U U O 

Kingbird, Western R 

Kingfisher, Belted C C C C 

Kinglet, Golden-crowned U 

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned U U C 

Knot, Red O O 

Lark, Horned R R 

Loon, Common U C 

Loon, Red-throated U C 

Mallard* U U C C 

Martin, Purple U U 

Meadowlark, Eastern* C C C C 

Merganser, Common U U 

Merganser, Hooded U U 

Merganser, Red-breasted U U 

Merlin U U 

Mockingbird, Northern* C C C C 

Moorhen, Common U U O O 

Nighthawk, Common U U U 

Nuthatch, Brown-headed* U U U U 

Nuthatch, Red-breasted R R 

Nuthatch, White-breasted* U U R R 

Oriole, Baltimore O R 

Oriole, Orchard* U U O 

Osprey* C C U O 

Ovenbird U U U 

Owl, Barn O O O O 

Owl, Barred* U U U U 

Owl, Eastern Screech* U U U U 

Owl, Great Horned* U U U U 

Owl, Northern Saw Whet R R R R 

Oystercatcher, American O 

Parula, Northern U O U 

Pelican, American white R R 
198 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Pelican, Brown U U U U 

Phalarope, Red-necked R 

Phoebe, Eastern O U U C 

Pintail, Northern C C 

Pipit, American U U 

Plover, America Golden R 

Plover, Black-bellied U U U U 

Plover, Semipalmated U U U O 

Plover, Wilson’s U U O 

Rail, Black U U R 

Rail, Clapper* U U U U 

Rail, King* U U U U 

Rail, Virginia U U 

Rail, Yellow R R 

Redhead U U 

Redstart, American U U 

Robin, American* C C U U 

Sanderling O O 

Sandpiper, Baird’s R R 

Sandpiper, Least U U U 

Sandpiper, Pectoral O O 

Sandpiper, Semipalmated U U U U 

Sandpiper, Solitary U U 

Sandpiper, Spotted U U U 

Sandpiper, Upland R R 

Sandpiper, Western U U U U 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied U U U U 

Scaup, Greater U U 

Scaup, Lesser C C 

Scoter, Black U U 

Scoter, Surf U U 

Scoter, White-winged O O 

Shoveler, Northern O C C 

Shrike, Loggerhead R 

Siskin, Pine R 

Skimmer, Black O O R R 

Snipe, Common U U U U 

Sora U U 

Sparrow, American Tree O O 

Sparrow, Chipping O O U U 

Sparrow, Field U U U U 

Sparrow, Fox U U U 

Sparrow, Grasshopper O 

Sparrow, House* U U U U 

Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed O O 
Appendices 199

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Sparrow, Savannah U U C 

Sparrow, Seaside* U U U u 

Sparrow, Song U U C 

Sparrow, Swamp U U C 

Sparrow, Vesper U 

Sparrow, White-crowned U U 

Sparrow, White-throated U U C 

Starling, European* C C C C 

Stilt, Black-necked O O R 

Swallow, Barn* C C O 

Swallow, Northern Rough-winged U 

Swallow, Tree O U A A 

Swan, Tundra O R A A 

Swift, Chimney U U O 

Tanager, Scarlet R 

Tanager, Summer U U 

Teal, American Green-winged C C 

Teal, Blue-winged U U U 

Tern, Black O 

Tern, Caspian O O 

Tern, Common* U U U 

Tern, Forster’s* U U U U 

Tern, Gull-billed O O 

Tern, Least U 

Tern, Royal O O O R 

Tern, Sandwich R 

Thrasher, Brown* C C C C 

Thrush, Hermit U U U 

Thrush, Swainson’s O O 

Thrush, Wood* U U U 

Titmouse, Tufted* C C C C 

Towhee, Eastern* C C C C 

Turkey, Wild O O O O 

Turnstone, Ruddy O R 

Vireo, Blue-headed O O R 

Vireo, Red-eyed* U U U 

Vireo, White-eyed* U U U R 

Vireo, Yellow-throated O O O 

Vulture, Black* U U U U 

Vulture, Turkey* C C C C 

Warbler, Black-and-white O U O 

Warbler, Blackburnian R 

Warbler, Blackpoll O 

Warbler, Black-throated Blue O O O 

Warbler, Black-throated Green O O 
200 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Warbler, Canada R U R 

Warbler, Cape May R R 

Warbler, Chestnut-sided R U R 

Warbler, Hooded* U U 

Warbler, Magnolia R 

Warbler, Nashville R 

Warbler, Orange-crowned U U 

Warbler, Palm U U U 

Warbler, Pine* U U U U 

Warbler, Prairie* U U R R 

Warbler, Prothonotary* U U 

Warbler, Swainson’s R R 

Warbler, Worm-eating R 

Warbler, Yellow* O O R R 

Warbler, Yellow-rumped C C C 

Warbler, Yellow-throated* U U O 

Waterthrush, Northern O O 

Waxwing, Cedar U U U 

Whimbrel O O 

Whip-poor-will U U 

Wigeon, American U C C 

Wigeon, Eurasian O O 

Willet* U U O O 

Wood Pewee, Eastern* U U U O 

Woodcock, American O O U C 

Woodpecker, Downy* U U U U 

Woodpecker, Hairy* U U U U 

Woodpecker, Pileated* U U U U 

Woodpecker, Red-bellied* C C C C 

Woodpecker, Red-headed* O O O O 

Wren, Carolina* C C C C 

Wren, House* U U U U 

Wren, Marsh* U U U U 

Wren, Sedge U U 

Wren, Winter U U 

Yellowlegs, Greater O O U U 

Yellowlegs, Lesser U O U O 

Yellow-throat, Common* C C C C 
Appendices 201

FAUNA 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 

Avocet, American Recurvirostra americana 

Bittern, American* Botaurus lentiginosus 

Bittern, Least* Ixobrychus exilis 

Blackbird, Brewer’s Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Blackbird, Red-winged* Agelaius phoeniceus 

Blackbird, Rusty Euphagus carolinus 

Blackbird, Yellow-headed Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Bluebird, Eastern* Sialia sailis 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Bobwhite, Northern* Colinus virginianus 

Brant Branta bernicla 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Bunting, Indigo* Passerina cyanea 

Bunting, Snow Plectrophenax nivalis 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Cardinal, Northern* Cardinalis cardinalis 

Catbird, Gray* Dumetella carolinensis 

Chat, Yellow-breasted Icteria virens 

Chickadee, Carolina* Poecile carolinensis 

Chuck-will’s Widow* Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Coot, American Fulica americana 

Cormorant, Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus 

Cowbird, Brown-headed* Molothrus ater 

Creeper, Brown Certhia americana 

Crow, American* Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Crow, Fish* Corvus ossifragus 

Cuckoo, Black-billed Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed* Coccyzus americanus 

Dove, Mourning* Zenaida macroura 

Dowitcher, Long-billed Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Dowitcher, Short-billed Limnodromus griseus 

Duck, American Black* Anas rubripes 

Duck, Fulvous Whistling Dendrocygna bicolor 

Duck, Long-tailed Clangula hyemalis 

Duck, Ring-necked Aythya ferina 

Duck, Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis 

Duck, Wood* Aix sponsa 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Eagle, Bald (Threatened)* Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Eagle, Golden Aquila chrysaetos 
202 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

BIRDS (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis 

Egret, Great Ardea alba 

Egret, Snowy Egretta thula 

Falcon, Peregrine Falco peregrinus 

Finch, House Carpodacus mexicanus 

Finch, Purple Carpodacus purpureus 

Flicker, Northern* Colaptes auratus 

Flycatcher, Acadian Empidonax virescens 

Flycatcher, Great Crested* Myiarchus crinitus 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Gannet, Northern Morus bassanus 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-Gray* Polioptila caerulea 

Godwit, Hudsonian Limosa haemastica 

Goldeneye, Common Bucephala clangula 

Goldfinch, American Carduelis tristis 

Goose, Canada* Branta canadensis 

Goose, Greater White-fronted Anser albifrons 

Goose, Snow Chen caerulescens 

Grackle, Boat-tailed Quiscalus major 

Grackle, Common* Quiscalus quiscula 

Grebe, Eared Podiceps nigricollis

Grebe, Horned Podiceps auritus 

Grebe, Pied-billed* Podilymbus podiceps 

Grosbeak, Blue* Passerina caerulea 

Grosbeak, Evening Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Gull, Bonaparte’s Larus philadelphia 

Gull, Great Black-backed Larus marinus 

Gull, Herring Larus argentatus 

Gull, Laughing Larus atricilla 

Gull, Ring-billed Larus delawarensis 

Harrier, Northern Circus cyaneus 

Hawk, Broad-winged Buteo platypterus 

Hawk, Cooper’s Accipiter cooperii 

Hawk, Red-shouldered Buteo lineatus 

Hawk, Red-tailed* Buteo jamaicensis 

Hawk, Rough-legged Buteo lagopus 

Hawk, Sharp-shinned* Accipiter straitus 

Heron, Black-crowned Night* Nycticorax nycticorax 

Heron, Great Blue* Ardea herodias 

Heron, Green* Butorides virescens 

Heron, Little Blue Egretta caerulea 

Heron, Tri-colored Egretta tricolor 
Appendices 203

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

BIRDS (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night Nyctanassa violacea 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated* Archilochus colubris 

Ibis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellus 

Ibis, White Eudocimus albus 

Jay, Blue* Cyanocitta cristata 

Junco, Dark-eyed Junco hyemalis 

Kestrel, American Falco sparverius 

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus 

Kingbird, Eastern* Tyrannus tyrannus 

Kingbird, Western Tyrannus verticalis 

Kingfisher, Belted Ceryle alcyon 

Kinglet, Golden-crowned Regulus satrapa 

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned Regulus calendula 

Knot, Red Calidris canutus 

Lark, Horned Eremophila alpestris 

Loon, Common Gavia immer 

Loon, Red-throated Gavia stellata 

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos 

Martin, Purple Progne subis 

Meadowlark, Eastern* Stumella magna 

Merganser, Common Mergus merganser 

Merganser, Hooded Lophodytes cucullatus 

Merganser, Red-breasted Mergus serrator 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Mockingbird, Northern* Mimus polyglottos 

Moorhen, Common Gallinula chloropus 

Nighthawk, Common Chordeiles minor 

Nuthatch, Brown-headed* Sitta pusilla 

Nuthatch, Red-breasted Sitta canadensis 

Nuthatch, White-breasted* Sitta carolinensis 

Oriole, Baltimore Icterus galbula 

Oriole, Orchard* Icterus spurius 

Osprey* Pandion haliaetus 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 

Owl, Barn Tyto alba 

Owl, Barred* Strix varia 

Owl, Eastern Screech* Megascops asio 

Owl, Great Horned* Bubo virginianus 

Owl, Northern Saw Whet Aegolius acadicus 

Oystercatcher, American Haematopus palliatus 

Parula, Northern Parula americana 

Pelican, American white Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 
204 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

BIRDS (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Pelican, Brown Pelecanus occidentalis 

Phalarope, Red-necked Phalaropus lobatus 

Phoebe, Eastern Sayomis phoebe 

Pintail, Northern Anus acuta 

Pipit, American Anthus rubescens 

Plover, America Golden Pluvialis dominica 

Plover, Black-bellied Pluvialis squatarola 

Plover, Semipalmated Charadrius semipalmatus 

Plover, Wilson’s Charadrius wilsonia 

Rail, Black Laterallus jamaicensis 

Rail, Clapper* Rallus longirostris 

Rail, King* Rallus elegans 

Rail, Virginia Rallus limicola 

Rail, Yellow Coturnicops noveboracensis 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Redstart, American Setophaga ruticilla 

Robin, American* Turdus migratorius 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Sandpiper, Baird’s Calidris bairdii 

Sandpiper, Least Calidris minutilla 

Sandpiper, Pectoral Calidris melanotos 

Sandpiper, Semipalmated Calidris pusilla 

Sandpiper, Solitary Tringa solitaria 

Sandpiper, Spotted Actits macularius 

Sandpiper, Upland Bartramia longicauda 

Sandpiper, Western Calidris mauri 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius 

Scaup, Greater Aythya marila 

Scaup, Lesser Aythya affinis 

Scoter, Black Melanitta nigra 

Scoter, Surf Melanitta perspicillata 

Scoter, White-winged Melanitta fusca 

Shoveler, Northern Anas clypeata 

Shrike, Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus 

Siskin, Pine Carduelis pinus 

Skimmer, Black Rynchops niger 

Snipe, Common Gallinago gallinago 

Sora Porzana carolina 

Sparrow, American Tree Spizella arborea 

Sparrow, Chipping Spizella passerina 

Sparrow, Field Spizella pusilla 

Sparrow, Fox Passerella iliaca 
Appendices 205

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

BIRDS (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Sparrow, Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum 

Sparrow, House* Passer domesticus 

Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Ammodramus caudacutus 

Sparrow, Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis 

Sparrow, Seaside* Ammodramus maritimus 

Sparrow, Song Melospiza melodia 

Sparrow, Swamp Melospiza georgiana 

Sparrow, Vesper Pooecetes gramineus 

Sparrow, White-crowned Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Sparrow, White-throated Zonotrichia albicollis 

Starling, European* Stumus vulgaris 

Stilt, Black-necked Himantopus mexicanus 

Swallow, Barn* Hirundo rustica 

Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Swallow, Tree Tachycineta bicolor 

Swan, Tundra Cygnus columbianus 

Swift, Chimney Chaetura pelagica 

Tanager, Scarlet Piranga olivacea 

Tanager, Summer Piranga rubra 

Teal, American Green-winged Anas crecca 

Teal, Blue-winged Anas discors 

Tern, Black Chlidonias niger 

Tern, Caspian Stema caspia 

Tern, Common* Stema hirundo 

Tern, Forster’s* Stema forsteri 

Tern, Gull-billed Stema nilotica 

Tern, Least Stema antillarum 

Tern, Royal Stema maxima 

Tern, Sandwich Stema sandvicensis 

Thrasher, Brown* Toxostoma rufum 

Thrush, Hermit Catharus guttatus 

Thrush, Swainson’s Catharus ustulatus 

Thrush, Wood* Hylocichla mustelina 

Titmouse, Tufted* Baeolophus bicolor 

Towhee, Eastern* Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Turkey, Wild Meleagris gallopavo 

Turnstone, Ruddy Arenaria interpres

Vireo, Blue-headed Vireo solitarius 

Vireo, Red-eyed* Vireo olivaceus 

Vireo, White-eyed* Vireo griseus 

Vireo, Yellow-throated Vireo flavifrons 

Vulture, Black* Coragyps atratus 
206 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

BIRDS (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Vulture, Turkey* Cathartes aura 

Warbler, Black-and-white Mniotilta varia 

Warbler, Blackburnian Dendroica striata 

Warbler, Blackpoll Dendroica fusca 

Warbler, Black-throated Blue Dendroica caerulescens 

Warbler, Black-throated Green Dendroica virens 

Warbler, Canada Wilsonia canadensis 

Warbler, Cape May Dendroica tigrina 

Warbler, Chestnut-sided Dendroica pensylvanica 

Warbler, Hooded* Wilsonia citrina 

Warbler, Magnolia Dendroica magnolia 

Warbler, Nashville Vermivora ruficapilla 

Warbler, Orange-crowned Vermivora celata 

Warbler, Palm AR Dendroica palmarum 

Warbler, Pine* Dendroica pinus 

Warbler, Prairie* Dendroica discolor 

Warbler, Prothonotary* Protonotaria citrea 

Warbler, Swainson’s Limnothlypis swainsonii 

Warbler, Worm-eating Helmitheros vermivorum 

Warbler, Yellow* Dendroica petechia 

Warbler, Yellow-rumped Dendroica coronata 

Warbler, Yellow-throated* Dendroica dominica 

Waterthrush, Northern Seiurus noveboracensis 

Waxwing, Cedar Bombycilla cedrorum 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus 

Wigeon, American Anas americana 

Wigeon, Eurasian Anas penelope

Willet* Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Wood Pewee, Eastern* Contopus virens 

Woodcock, American Scolopax minor 

Woodpecker, Downy* Picoides pubescens 

Woodpecker, Hairy* Picoides villosus 

Woodpecker, Pileated* Dryocopus pileatus 

Woodpecker, Red-bellied* Melanerpes carolinus 

Woodpecker, Red-headed* Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Wren, Carolina* Thryothorus ludovicianus 

Wren, House* Throglodytes aedon 

Wren, Marsh* Cistothorus palustris 

Wren, Sedge Cistothorus platensis 

Wren, Winter Troglodytes troglodytes 

Yellowlegs, Greater Tringa melanoleuca 
Appendices 207

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

BIRDS (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Yellowlegs, Lesser Tringa flavipes 

Yellow-throat, Common* Geothlypis trichas 

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

MAMMALS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Bat, Big Brown Eptesicus fuscus 

Bat, Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus 

Bat, Evening Nycticeius humeralis 

Bat, Hoary Lasiurus cinereus 

Bat, Red Lasiurus borealis 

Bat, Silver-haired Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Bear, American Black Ursus americanus 

Beaver, American Castor canadensis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Cottontail, Eastern Sylvilagus floridanus 

Deer, White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus 

Dolphin, Atlantic Bottlenosed Tursiops truncates 

Fox, Gray Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Fox, Red Vulpes fulva 

Manatee Trichechus Manatus 

Mink, American Mustela vison 

Mole, Eastern Scalopus aquaticus 

Mole, Star-nosed Condylura cristata 

Mouse, Cotton Peromyscus gossypinus 

Mouse, Eastern Harvest Reithrodontomys humulis 

Mouse, Golden Ochrotomys nuttalli 

Mouse, House Mus musculus 

Mouse, White-footed Peromyscus leucopus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Nutria (Exotic) Myocastor coypus 

Opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Otter, River Lontra canadensis 

Rabbit, Marsh Sylvilagus palustris 

Raccoon, Northern Procyon lotor 

Rat, Black Rattus rattus

Rat, Hispid Cotton Sigmodon hispidus 

Rat, Marsh Rice Oryzomys palustris 

Rat, Norway Rattus norvegicus 
208 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Shrew, Least Cryptotis parva 

Shrew, Short-tailed Blarina brevicauda

Shrew, Southeastern Sorex longirostris 

Squirrel, Eastern Gray Sciurus carolinensis 

Squirrel, Southern Flying Glaucomys volans 

Vole, Meadow Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Weasel, Long-tailed Mustela frenata 

Wolf, Red (Endangered) Canis rufus 

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Alligator, American (Threatened) Alligator mississippiensis 

Amphiuma, Two-toed Amphiuma means 

Anole, Green (Carolina Anole) Anolis carolinensis 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Cooter, Florida Chrysemys floridana floridana 

Cooter, River Pseudemys concinna concinna 

Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix 

Cottonmouth, Eastern Agkistrodon piscivorus 

Frog, Brimley.s Chorus Pseudacris brimleyi 

Frog, Carpenter Rana virgatipes 

Frog, Gray Tree Hyla chrysoscelis (diploid form) 

Frog, Green Rana clamitans 

Frog, Little Grass Pseudacris ocularis 

Frog, Southern Cricket Acris gryllus 

Frog, Southern Leopard Rana utricularia (Rana sphenocephala) 

Kingsnake, Scarlet Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides 

Lizard, Eastern Glass Ophisaures ventralis 

Mudpuppy, Dwarf Necturus punctatus 

Mudturtle, Eastern Kinosternon subrubrum 

Newt, Eastern Notophthalmus viridescens 

Peeper, Spring Pseudacris crucifer 

Racer, Black Coluber constrictor 

Rattlesnake, Canebrake (Timber) Crotalus horridus 

Rattlesnake, Pygmy Sistrusus miliarius barbouri 

Salamander, Marbled Ambystoma opacum 

Salamander, Slimy Plethodone glutinosus glutinous 

Salamander, Southern Dusky Desmognathus auriculatus 

Siren, Greater Siren lacertian 

Skink, Broad-headed Eumeces laticeps 

Skink, Five-Lined Eumeces fasciatus 

Skink, Ground Scincella lateralis 

Skink, Southeastern Five-lined Eumeces inexpectatus 

Slider, Yellow-bellied Trachemys scripta scripta 

Snake, Banded Water Nerodia fasciata fasciata 

Snake, Brown Storeria dekayi 

Snake, Brown Water Nerodia taxispilota 
Appendices 209

Snake, Carolina Swamp Seminatrix pygaea paludis 

Snake, Corn (Red Rat Snake) Elaphe guttata 

Snake, Eastern Garter Thamnophis sirtalis 

Snake, Eastern Hognose Heterodon platirhinos 

Snake, Eastern King Lampropeltis getula 

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Snake, Eastern Ribbon Thamnophis sauritus 

Snake, Glossy Crayfish Regina rigida 

Snake, Green Rat Senticolis triaspis 

Snake, Mud Farancia abacura 

Snake, Northern Water Natrix sipedon sipedon 

Snake, Rainbow Farancia erytrogramma 

Snake, Redbelly Storeria occipitomaculata 

Snake, Redbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster erythrogaster 

Snake, Ringneck Diadophis punctatus 

Snake, Rough Earth Virginia striatula 

Snake, Rough Green Opheodrys aestivus 

Snake, Worm Carphophis vermis 

Spadefoot, Eastern Toad Scaphiopus holbrooki holbrooki 

Terrapin, Diamondback Malaclemys terrapin 

Toad, Eastern Narrow-mouthed Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Toad, Fowler's Bufo fowleri 

Toad, Oak Bufo quercicus 

Toad, Southern Bufo terrestris 

Treefrog, Green Hyla cinerea 

Treefrog, Pine Woods Hyla femoralis 

Treefrog, Squirrel Hyla squirella 

Turtle, Common Snapping Chelydra serpentina 

Turtle, Eastern Box Terrapene carolina 

Turtle, Painted Chrysemys picta 

Turtle, Redbelly Chrysemys rubiventris 

Turtle, Spotted Clemmys guttata 

Watersnake, Carolina Nerodia. Sipendon williamengelsi 
210 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

FISH 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 

Anchovy, Bay Anchoa mitchilli 

Bass, Largemouth Micropterus salmoides 

Bass, Striped Morone saxatilis 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Bowfin Amia calva 

Bullhead, Brown Ameiurus nebulosus 

Bullhead, Yellow Ameiurus natalis 

Carp, Common Cyprinus carpio 

Catfish, Channel Ictalurus punctatus 

Catfish, White Ameiurus catus 

Chubsucker, Lake Erimyzon sucetta 

Crappie, Black Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus 

Darter, Swamp Etheostoma fusiforme 

Darter, Tessellated Etheostoma olmstedi 

Drum, Red Sciaenops ocellatus 

Eel, American Anguilla rostrata 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus 

Flounder, Southern Paralichthys lethostigma 

Flounder, Summer Paralichthys dentatus 

Gar, Longnose Lepisosteus osseus 

Goby, Green Microgobius thalassinus 

Goby, Naked Gobiosoma bosci 

Goldfish Carassius auratus 

Herring, Blueback Alosa aestivalis 

Hogchoaker Trinectes maculatus 

Killifish, Banded Fundulus diaphanus 

Killifish, Rainwater Lucania parva 

Ladyfish Elops Saurus 

Madtom, Tadpole Noturus gyrinus 

Menhaden, Atlantic Brevoortia tyrannus 

Minnow, Sheepshead Cyprinodon variegates 

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Mudminnow, Eastern Umbra pygmaea 

Mullet, Striped Mugil cephalus 

Mullet, Yellow Mugil curema 

Mummichog Fundulus h. heteroclitus 

Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina 

Perch, Pirate Aphredoderus sayanus 

Perch, Silver Bairdiella chrysoura 
Appendices 211

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

FISH (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Perch, White Morone americana 

Perch, Yellow Perca flavescens 

Pickerel, Chain Esox niger 

Pickerel, Redfin Esox americanus 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboids 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Shad, American Alosa sapidissima 

Shad, Gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum 

Shad, Hickory Alosa mediocris 

Shiner Notropis spp. 

Shiner, Golden Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Silverside, Inland Menidia beryllina 

Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

Sturgeon, Atlantic Acipenser oxyrhynchus 

Sunfish, Banded Enneacanthus obesus 

Sunfish, Bluespotted Enneacanthus gloriosus 

Sunfish, Mud Acantharchus pomotis 

Sunfish, Redbreast Lepomis auritus 

Sunfish, Redear Lepomis microlophus 

Swampfish Chologaster cornuta 

Tonguefish, Blackcheek Symphurus plagiusa 

Trout, Spotted Sea Cynoscion nebulosus 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

FAUNA (CONTINUED) 

OTHER AQUATIC ORGANISMS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Crab, Blue Callinectes sapidus 

Crab, Brackish-Water 

Fiddler 

Uca minax 

Crayfish Procambarus acutus 

Oyster, Common Crassostrea virginica 

Periwinkle, Marsh Littorina irrorata 

Shrimp, Brown Penaeus aztecus 

Shrimp, Freshwater Palaemonetes paludosus 

Shrimp, Pink Penaeus duorarum 

Shrimp, White Penaeus setiferus 
212 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 213

Appendix J. Budget Requests 

SWANQUARTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Project ranks are listed for Swanquarter NWR. Projects are listed as tier 1 projects that support 

approved critical mission or approved minimum staff or tier 2 projects that do not. There are also 

projects proposed in the CCP for Mattamuskeet NWR that would support the administration of 

Swanquarter NWR. 

REFUGE OPERATIONS NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION, HABITAT MANAGEMENT

Project: 97015 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $95,000 

Station Rank – 2 (Swanquarter Tier 1) 

Provide an assistant refuge manager to coordinate the day-to-day management, administration, and 

protection of refuge facilities and biological resources on the 16,400-acre coastal refuge. The refuge 

is currently unstaffed and is administered by Mattamuskeet NWR staff. The refuge and associated 

27,000-acre Presidential Proclamation Area, which is closed to migratory bird hunting, provide habitat 

for waterfowl and other migratory birds, alligators, red wolves, bald eagles, black bear, and a variety 

of commercially and recreationally important coastal fish. An assistant refuge manager will provide 

the professional guidance needed for refuge's biological, maintenance, public use, and outreach 

programs. This position will also be responsible for planning, coordinating, and conducting the fire 

management program for the entire 81,000-acre Mattamuskeet NWR Complex (Mattamuskeet, Cedar 

Island, and Swanquarter NWRs). 

Project: 97035 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $68,000 

Station Rank – 7 (Swanquarter Tier 1) 

Provide a wildlife biologist (aquatic/wetland ecologist) to conduct habitat monitoring studies and 

implement biological management programs on the 16,400-acre coastal refuge. The refuge is 

currently unstaffed and is administered by Mattamuskeet NWR staff. The refuge is dominated by a 

vast expanse of undisturbed coastal marsh and islands. The refuge and associated 27,000-acre 

Presidential Proclamation Area, which is closed to migratory bird hunting, as well as the 8,785-acre 

Class 1 Wilderness Area, provide habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, alligators, red 

wolves, bald eagles, black bear, and a variety of commercially and recreationally important coastal 

fish, crabs, and shellfish. The wildlife biologist will plan, conduct, and coordinate studies (with an 

emphasis on wetland and aquatic habitats) to include the following: vegetation inventories; nutrient 

status studies; sea grass bed mapping surveys; impact to sea grass bed evaluations in Presidential 

Proclamation waters; ozone damage to vegetation assessments, and biotic inventories. None of this 

information is known, but is needed to protect the quality and integrity of the refuge's wilderness area, 

other refuge lands, and surrounding coastal waters. 
214 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Project: 97001 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $68,000 

Station Rank – 8 (Swanquarter Tier 1) 

Provide a wildlife biologist to improve biological monitoring of habitats and wildlife populations on the 

16,400-acre coastal refuge and two nearby refuges (50,180-acre Mattamuskeet NWR and 14,480-acre 

Cedar Island NWR). The refuge is currently unstaffed and is administered by Mattamuskeet NWR staff. 

The refuge is dominated by a vast expanse of undisturbed coastal marsh and islands, which provides 

habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, alligators, red wolves, bald eagles, black bear, and a 

variety of commercially and recreationally important coastal fish. A wildlife biologist is needed to 

coordinate and conduct wildlife and habitat surveys identified in refuge inventory and monitoring plans. 

These surveys include water quality monitoring; fish and aquatic surveys; vegetation surveys; waterfowl, 

songbird, and shorebird surveys; and alligator and black bear surveys. Surveying and monitoring are 

essential to making sound resource management decisions. This position will also assist with the 

biological programs on Mattamuskeet and Cedar Island NWRs. 

Project: 00014 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $68,000 

Station Rank – 1 (Swanquarter Tier 2) 

Improve wildlife and habitat management programs on Swanquarter NWR. A biological technician 

will be hired to oversee and conduct habitat and wildlife management programs. This position will 

implement and monitor biological programs that will benefit wildlife, fisheries and habitat. This refuge 

has not been staffed for over 13 years, and needs attention to the biological programs. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION

Project: 00002 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $74,000 

Station Rank – 6 (Swanquarter Tier 1) 

Provide a refuge law enforcement officer to improve protection of refuge resources, facilities, and 

visitors on the 16,400-acre coastal refuge. The refuge is currently unstaffed and is administered by 

Mattamuskeet NWR staff. This coastal refuge, and associated 27,000-acre Presidential Proclamation 

Area, which is closed to migratory bird hunting, as well as the 8,785-acre Class 1 Wilderness Area, 

provide habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, alligators, red wolves, bald eagles, black bear, 

and a variety of commercially and recreationally important coastal fish, crabs, and shellfish. It also 

has a 1,000-foot fishing pier on the Bell Island portion of the refuge. This pier, along with other 

portions of the refuge, is extensively used by visitors for saltwater fishing and wildlife observation. 

About 85,000 people visit the refuge each year. Only a small area of the refuge is accessible by 

vehicle, but other areas are readily accessible by boat. A full-time law enforcement officer is needed 

to enhance resource and visitor protection, especially during migratory bird seasons and at high 

public use sites (fishing pier), the closed-to-hunting Presidential Proclamation Area, and the 

designated Wilderness Area. This position will also post and maintain refuge boundary signs in the 

water boundary areas of the refuge and will assist with law enforcement activities at Mattamuskeet 

and Cedar Island NWRs. 

Project: 00019 

First Year Request: $108,000, Recurring Request: $0 

Station Rank – 9 (Swanquarter Tier 1) 

Conduct a comprehensive cultural resources survey on the 16,400-acre coastal marsh and island 

refuge. In 1979, a limited cultural resource survey was conducted at sites that had been identified for 

planned development (public use facilities, structures). Findings from this survey indicated the need 
Appendices 215

to conduct a more comprehensive survey of the remaining areas of the refuge. This refuge is located 

in an area rich in significant prehistoric, Native American, and early European colonial history. This 

area of North Carolina, starting in the early 16th century, was the site of early European exploration 

and colonization, including nearby Roanoke Island, which is the site of the first English colony in 

America and the site of the famous "Lost Colony." This project will help determine if significant 

cultural resource sites are present on the refuge. All sites identified by the survey will be mapped and 

protected from vandalism or unintentional damage (from refuge operations, proposed construction 

projects, and other activities that would have the potential to impact the sites). 

VISTIOR SERVICES

Project: 97026 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $81,000 

Station Rank – 3 (Swanquarter Tier 1) 

Provide a visitor services specialist (public use and outreach specialist) to improve recreational, 

interpretive, environmental education, and outreach programs on the refuge and on two nearby 

refuges (50,180-acre Mattamuskeet NWR and 14,480-acre Cedar Island NWR). This 16,400-acre 

coastal refuge is currently unstaffed and is administered by Mattamuskeet NWR staff. A strong, 

coordinated public use and outreach program will greatly enhance public support of the refuges, 

increase the publics awareness of wildlife and environmental issues on the refuges and in the 

ecosystem, and help achieve public use and outreach goals. This position will coordinate and 

integrate the public use and outreach programs on the three refuges, which are visited by over 

180,000 people annually. The visitor services specialist will also coordinate partnership efforts with 

the Friends of the Mattamuskeet Lodge Committee and the Partnership for the Sounds group to 

reach public use and outreach goals in the area. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION

Project: 97034 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $57,000 

Station Rank – 1 (Swanquarter Tier 1) 

Provide an administrative technician (receptionist/clerk typist) to assist with the increase demand for 

public and visitor services. The 16,400-acre coastal refuge is currently unstaffed and is administered 

by Mattamuskeet NWR staff, which has only one office assistant. Currently, this office assistant must 

handle an ever increasing demand for services from the public and refuge visitors for three refuges. 

Therefore, other administrative duties (purchasing, paying bills, personnel actions, payroll, budget 

tracking, property management) are not being completed in a timely manner. The addition of a 

receptionist/clerk typist will improve office efficiency (typing and filing routine correspondence) and 

public/visitor relations (prompt visitor reception and faster processing of requests for information). 

This project will allow the primary office assistant to concentrate on core job responsibilities that are 

of a time critical nature. 

Project: 00013 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $66,000 

Station Rank – 4 (Swanquarter Tier 1) 

Provide a maintenance worker to improve maintenance and repairs to refuge equipment and facilities 

on the 16,400-acre coastal refuge. The refuge is currently unstaffed and is administered by 

Mattamuskeet NWR staff. The refuge is dominated by a vast expanse of undisturbed coastal marsh 

and islands, which includes a 27,000-acre Presidential Proclamation Area, which is closed to 

migratory bird hunting, and an 8,785-acre Class 1 Wilderness Area. It also has a 1,000-foot fishing 

pier on the Bell Island portion of the refuge. To support the management of refuge resources and 
216 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

programs, a maintenance worker is needed to conduct maintenance and repair on a wide variety of 

refuge equipment (boats, trailers, motors, vehicles, marsh buggies) and facilities (fishing pier, 

boundary signs and posts, roads, and trails). This position will conduct an aggressive preventive and 

cyclic maintenance operation. This will help reduce the premature replacement of costly equipment 

and facilities located in a harsh coastal environment. 

Project: 00015 

First Year Request: $32,500, Recurring Request: $33,000 

Station Rank – 5 (Swanquarter Tier 1) 

Provide a maintenance worker (tractor operator) to enhance the maintenance of facilities on the 

16,400-acre coastal refuge. The refuge is currently unstaffed and is administered by Mattamuskeet 

NWR staff. The refuge is dominated by a vast expanse of undisturbed coastal marsh and islands. 

This position will primarily operate farm tractors, mowers, boats, and marsh buggies to maintain 

refuge roads, trails, fire breaks, a 1,000-foot long fishing pier, and other facilities. The maintenance 

worker will also perform preventive and cyclic maintenance and repairs on the equipment. This 

position directly supports the implementation of the refuge's biological, fire, and public use programs. 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects Listed by Tier and Station Rank 

Station 

Rank 

Project 

Number 

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring) 

Positions Project Title 

Tier 1 

1 97034 $65,000 

$57,000 

1.0 Improve Office Efficiency and Public 

Relations (Administrative Technician) 

2 97015 $65,000 

$95,000 

1.0 Improve Management and Protection 

(Assistant Refuge Manager) 

3 97026 $65,000 

$81,000 

1.0 Improve Recreational and Public Use 

Activities (Visitor Services Specialist) 

4 00013 $65,000 

$66,000 

1.0 Improve Equipment and Facility 

Maintenance (Maintenance Worker) 

5 00015 $32,500 

$33,000 

0.5 Improve Refuge Management Capabilities 

(Maintenance Worker) 

6 00002 $65,000 

$74,000 

1.0 Enhance Resource and Visitor Protection 

(Law Enforcement Officer) 

7 97035 $65,000 

$68,000 

1.0 Conduct Habitat Monitoring Studies 

(Wildlife Biologist) 

8 97001 $65,000 

$68,000 

1.0 Improve Biological Monitoring on Three 

Refuges (Wildlife Biologist) 

9 00019 $108,000 

$0 

0.0 Conduct a Comprehensive Cultural 

Resource Survey 

Unranked Not 

entered 

$50,000 

$0 

0.0 Develop an Interpretive Trail or Boardwalk.

TIER 2 

1 00014 $65,000 

$68,000 

1.0 Improve Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Programs (Biological Technician) 
Appendices 217

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MMS) PROJECTS 

MMS Projects Organized by Rank 

Rank Number Description Cost 

1 99012 Resurvey and Post Swanquarter Proclamation 

Boundary 

$60,000

2 99004 Resurvey Boundary line along East Juniper Bay 

Tract 

$37,000
218 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 219

Appendix K. List of Preparers 

OVERVIEW 

This appendix summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative, which are presented in this Draft CCP/EA. It lists 

the meetings that have been held with the various agencies, organizations, and individuals who were 

consulted in the preparation of the Draft CCP/EA. 

The Service formed a planning core team composed of representatives from various Service divisions 

to prepare the Draft CCP/EA (Table 21). Initially, the team focused on identifying the issues and 

concerns pertinent to refuge management. The team met on several occasions from December 2000 

to June 2002. A biological review team (Table 22) met on the refuges in the ecosystem four times 

between December 1999 and December 2000 to assess the habitats on the refuges and the needs of 

wildlife species in the ecosystem, and make recommendations on land management and acquisition 

needs. The core team also sought the contributions of experts (Table 23) from various fields. 

Table 21. Swanquarter NWR comprehensive conservation core planning team members 

Name and Title Station, Refuge, Location 

Bruce Freske, Refuge Manager 

Jerry Fringeli, Assistant Manager 

Chris Smith, Law Enforcement Officer 

Don Temple, Former Manager 

John Stanton, Former Wildlife Biologist 

Dan Sheill, Former Law Enforcement Officer 

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge 

Swan Quarter, North Carolina 

Robert Glennon, Former 

Natural Resource Planner 

David Brown, Former Habitat Protection 

Biologist 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 
220 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 22. Swanquarter NWR comprehensive conservation biological review team members 

Name and Title Station, Refuge, Location 

Bob Noffsinger, Former Supervisory Wildlife 

Management Biologist 

Migratory Bird Field Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Frank Bowers, Former Migratory Bird 

Coordinator 

Southeast Regional Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Chuck Hunter, Former Nongame Migratory Bird 

Coordinator 

Southeast Regional Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Ronnie Smith, Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Assistance Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

John Stanton, Former Wildlife Biologist Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Swan Quarter, North Carolina 

Wendy Stanton, Wildlife Biologist Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Columbia, North Carolina 

Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Biologist Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Ralph Keel, Former Wildlife Biologist Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife 

Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Suffolk, Virginia 

John Gallegos, Wildlife Biologist Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

David Allen, Nongame Wildlife Biologist North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission 

New Bern, North Carolina 
Appendices 221

Table 23. Expert contributors to the Swanquarter NWR Draft CCP/EA and their area(s) of 

expertise

Expert Area of Expertise 

Bill Grabill, Former Refuge Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Refuge Management 

Rufus Croom, District Conservationist 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Plymouth, North Carolina 

Soil and Water Conservation 

Federal Land Conservation Programs 

John Gagnon, Soil Scientist 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

Soil Science 

Kevin Moody, Former NEPA Specialist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia 

National Environmental Policy Act 

John Ann Shearer, Private Lands Biologist, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

Wetland Management, 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

Richard Kanaski, Regional Archeologist, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Savannah, Georgia 

Cultural Resources 
222 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 223

Appendix L. Draft Coastal Zone Consistency 

Determination 

The following discussion is taken from the website of the Division of Coastal Management of the 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resource – 

http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Permits/consist.htm: 

Because North Carolina’s Coastal Management Program is Federally approved, a number of 

activities are required to comply with the enforceable policies of the State’s certified coastal 

management program – even if those activities do not require CAMA permits under State law. 

This "Federal consistency" authority exists under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted on October 27, 1972, to encourage coastal 

States, such as North Carolina, to develop comprehensive programs to manage and balance 

competing uses of and impacts to coastal resources. It applies to any activity that is within the State’s 

coastal zone that may reasonably affect any coastal resource or coastal use within the State’s coastal 

zone (even if the activity occurs outside of the coastal zone), if the activity: 

• is a Federal activity 

• requires a Federal license or permit; 

• receives Federal money; or 

• is a plan for exploration, development or production from any area leased under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act. 

Such projects must comply with the key elements of North Carolina's Coastal Management Program, 

which include: 

• the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) 

• the State's Dredge and Fill Law 

• Chapter 7 of Title 15A of N.C.'s Administrative Code 

• regulations passed by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) 

• local land-use plans certified by the CRC; and 

• a network of other state agencies’ laws and regulations. 

Consistency review by the Division of Coastal Management covers a wide range of projects, such as: 

proposed wetland fill that requires an Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; expansion 

of military operations and facilities; acquisition and expansion of Federal wildlife refuges; channelmaintenance dredging projects; and public projects such as highways, and water and sewer lines. 

How a consistency decision is made 

The consistency review process, for simplicity, can be divided into two classifications, one for Federal 

activities and the other for Non-Federal projects that require a Federal permit and/or license. 

Federal agencies proposing an activity that can reasonably affect a coastal resource or a coastal use 

are required to submit to DCM a “CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION.”.... The State has sixty (60) 

days to review a consistency determination. The procedures for making such a submission are 

contained in Subpart “C” of 15 CFR 930. 
224 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

Upon receiving a consistency certification submission, DCM will evaluate it for completeness. Please 

note, that DCM may not file a consistency submission complete until the applications for other 

required State permits have also been filed complete by the other reviewing State agencies. If the 

consistency submission is determined to be complete, DCM will review the proposed project for 

conformance with the enforceable policies of the State’s certified coastal management program. As 

part of this review process, the proposed project is circulated to the public and a variety of State 

agencies for comment. When the public review period is completed, DCM will consider the comments 

received. Moreover, please be aware that DCM will not make a final decision on the proposed project 

until the applicant submits copies of all other required State permits, for example a Section 401 Water 

Quality Certification and/or Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. Upon reaching its decision on 

the proposed project, DCM will issue either a letter of “concurrence” or “objection”. 

In the event that a letter of “objection” is issued, DCM and the project proponent may still negotiate a 

resolution that would allow the project to go forward. Additionally, the project proponent may be 

entitled to certain mediation/appeal privileges with the Office of Coastal Resource Management 

(OCRM). OCRM is the Federal agency responsible for overseeing the Coastal Zone Management 

Act. As such OCRM is responsible for issuing regulations on the consistency process, mediating 

consistency disputes, and processing consistency appeals to the Secretary of Commerce. 
Appendices 225

 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

 38 Mattamuskeet Road 

 Swanquarter, NC 27885 

 

Stephen Rynas 

Federal Consistency Coordinator 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

400 Commerce Avenue 

Morehead City, NC 28557-3421 

Dear Mr. Rynas : 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge has prepared a Comprehensive Conservation Plan as 

mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The plan outlines refuge 

management for the next 15 years. The plan does not propose any specific development activity, but 

is subject to a Federal consistency determination because the planning process is a Federal activity 

and expends Federal funds. 

In accordance with Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as 

amended, the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge has determined that the plan is consistent with 

the enforceable portion of North Carolina’s approved coastal management program. The 

determination is based on a review of the conformance of the proposed management in the plan with 

the enforceable policies of the State’s coastal program, which are principally found in Chapter 7 of 

Title 15A of North Carolina’s Administrative Code. The details of the consistency determination have 

been provided through the submission of the attached supporting narrative and the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge requests that the Division of Coastal Management concur with 

the consistency determination. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce Freske 

Refuge Manager 

Enclosures: 

Supporting Narrative 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment 
226 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR 

SWANQUARTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

Background 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all national 

wildlife refuges to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan to guide their management 

for a 15-year planning horizon. The Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde 

County, North Carolina was established in 1932. The Refuge was established and the 

land was acquired by the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The 

refuge currently owns 16,411 acres. 

The comprehensive conservation plan outlines management including monitoring of fish and 

wildlife populations, monitoring and management of habitats, provision of opportunities for 

public uses (hunting, fishing, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, 

and wildlife photography), resource protection (law enforcement, special use permits, water 

quality monitoring, pest plant and animal management), and administration. The specifics of 

the management activities will be outlined in step-down plans that will be developed after the 

comprehensive conservation plan is approved. The major activities on the refuge at the 

present time are monitoring waterfowl and vegetation, conducting prescribed burning to 

mimic the natural fire cycle, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, law 

enforcement, and maintenance of existing roads and facilities. 

Federal Consistency with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program 

Areas of Environmental Concern 

The Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge contains coastal wetlands that are in the Estuarine 

and Coastal Area of Environmental Concern (estuarine and ocean system, ocean hazard 

system, and public water supply) mentioned in the CAMA Handbook for Development in 

Coastal North Carolina. More than ninety-nine percent of the refuge (16,400 of 16,411 

acres) is wetlands; seventy-five percent (12,300 acres) is estuarine marsh. 

The comprehensive conservation plan is consistent with the following section of Subchapter 

7H of the Guidelines for the Estuarine and Ocean Systems: 

Section .0205 – Coastal Wetlands – The management objectives in the comprehensive 

conservation plan of the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge are similar to the 

management objective for coastal wetlands. The refuge staff proposes to manage the 

wetlands to maintain the vegetation and wildlife characteristic of those wetlands. They will 

conduct prescribed burning with the standards established by the state of North Carolina. 

They will maintain the existing roads. 

Projects Outside the Areas of Environmental Concern 
Appendices 227

Twenty-five percent of the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge (4,111 of 16,411 acres) 

is not within an Area of Environmental Concern. The comprehensive conservation plan is 

consistent with the following sections of Subchapter 7M of the General Policy Guidelines 

for the Coastal Area: 

Section .0200 – Shoreline Erosion Policies – The comprehensive conservation plan of the 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge does not propose any activities that will disturb land, 

drain land, or increase runoff from land that would increase shoreline or riverbank erosion. 

The forest management step-down plan may propose the harvesting or thinning of the forest 

to improve wildlife habitat. That management would be performed in accordance with Best 

Management Practices prescribed by the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. 

Section .0300 – Shoreline Access Policies – The comprehensive conservation plan of the 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge proposes to maintain access for the public to hunt, 

fish, observe wildlife, photograph wildlife, and participate in environmental education and 

interpretation programs. There are maintained gravel roads on the refuge with access 

from public roads. 

Section .0800 – Coastal Water Quality Policies - The comprehensive conservation plan of 

the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge does not propose any intensive management that 

would disturb soil, increase runoff, or apply fertilizer or pesticide on the refuge. The forest 

management step-down plan may propose the harvesting or thinning of the forest and/or the 

use of pesticides to kill undesirable trees and shrubs to improve wildlife habitat. That 

management would be performed in accordance with Best Management Practices 

prescribed by the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources and the pesticide labels. 

Conclusion 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge will not 

result in any significant impacts to coastal resources. The plan deals primarily with 

monitoring wildlife populations and providing opportunities for public use (hunting, fishing, 

environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography). The 

plan also provides for habitat monitoring and management of the habitat to improve 

conditions for wildlife. The proposed management is consistent, to the maximum extent 

practicable, with the enforceable policies of North Carolina’s coastal management program. 

If you have any questions, please contact Bruce Freske, Refuge Manager, at 252-926-4021.