Working Document - DRAFT
2013
September
Case Examples
FRMES CE 13-05
FWS: Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
(draft)
Lynn Scarlett
0
Working Document - DRAFT
September 2013
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge
Location
The Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located on the border of
southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina. The Refuge helps to conserve
over 112,00 acres of seasonally flooded wetland forest, 400,000 acres of peat lands, and
includes the 3,100 acre Lake Drummond, one of only two naturally occurring lakes in the
State of Virginia. The Refuge comprises 20 percent of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
land base in Region Five (Northeast region), with a significant hydrological nexus to the
Albemarle Sound and Chesapeake Bay.
Great Dismal Swamp has experienced significant perturbations from human activities
over the previous several hundred years. George Washington once helped form a group
of shareholders to form the Dismal Swamp Company in order to drain, farm, and log
portions of the swamp. Since that time, it is estimated that over 150 miles of roads were
constructed to provide access for timbering along with the construction of associated
ditches intended to dry out the swamplands to make timber harvesting easier. These
activities have significantly altered the natural water regime of Great Dismal Swamp
resulting in a swamp that is drier in some locations and prone to flooding in other areas.
As a result of such activities, cypress and cedar trees had difficulty surviving and were
slowly replaced by red maples and other forest species. The Refuge, which was
established in 1974, is working to restore and maintain the natural biological diversity
and associated natural swamp ecosystem that existed prior to human alterations.
The Great Dismal Swamp Refuge is unique in that it protects the largest intact wetland
forest on the East Coast. Located adjacent to the Virginia Tidewater metropolitan area
with a population of over 1.6 million, the Refuge is considered to be an Urban Refuge,
unique in its ability to provide a multitude of conservation-related activities to such a
large and proximate population. Correspondingly, the Refuge also provides the
proximate population with a diversity of beneficial ecosystem services that both visitors
and non-visitors realize. Figure 1 shows the location of the refuge in relation to the
Chesapeake Bay, Albemarle Sound, and the Virginia Tidewater metropolitan community.
1
Working Document – DRAFT
September 2013
Figure 1
2
Working Document – DRAFT
September 2013
Figure 2
3
Working Document – DRAFT
September 2013
Motivation
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge, required by statute under
provisions of the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, was completed
in 2006. The refuge’s Habitat Management Plan is scheduled for completion in 2013. The
CCP itself is broad, but must “step down” to address water and forest management issues,
including restoration of the system’s hydrology and white cedar forest stands. A key goal
of refuge managers is to protect and restore those areas within the Great Dismal Swamp
ecosystem that are remnants of the Great Dismal Swamp and/or are restorable to Great
Dismal Swamp habitat while providing support to the protection and restoration of all its
components and adjacent habitats that directly affect the vitality and viability of the
ecosystem. Under the Dismal Swamp Study Act of 1972, a 210,000-acre study area of the
ecosystem was identified for study of areas in need of protection and restoration. At that
time, it was finally decided to protect only 123,000 acres of the ecosystem. Since then,
much of the land has been developed and converted to other uses. The corresponding
loss of natural habitat has created a number of challenges for the refuge.
1. Critical issues facing the Refuge include:
2. Loss of wildlife corridors, which threaten to make the Refuge ecologically isolated that in
turn threatens unique species such as the black bear;
3. Encroaching human development, which has put severe limits on how independently the
Refuge can carry-out hydrological and forest restoration actions (e.g., off-site flooding
caused by ditch remediation and smoke and particulates caused by controlled burns); and
4. Quality-of-Life issues for residents within the watershed associated with the development
of flood prone areas where hydrologic disruption is significant, by a reduction of air and
water quality, and by the loss of open space.
One of the threats currently facing the refuge is drought. The area has been experiencing
increasingly frequent drought events and as a consequence more severe fire events, with
up to 15 fires per month and fire size averaging 6500 acres versus 300 several decades
ago (verify). In 2011, the area experienced the longest lasting fire in Virginia’s history,
which continued for xx days. In addition to these challenges, the area is experiencing
significant development pressures. The City of Chesapeake is redoing its comprehensive
plan, and the Refuge, The Nature Conservancy, and others are working with the city to
examine what natural resources the city and others should protect.
There is no statutory or regulatory mandate for the Refuge to incorporate ecosystem
services into their planning, but the FWS has signaled a general interest in better
understanding and evaluating ecosystem services, an interest that resulted in production
of two studies. One was designed to do a preliminary evaluation of a subset of ecosystem
services at four refuges with various types of wetlands. The second looked at how
housing values were influenced by proximity to refuges nationwide.
The Great Dismal Swamp NWR is interested in the potential utility of using an ecosystem
services framework to better understand and communicate the benefits of the refuge and
4
Working Document – DRAFT
September 2013
evaluate management options and trade-offs. Potential benefits are numerous. They
include:





Traditional outdoor recreation opportunities;
The role the Refuge provides in terms of carbon sequestration;
Moderation of the duration and adverse impacts of fire (if hydrological functioning is
restored) and associated public health benefits;
The specific role of peats in terms of retaining mercury and other atmospheric
depositions; and
The role the Refuge plays in cooling contributions of the growing metropolitan area as a
result of tree cover (and moisture retention).
Absent restoration, slow oxidation of the peat can be a major source of carbon release.
The swamp also stores large amounts of water in what is largely a rain-fed system
without adversely impacting (flooding) neighboring agricultural lands. [Add discussion of
water treatment.] However, the benefits to neighboring communities from water
retention are unclear.
The City of Chesapeake is redoing its comprehensive plan and is looking at promoting
rural, outdoor recreation. The City believes it has significant development potential in
this arena. Working with the City and The Nature Conservancy, the refuge faces critical
questions about what additional lands should be protected and how to maintain the
integrity of the existing refuge. Ecosystem services concepts could be useful in
communicating the benefits of open lands and swamp protection and in helping the city
and other surrounding communities consider various land and water management
options.
Decision Context
Incorporating consideration of ecosystem services into future plans, especially with
respect to better evaluating the contribution of the refuge to air quality, water quality,
carbon sequestration, and its economic benefits associated with managing habitat for
trust resources could assist in developing priorities, evaluating trade-offs with different
management options, and communicating refuge and project benefits to enhance
community support and, potentially, attract funding and partnerships beyond traditional
partnerships with the hunting, fishing, and wildlife-based recreation communities.
Refuge managers and the larger community face several resource management questions
and potential trade-offs. Restoring the hydrological functioning of the swamp could
reduce peat exposure and associated subsidence and drying of the peat. Such exposure
may be associated with increased severity and duration of wildland fires that, in turn,
result in extended exposures in the surrounding communities to smoke (particulates)
that may be associated with increased incidence of respiratory and other health hazards.
Improving hydrological function of the swamp could reduce the intensity and duration of
these fires, thus reducing public health impacts from smoke and improving forest health.
5
Working Document – DRAFT
September 2013
The Environmental Protection Agency undertook a study after a Pocosin Lakes fire in
2008, examining emergency room visitations for respiratory and heart problems. A June
2011 study of peat bog wildfire smoke exposure in the area associated with a major
wildland fire examined the health effects of exposure to wildland fire emissions.1 Using
North Carolina emergency department visits in areas determined to have experienced
high exposures to wildland fire smoke, the study concluded that there were significant
increases in relative risks for asthma, pneumonia, and acute bronchitis. Emergency
department visits associated with cardiopulmonary symptoms and heart failure also
significantly increased.2
Despite these potential benefits from improved hydrological function, there are questions
regarding the balance between reducing peat exposure and enhancing forest health. Too
much water in the swamp can adversely affect trees, so a critical management question is
how wet the swamp should be and where.
At the same time, restoring the refuge’s hydrology to reduce peat exposure involves
potentially significant trade-offs with respect to the adjacent Dismal Swamp Canal, which
is part of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) managed by the Army Corp of Engineers.
Originally built for transportation purposes, the canal now largely serves recreational
interests, with the Department of Transportation Visitor Center associated with the canal
reporting some 600,000 visitors annually and over 200,000 boaters. Lake Drummond is
a primary source of water for the Canal, which the Army Corp of Engineers manages via
the Dismal Swamp Canal that connects Lake Drummond to the ICW. The Dismal Swamp
Study Act stipulated that the primary use of water from Lake Drummond and other
waters was to be used to maintain and enhance the ecology of the Great Dismal Swamp.
The Corp is authorized to draw water from the Lake to supplement low flows on the ICW
as long as the Lake is not drawn down beyond a particular level.
Given the Refuge’s mandate to protect and preserve the ecosystem of the Swamp, a
potential conflict exists with the Corp’s management of the ICW because restoration of
the Swamp entails managing the ditches in such a manner as to elevate the water table
underlying the Swamp. While the surface area of the Swamp would increase under an
elevated water table management approach the Refuge must be careful not to allow the
Lake to rise too high or it creates adverse effects on the cypresses and related swamp
vegetation.
As a result, the Lake essentially has a non-mandated upper limit based on ecological
conditions and water must be released out of the system to avoid adversely affecting the
swamp ecosystem. From the Corp’s perspective of maintaining consistent water flows
along the ICW, this can be problematic as during the rainy seasons not as much water can
Ana G. Rappold, Susan L. Stone, Wane E. Cascio, et al., “Peat Bog Wildfire Smoke Exposure in Rural North
Carolina Is Associated with Cardio-Pulmonary Emergency Department Visits Assessed through Syndromic
Surveillance,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Online 27 June, 2011, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003206
2 Ibid., p. 3.
1
6
Working Document – DRAFT
September 2013
be stored in the Lake to be used later in the summers during drought when the ICW
typically experiences increased demand. As a result, the ICW may run high and then very
low for navigational purposes as the Corp may have limited opportunities to release
water without exceeding the minimum Lake elevations. Each time the Corp opens the
gates on the Dismal Swamp Canal to feed the ICW it costs the Lake approximately one
million gallons of water.
Who
a) What other agencies (including state and local) are involved? Is their involvement
“voluntary” or “required” (e.g. due to jurisdictional responsibilities)?
In addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service, decisions regarding hydrological function, fire
management, recreation, and public health involve various other federal, state, and local
agencies, including, but not limited to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of
Transportation, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the North Carolina
Department of State Parks; wildlife management agencies in both Virginia and North
Carolina; the City of Chesapeake, City of Suffolk, and three counties; the Hampton Roads
Planning District Commissioner, and the Dismal Swamp State Park.
b) What non-governmental organizations, businesses, or consultants are playing
important roles?
The Nature Conservancy is a long-time partner of the refuge and over a 40-year period
has helped acquire and transfer lands to the refuge. On an ongoing basis, TNC helps with
restoration, management, and enhancing resilience of the Great Dismal Swamp, and is
interested in better characterizing and managing the ecosystem services associated with
the refuge.
Other non-governmental partners include the Conservation Fund, the Trust for Public
Land, and the Isaac Walton League. In addition, the refuge interacts with business
organizations through the Hampton Roads Partnership and the Community Foundation.
Though the refuge interacts with these partners, they have not been actively engaged in
exploring how to consider ecosystem services concepts in planning and managing the
area’s natural resources.
c) What parts of the agency are involved, who triggered the analysis, who has
programmatic responsibility, who has implementation responsibility?
Funding
To date, there has been no funding to conduct an ecosystem services assessment of the
Refuge.
7
Working Document – DRAFT
September 2013
Existing Resources
The Great Dismal Swamp NWR is not currently applying an ecosystem services approach
to analyze and assess the management of refuge natural resources. However, the Refuge
has operations funding for planning and for some inventorying and monitoring. This
funding supports current plans to research and restore the swamp’s hydrology. The
refuge would need additional resources and training in ecosystem services analysis or
outside support to undertake such analysis. A survey of refuge needs in Region 8 (Pacific
Region) indicated a general need for more data management, data analysis, and GIS
capabilities. Though the survey was undertaken in the West, all refuges appear to have
similar needs. The Division of Economics in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has some
ability to assist in such an assessment. The Division previously sponsored a pilot study
that assessed the ecosystem services associated with four refuges with different types of
wetlands. A second study looked at the influence refuge’s had on nearby private property
values. The Division also had ability to provide in-house support.
Options and Trade-offs Considered:
a) What management or policy options are being evaluated where ES will be
considered?
The refuge must evaluate different options for setting and controlling refuge water levels.
Past drainage and flows of refuge waters into a canal system that supports high levels of
recreation preclude restoration to historic water levels and patterns. However, the refuge
is striving to restore hydrological function to prevent peat loss, reduce the severity and
duration of wildland fires and associated air quality impacts, and provide biodiversity
benefits. Using an ecosystem services framework could assist in evaluating trade-offs
between off-refuge recreation benefits associated with canal flows and broad public
health, carbon sequestration, and other benefits associated with different levels of
restoration of hydrological function in the refuge. Furthermore, there may also be a
connection to the hydrology of the Norfolk area. This area is experiencing accelerated
erosion and has become increasingly vulnerable to storm events. Intense development
on unstable soils along with a drawing down of the water table is causing the area to sink.
Restoring the natural hydrology of the Swamp may in fact have beneficial benefits to the
metropolitan area associated with restrained and more natural hydrological flows.
b) What ecosystem goods and services are being addressed, and how were they chosen?
See discussion under Decision Context.
Analysis
As noted above, the Division of Economics has conducted several preliminary studies
investigating the potential to measure the ecological services associated with refuge
amenities. In general, refuges across the country desire this information at the very least
to convey to their communities some of the benefits associated with the refuge and
8
Working Document – DRAFT
September 2013
conservation-related management that may not be immediately recognized and difficult
to convey without scientific study. This is particularly important for refuges located in
more urban areas as the communities are much more likely to be focused on active use
benefits rather than passive or non-use benefits.
In California and elsewhere, some studies have attempted to account for carbon
sequestration in peat and carbon emissions associated with peat losses. However, there is
no protocol for such calculations associated with the peat systems in the Great Dismal
Swamp.
Implications
Assessing and evaluating ecosystem services associated with the refuge and, especially,
from restored hydrological function, would assist the refuge in: 1) communicating
potential benefits to the broader surrounding communities; 2) working with the Army
Corps of Engineers to evaluate trade-offs with canal operations for recreational purposes
versus water needs for the refuge; and 3) evaluating trade-offs within the refuge
associated with carbon sequestration benefits, biodiversity, public health benefits
associated with lower intensity and shorter fires. In addition, if the economic benefits
associated with fewer days of high smoke exposure could be demonstrated, those
demonstrated benefits might translate into a willingness by the communities to support
and assist in paying for hydrological restoration. Tourism is one of the most significant
economic drivers in the area and is adversely affected by long-duration fires such as that
which occurred in 2008.
9
About FRMES
The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services (FRMES) project is a
collaborative effort to develop a credible and feasible approach to incorporate ecosystem
services into the decision making processes of federal agencies. FRMES is a project of the
National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental
Policy Solutions, which seeks to enhance collaboration within the ecosystem services
community and strengthen coordination of policy implementation and research at the
national level. The FRMES project is funded primarily by the Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation, with additional support from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center.
For more information about this project, please contact:
Lydia Olander
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 919.613.8713
Web: http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/pages/federal-resource-management-and-ecosystemservices-project