Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

August 2008

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

ALLIGATOR RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

August 2008 



Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 5

History ................................................................................................................................. 5

Purposes ............................................................................................................................. 5

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 10

Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 11

Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................ 11

Conservation Priorities ...................................................................................................... 13

Challenges ........................................................................................................................ 14

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 15

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 16

Minerals ............................................................................................................................. 16

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 16

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 19

Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 20

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 20

Visual Resources ............................................................................................................... 22

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 22

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................30

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 35

History ............................................................................................................................... 36

Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 38

Demographics ................................................................................................................... 41

Employment ...................................................................................................................... 41

Forestry ............................................................................................................................. 43

Outdoor Recreation in the Area ........................................................................................ 43

Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 44

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

Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 2

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

Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 3

National Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................. 3

Relationship to State Partners ...................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5

Refuge History and Purposes ....................................................................................................... 5

Special Designations .................................................................................................................... 7

Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 7

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................ 9

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................10

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 14

Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 22

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 35

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 35
ii Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 45

Transportation ................................................................................................................... 45

Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................ 46

Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 46

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

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 51

Refuge Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 52

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 55

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 56

Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................ 57

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 59

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 60

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 61

Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 61

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 63

Wildlife and Fish Populations ............................................................................................ 64

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 65

Public Use/Outreach ......................................................................................................... 65

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 65

Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................ 65

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 69

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 74

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 79

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 84

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 87

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 46

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 55

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 56

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 63

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 64

Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 64

Objectives and Strategies .......................................................................................................... 65

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 87

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 87

Refuge Administration ................................................................................................................ 91

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 91

Volunteers .................................................................................................................................. 95

Partnership Opportunities........................................................................................................... 95

Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 95

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 96

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 97
Table of Contents iii

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 99

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED............................................................... 107

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ............................................................................. 113

APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 121

APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ............................................................................... 159

APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 175

APPENDIX VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS .............................................. 201

APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................ 203

APPENDIX IX. WILDERNESS REVIEW .......................................................................................... 229

APPENDIX X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................. 237

APPENDIX XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 241

Summary of Public Scoping Meetings ...................................................................................... 121

Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses ........................................................................ 128

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ........................................................................... 159

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION ....................................................................................... 162
iv Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare and Hyde Counties, North 

Carolina. ................................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 2. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain 

 Physiographic Area. .............................................................................................................. 8

Figure 3. Soils of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ........................................................... 17

Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ............................ 23

Figure 5. Current boundary of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ....................................... 47

Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................... 48

Figure 7. Proposed visitor facilities for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ................................ 92

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Alligator River 

 National Wildlife Refuge. ....................................................................................................... 9

Table 2. Threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. .......... 12

Table 3. Characteristics of soils of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................... 19

Table 4. Classifications of water bodies around the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ........... 21

Table 5. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Alligator River National 

 Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................................................................... 24

Table 6. Texture of soil and marine origin sediments and estimated crop yields for soils on the 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. .............................................................................. 27

Table 7. Dare County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture. .................. 39

Table 8. Commodity production in Dare County in 1997 and 2002. ................................................... 39

Table 9. Hyde County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture. ................. 40

Table 10. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997, from the 2002 and 

 1997 USDA Census of Agriculture. ..................................................................................... 40

Table 11. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties. ......................... 42

Table 12. Acquisition history of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................... 46

Table 13. Staff of the Alligator River and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuges, 2005. ...................... 51

Table 14. Projects supporting Wildlife Strategies. .............................................................................. 87

Table 15. Projects supporting Habitat Strategies. .............................................................................. 88

Table 16. Projects supporting Public Use Strategies. ......................................................................... 89

Table 17. Projects supporting Resource Protection Strategies. ......................................................... 90

Table 18. Projects supporting Refuge Administration Strategies. ...................................................... 91

Table 19. Proposed staffing plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ................................... 93
Executive Summary 

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the 

management of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. 

The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat 

management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinions on the issues 

the plan should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from federal and 

state agencies and nongovernmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge 

staff held the public scoping meetings at four locations on four evenings. The staff also held a 

second-round public meeting to solicit public reaction to the proposed alternatives. 

The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative 1 was a proposal to maintain the 

current management. The refuge currently manages its moist soil units very intensively by managing 

water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading 

birds, and aquatic organisms. It also manages the marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire. 

The staff surveys waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds on a routine basis. The refuge allows the 

six priority public use activities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. The staff conducts extensive environmental education 

and interpretation programs with the assistance of 10,000 hours of volunteer service every year. The 

staff of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge also manages Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. A 

staff of 16.7 of the 23 full-time equivalent positions manages the Alligator River Refuge. The staff 

manages the refuge from a General Services Administration-rented building in Manteo, 10 miles east 

of the refuge. 

Alternative 2 proposed moderate program increases. Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to 

manage its moist soil units very intensively by managing water levels and vegetation to create optimum 

habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and aquatic organisms. It also would manage 

the marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire. The staff would inventory and monitor fire-dependent 

habitats to document their conditions and assess the effectiveness of management. The staff would 

survey waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds on a routine basis. The staff would also document the 

presence of wildlife species as they are found, and document the density of invertebrates in moist soil 

units. The refuge would allow the six priority public use activities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The staff would conduct extensive 

environmental education and interpretation programs with the assistance of 12,000 hours of volunteer 

service every year. The staff would conduct programs on the refuge and in the newly constructed visitor 

center. The staff of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge would continue to manage the Alligator River 

and Pea Island national wildlife refuges. A staff of 26.75 of the 39 full-time equivalent positions would 

manage the Alligator River Refuge. The staff would manage the refuge from a Service-owned building in 

Manteo, 10 miles east of the refuge. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative 3 proposed substantial program increases. Under this alternative, the refuge would 

continue to manage its moist soil units very intensively by managing water levels and vegetation to 

create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and aquatic organisms. It 

also would manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire and deciduous forests with 

thinning. The staff would inventory and monitor all habitats to document their conditions and assess 

the effectiveness of management. The staff would survey all wildlife species on a routine basis. The 

staff would also document presence of wildlife species as they are found and document the density of 

invertebrates in moist soil units. The refuge would allow the six priority public use activities: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

The staff would conduct extensive environmental education and interpretation programs with the 

assistance of 15,000 hours of volunteer service every year. The staff would conduct programs on the 

refuge and in the newly constructed visitor center. The staff of Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge would continue to manage the Alligator River and Pea Island national wildlife refuges. A staff 

of 37.45 of the 58 full-time equivalent positions would manage the Alligator River Refuge. The staff 

would manage the refuge from a Service-owned building in Manteo, 10 miles east of the refuge. 

The Service selected Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative, which is reflected in this 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. It advances the refuge program considerably, and is more 

realistic than Alternative 3 in terms of expected staffing levels to conduct the proposed program. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to 

provide a foundation for the management and use of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in 

Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. The plan will serve as a guide for the refuge’s 

management actions and direction over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will 

receive first priority in refuge management, and 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. 

The Service developed this plan in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Compliance with this Act was achieved through the 

involvement of the public and the development of an environmental assessment, which described the 

alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives. The 

environmental assessment was incorporated as Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

The plan was prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from the refuge and various 

Service programs, including the divisions of Planning, Refuges, Fisheries, Ecological Services, 

Realty, and Migratory Birds. In developing this plan, the planning team and refuge staff incorporated 

the input of state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, local citizens, and the general public 

through a series of stakeholder and public scoping meetings. This public involvement and the 

planning process itself are described in Chapter III, Plan Development. 

The plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward after considering two 

other alternatives, as described in the environmental assessment and summarized in the Executive 

Summary. The preferred alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for the 

management of the refuge and is detailed in this comprehensive conservation plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide 

long-term guidance to the refuge’s management programs and activities for the next 15 years. 

The plan is needed to: 

• provide a clear statement of direction for the management of the refuge; 

• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and local, state, and federal and government officials with an 

understanding of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 

• ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational and 

educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997; 
2 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

• ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with federal and state plans; and 

• provide a basis for the development of budget requests for the refuge’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 

Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is to communicate with the public and include public 

participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many 

agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships 

with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System. This plan supports the Partners in 

Flight Initiative; South Atlantic Coastal Plain Migratory Bird Conservation Plan; North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan; Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; and National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the conservation, 

protection, and enhancement of the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although 

the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and 

private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service administers a 

national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of these resources. 

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

more than 93 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s 

largest collection of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these 

lands, 77 million acres, lie in Alaska. The remaining 16 million acres are spread across the other 49 

states and several island territories. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear 

mission of wildlife conservation for the national wildlife refuges. The Act states that the Service will 

manage each refuge to: 

• fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

• fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

• fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the 

Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans; 

• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

and 

• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

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

legitimate and priority public uses. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. 

The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, the Service is 

preparing all refuge comprehensive conservation plans in conjunction with public involvement, and is 

requiring each refuge to complete its own plan within a 15-year schedule. 

Approximately 39.5 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 2003, mostly to 

observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, the refuges generate 

substantial economic benefits to the local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have 

reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $809 million annually in sales and 

$315 million in employment income to local economies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). In 

addition, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation reports that 

nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $108 billion on wildlife-related recreational pursuits in 

2001 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 

Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 1998, 

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on the refuges nationwide, a service 

valued at more than $20.6 million. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses the following principles: 

• Wildlife comes first. 

• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management. 

• Refuges must be healthy. 

• Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad 

participation from others. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

A variety of international treaties, federal laws and regulations, Department and Service policies, and 

presidential executive orders guides the administration of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

The documents and acts listed in Appendix III describe the refuge’s establishing authority, the 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges). 

NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop and 

coordinate planning initiatives involving federal, state, and local agencies; local communities; 

nongovernmental organizations; and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on 

and off public lands. 

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

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

Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 brings 

together international teams of biologists from private and governmental organizations from Canada 

and the United States. The partnerships, called joint ventures, are working to restore waterfowl and 

other migratory bird populations to the levels of the early 1970s by protecting about 6 million acres of 

priority wetland habitats ranging from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian Arctic. 
4 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan and Waterbirds for the Americas outline approaches 

to conserving those species groups. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a high priority 

of the Partners in Flight Plan. It also provides strategies for conserving and managing wintering, 

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

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

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

priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified focal species for each habitat type from 

which they will determine population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of 

focal species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge. 

The Southeast Waterbird Plan emphasizes waterbird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, 

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

ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified focal species for each habitat type from which they 

will determine population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of focal species, 

objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge. 

The Farm Bill programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture provide cost-share 

funding and technical assistance to private landowners to install and manage conservation practices 

on working farms and forests and restore cropland to natural habitats. The programs provide 

opportunities for landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage their land better as 

wildlife habitat or protect it with easements. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS 

A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency 

policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other 

federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing 

refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing a foundation for the protection and sustainability of 

fish and wildlife throughout the United States. 

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is a state-partnering agency with the Service. 

The Commission is charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered 

species, as well as managing the state’s natural resources. It also manages approximately 1.8 

million acres of game lands in North Carolina. 

The Commission coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation 

opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several game lands and from 

several boat ramps located in Dare County. The Commission’s participation and contribution 

throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable. It is continuing its 

work with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to improve 

the condition of fish and wildlife populations on the coastal plain of North Carolina. Not only has the 

Commission participated in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field reviews as part of the 

comprehensive planning process, it is also an active partner in the coordination, planning, and 

execution of various wildlife and habitat surveys. The Commission also assists the refuge staff in 

providing special wildlife observation opportunities. A key part of the comprehensive planning 

process is the integration of common mission objectives between the Service and the Commission, 

where appropriate. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is located in mainland Dare and Hyde Counties, North 

Carolina. The refuge is named for the Alligator River, which constitutes the refuge’s western 

boundary. The Albemarle Sound forms the refuge’s northern boundary; Croatan and Pamlico 

Sounds, the eastern boundary; and Hyde County, the southern boundary. The majority of the 

refuge lies in Dare County. The village of Manns Harbor (2000 population 1,182) lies at the 

eastern edge of the refuge, and the village of Engelhard (2000 population 1,561) lies just beyond 

the refuge’s southeastern corner (Figure 1). The refuge covers approximately 152,260 acres and 

lies at the eastern end of a broad, flat, and swampy peninsula in northeastern North Carolina. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES 

HISTORY 

The Fish and Wildlife Service established Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in March 1984 on 

an 118,000-acre area that was donated by the Prudential Life Insurance Company. 

There were no inhabitants within the refuge area until the late 1700s or early 1800s, when settlers 

established a community called Beechlands near Milltail Creek. In 1885, three lumbermen from 

Buffalo, New York, purchased 168,000 acres on the Dare County mainland to set up a timber industry 

and camp at Buffalo City, near Milltail Creek. The land changed owners several times over the years 

and the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company eventually obtained it. In 1974, McLean Industries 

bought the land for a large farming experiment called First Colony Farms. The Prudential Life 

Insurance Company formed a partnership with McLean Industries to form the Prulean Corporation. In 

1984, Prudential Life Insurance Company obtained all the Prulean Corporation land, as well as some 

of the First Colony Farms land. 

Today, the refuge surrounds the 46,000-acre Dare County Bombing Range, used by the Navy and Air 

Force for target practice with inert ordnance. The Air Force constructed the bombing range in 1965 

on land leased from West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company and then First Colony Farms. In 1978, 

First Colony Farms transferred the land to the Air Force. Within the range, the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission manages 41,200 acres as a game land. 

PURPOSES 

The purpose of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is to protect and conserve migratory birds and 

other wildlife resources through the protection of wetlands, in accordance with the following: 

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

wildlife resources... 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)4 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

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

services... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f(b)1 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
6 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare and Hyde Counties, 

North Carolina. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

...suitable for (1) incidental take of fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species... 16 U.S.C., Sec. 

460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1952). 

...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...16 

U.S.C., Sec. 460k-2; 16 U.S.C., Sec. 460k-460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1952). 

...conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans 16 U.S.C., Sec. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966). 

...for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird 

treaties and conventions...16 U.S.C., Sec. 3901 (b) 100 Stat. 1583 (Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act of 1986). 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

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

of cropland, moist soil areas, and the maintenance shop area, as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. 

The Nature Conservancy ranks certain vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 1). 

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

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge as outstanding resource waters or high quality waters (Table 4). 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge lies within a physiographic area known as the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain (Figure 2). The South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 25 million-hectare (62 millionacre) 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 

has 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 in North Carolina, and the 

Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia—are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, 

Neuse, and Cape Fear Rivers. These four watersheds are designated as Ecosystem Unit # 34, the 

Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear Ecosystem, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
8 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 2. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Area. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Table 1. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Alligator River 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank 

Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest S1 G1 

Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest S2 G2 

Nonriverine Swamp Forest S2, S3 G2, G3 

Low Pocosin S2 G3 

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. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

the development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop 

and coordinate planning initiatives involving regional, state, and local agencies; local 

communities; nongovernmental organizations; and private citizens to help restore habitats for fish 

and wildlife on and off public lands. 

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

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

Management Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the joint venture between the North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Partners in Flight Plan, 

and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative. 

The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focuses its work on the middle and upper Atlantic coast. Within the 

Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is the joint venture formed between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, Fish and Wildlife Service, and private conservation organizations. 

 

The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration habitat for migratory land birds returning 

from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migration habitat for 

midcontinental wood duck and colonial bird populations. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is 

a high priority of the Partners in Flight Plan for the South Atlantic Physiographic Region. 

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

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

priority ranking of species. Further, biologists from local offices of the Service, the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission, and conservation organizations such as Audubon Society and The 

Nature Conservancy have identified focal species for each habitat type from which they will determine 

population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of focal species, objectives, and 

conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge. 
10 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

The Farm Bill programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture each have state-level 

plans and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. The Service also uses 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 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has its own comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy, known as the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan, 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 plan addresses resident as well as migratory species. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

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

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

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

urban development and agriculture (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 the 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 have become extinct, endangered, 

or threatened include the extinct Carolina parakeet and passenger pigeon; endangered red wolf and 

red-cockaded woodpecker; and threatened bald eagle, piping plover, and sea turtle. The Bachman’s 

sparrow, black rail, and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat are federal species of concern. Table 2 provides 

a complete list of the threatened and endangered animals in North Carolina. 

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

species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (dependent 

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

depend on special habitat requirements such as mature forests or a particular food source; and those 

that depend on good water quality. Habitat loss has also affected species dependent on coastal 

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

More than 300 species of breeding migratory land birds occupy the region. Some of the inland 

species, including the Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kite, wood thrush, 

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

recover and sustain their existence. On the Lower Coastal Plain, land birds such as the seaside 

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

marsh habitat. Secretive marshbirds like the black rail and yellow rail require brackish marsh. The 

piping plover, red knot, least tern, black skimmer, and American oystercatcher are shorebirds that 

nest on the decreasing acreage of unvegetated sand along beaches and among coastal dunes. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

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 Lower 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 organic soils on which those plant communities evolved. 

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

In addition to the loss of vast acreages of wetlands, substantial alterations have occurred in the hydrology of 

the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The changes are a result of channel dredging for navigation and access to 

the marshes; drainage ditches; degradation of aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation, 

contaminants, and urban development; managed stream flows from flood control and hydroelectric power 

generation reservoirs; river channel modifications; flood control levees; and deforestation. 

The region’s natural hydrology 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). 

Instead of natural hydrology, large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the 

spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire South Atlantic Coastal Plain. In 

addition, these alterations have modified both the extent and duration of annual seasonal as well as 

daily flooding. The alteration of the annual flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the 

interior forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species. Changes in daily flooding 

regimes by drainage ditches and closing inlets through coastal barrier islands accelerates erosion on 

ditch banks and throughout marshes and decreases the exposure of intertidal areas that would be 

available with normal lunar tidal cycles. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993), restoration of 

wetland functions is especially difficult because wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of 

hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes. 

The dredging of navigation channels also generates a spoil material that must be disposed. The 

material is not always compatible for placement on the closest potential site, such as beaches where 

the material must be a suitable substrate for invertebrate populations and shorebird and turtle 

nesting. 

SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

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

and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated accumulation of 

sediments and contaminants in aquatic systems. Sediment now fills many water bodies, greatly reducing 

their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point source runoff of excess nutrients and 

contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic resources. The Service lists six species of 

aquatic organisms as threatened and twelve species as endangered in North Carolina (Table 2). 
12 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 2. Threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. 

Status Common Name Scientific Name 

Endangered Manatee, West Indian** Trichechus manatus 

Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill** Eretmochelys imbricata 

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

Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback** Dermochelys coriacea 

Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana 

Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum 

Endangered Tern, Roseate** Sterna dougallii 

Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus 

Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae 

Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis 

Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis 

Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon 

Endangered Wolf, Red* Canis rufus 

Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded* Picoides borealis 

Threatened*** Alligator, American* Alligator mississippiensis 

Threatened Eagle, Bald* Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Threatened Plover, Piping** Charadrius melodus 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead** Caretta caretta 

Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa 

* Presence documented on Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

** Other species listed in Dare County, North Carolina 

*** Listed by Similarity of Appearance 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created 

sandbars, oxbow lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, 

conservation, and restoration of aquatic resources are of added importance in light of the alterations 

associated with navigation and flood control. 

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS

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

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

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

proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic 

(nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening the viability of aquatic 

systems. These invasive aquatic plants threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic 

systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use. Common reed 

(Phragmites australis) is the most dominant of these plants on the Outer Banks and the refuge, and 

has a negative impact on the marshes in the area. 

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 

land birds that only breed in the interior of large forested areas. They also provide habitat for fisheating raptors that require forested habitat close to water. 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 have potential for restoration, as crop prices do not justify the 

maintenance of intensive drainage systems required to maintain production. Many government 

habitat restoration programs focus on bottomland forests. 

In the Lower Coastal Plain, the loss of marshes, pocosins, and nonriverine hardwood forest habitat 

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 developers continue to destroy these areas. 

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. The potential for restoring these habitats is 

lower than it is for bottomland forests, since the habitat loss is due to the conversion of land to 

residential, commercial, and agricultural developments. Conservationists must mitigate habitat loss 

by intensive management of the habitat that remains with 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. 
14 Alligator River 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. The tendency is to pursue short-term 

priorities that frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources 

shift. Biologists must exercise caution to prevent the start-up of management and restoration actions 

that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive management needs of the 

ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An example might be a tendency to totally 

manage Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in an effort to provide habitat for many species of 

waterfowl that require a managed herbaceous wetland. Such an approach may overlook the critical 

habitat needs of neotropical migratory land birds 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) compensates for the 

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

throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Appropriately managed, Alligator River 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. 

CHALLENGES 

In order for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge to meet its multiple objectives of national, regional, 

and local scope—ranging from moist soil unit and marsh management to providing for public use—

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must fund and staff it above current levels. Securing adequate 

funding and personnel and then successfully addressing historical habitat alterations and hydrological 

functions are the refuge’s biggest challenges. In the interim, as the needed funding and personnel 

become available, the refuge must concentrate on its highest priorities without committing irreversible 

actions that would preclude future implementation of the desired management programs. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

The habitat at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge has resulted largely from wetland community 

development following the Wisconsin Ice Age about 15,000 years ago. The lower sea level during this 

time period resulted in large, fast-flowing river systems cutting through the coastal plain terrace. As ice 

caps began melting, the sea level rose; and it is believed that the river flows slowed, depositing organic 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

and silt sediments in the areas between streams. As the shallow water areas developed, aquatic 

vegetation invaded, thereby increasing organic deposition. With a warming trend at the end of the Ice 

Age, boreal forests began to be gradually replaced with swamps, bogs, marshes, and pocosin habitats. 

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

CLIMATE 

Because 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 refuge 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 Dare County due to the temperature of the 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 storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the 

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

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

throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn, North Carolina's 

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

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

cold spells. Snowfall is not common. 

The average annual precipitation is 56.99 inches. Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year: 

the average monthly rainfall ranges from 3.43 inches in April to 5.98 inches in August. The average 

seasonal snowfall is about 1.9 inches. The record snowfall was 8.2 inches at Hatteras in December 

1989. Twelve inches of snow 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 27 inches usually falls in May through September. The 

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

year. Every few years, a hurricane or tropical storm crosses the county, bringing one to three days of 

intensive rainfall. 

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

the average at dawn is about 80 percent. The sun shines on 55 percent of the winter days. The 

prevailing wind is from the southwest. Average wind speed is highest, 13 miles per hour, in spring. 

The average daily maximum temperature at the Cape Hatteras weather station from 1971–2000 was 

69.9 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average daily minimum is 55.6 degrees. 

In January the average temperature is 46.1 degrees, the average daily maximum is 53.6 degrees, 

and the average daily minimum is 38.63 degrees. The lowest temperature on record, which occurred 

at Cape Hatteras on January 21, 1985, is 6 degrees. In July the average temperature is 79.2 

degrees, the average daily maximum is 85.4 degrees, and the average daily minimum is 72.9 

degrees. The highest recorded temperature, which occurred on July 10, 1992, is 96 degrees. The 

average last freezing temperature in spring is March 16. The average first freezing temperature in 

the fall is December 7. The average growing season is 265 days. 
16 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 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, the sea levels gradually rose. During this period, it is believed the 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. 

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 westernmost 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’s sounds. This sediment contains up to 15% 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). 

MINERALS 

Sand is the only mineral resource occurring in economic quantities. There are several sand pits in 

the vicinity of the refuge. 

SOILS 

The soil types identified on the refuge are Pungo muck*, Belhaven muck*, Scuppernong muck*, 

Ponzer muck*, Dorovan muck*, Hobonny muck*, Pettigrew muck*, Longshoal muck*, Currituck 

mucky peat*, Hyde loam*, Cape Fear loam*, Udorthents (sands), Acredale fine sand*, Ousley fine 

sand, and Baymeade fine sand (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1992) (Table 3). Soils with an 

asterisk are listed as hydric in Hydric Soils of the United States (USDA Soil Conservation Service 

1985) (Figure 3). Hydric soils are "...soils that in their undrained condition are saturated, flooded or 

ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the 

growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation" (USDA Soil Conservation Service 

1985). These soils have seasonally high water tables within a foot of the surface of the soil. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Figure 3. Soils of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 
18 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Pocosin wetlands 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, acidic 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. 

Soils with more than 51 inches of muck over mineral soil identified in the refuge are Pungo (62,068 

acres, 41% of the land); Hobonny (5,473 acres, 3.6%); Dorovan (561 acres, 0.3%); and Longshoal 

(766 acres, 0.5%). The following soils have surface layers of 16 to 51 inches of muck: Belhaven 

(48,135 acres, 31.6%); Currituck (3,845 acres, 2.5%); Scuppernong (2,748 acres, 1.8%); and Ponzer 

(7,065 acres, 4.6%). These eight soils make up 86% of the total land area of the refuge. They are 

excessively wet, characterized by layers of peat over mineral soil, and are mostly unsuitable for 

agriculture (Skaggs et al. 1980; Lilly 1981). Forest productivity is lower on these soils, compared to 

mineral soils with less than 16 inches of organic soil. With appropriate drainage and bedding, 

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

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

nitrogen and mercury—a negative impact on water quality. 

Roper soil (5,487 acres, 3.6%) has less than 16 inches of muck over mineral soil. The native vegetation 

on these soils is typical of that on mineral soils and the productivity of the soils is similar to mineral soils. 

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

Resources Conservation Service classifies Roper and Ponzer as prime farmland soils. 

Mineral soils make up 14,895 acres (9.7%) of the land area of the refuge. The soil with the largest 

area is Hyde (13,132 acres mostly in the north-central part of the refuge, 8.6% of land area), followed 

by Cape Fear (1,661); Udorthents (58); Ousley (19); Acredale (17); and Baymeade (8). Most mineral 

soils are more productive than organic soils for crops as well as forest trees. Most soils on the refuge 

are poorly drained and would grow loblolly pine, baldcypress, Atlantic white cedar, or pond pine, and 

those underlain by clayey subsoil would be good for bottomland hardwoods such as water oak, willow 

oak, and swamp white oak. The Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies Hyde, Cape 

Fear, and Baymeade as prime farmland soils. 

The Udorthents and the Baymeade and Ousley soils are well drained to droughty and are more suitable 

for native tree species such as longleaf pine, loblolly pine, and upland oak species such as white oak and 

red oak. Udorthents are the dredge spoils from the Intracoastal Waterway and are extremely droughty. 

The volume of peat on the Albemarle peninsula is probably less than half the original amount owing 

to the effects of drainage, agriculture, and fire (Lilly 1995). There are descriptions of subsidence 

greater or equal to 3 feet as a consequence of drainage and agriculture (Ruffin 1861; Dolman and 

Buol 1967; Lilly 1981; Roberts and Cruikshank 1941; Whitehead and Oaks 1979). In general, 

drainage of organic soils results in the loss of at least one-third of the peat (Farnham and Finney 

1965), and sometime much greater (Dolman and Buol 1967; Lilly 1981). Some of the initial loss in 

volume is due to mechanical shrinkage (Dolman and Buol 1967; Skaggs et al. 1980). In addition, 

drainage makes pocosins drier, increasing the frequency and severity of fires. Last, drainage causes 

peat to oxidize rather than accumulate. If subjected to drainage, fire, and tillage over a long enough 

period of time, all blackland soils will become mineral soils (Lilly 1981). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Table 3. Characteristics of soils of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Series Approximate 

Acreage Surface Texture Muck Depth 

Water Table 

Depth 

Flooding 

Frequency 

Dorovan 584.8 Muck 90” 0-1’ Frequent 

Hobonny 5,761.4 Muck 90” 0-1’ Frequent 

Longshoal 823.2 Mucky Peat 72” 0-0.5’ Frequent 

Pungo 73,358.1 Muck 65” 0-1’ Rare 

Belhaven 31,837.0 Muck 45” 0-1’ Rare 

Currituck 3,979.8 Mucky Peat 40” 0-1’ Frequent 

Scuppernong 2,784.3 Muck 33” 0-1’ Rare 

Ponzer 10,741.0 Muck 30” 0-1’ Rare 

Roper 5,715.1 Muck 10” 0-1’ Rare 

Hyde 13,425.8 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Cape Fear 1,641.2 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Udorthents 10.8 Sand None >6’ Rare 

Acredale 17.0 Silt Loamy None 0-1’ Rare 

Ousley 19.9 Fine Sand None 1.5-3’ Common 

Baymeade 8.4 Fine Sand None 4-5’ Very Rare 

Beaches 0.4 Fine Sand None 0-1’ Storm Tidal 

Fripp 0.4 Fine Sand None >6’ Very Rare 

Icaria 1.5 Loamy Fine Sand None 0-1’ Rare 

Johns 0.2 Loamy Sand None 1.5-3’ Very Rare 

Leon 0.3 Fine Sand None 0-1’ Rare 

Total Land 150,710.7 

Water 2,306.7 

Total 153,017.4 

HYDROLOGY 

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 that 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 three feet above mean sea level. 
20 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

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, when the 

ground becomes 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 saltwater. 

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

Between the freshwater and saltwater a zone of brackish water occurs. This zone periodically 

changes due to flooding, tidal movement, and rainfall. 

WATER QUALITY 

There are three National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitted sites that discharge into 

waters adjacent to the refuge. One is a marine maintenance facility and two are domestic water 

supply treatment plants. 

The state’s list of impaired waters includes Roanoke Sound, Croatan Sound, and Pamlico Sound due 

to fecal coliform. Technical conditions do not exist to develop total maximum daily loads for the water 

bodies. Total maximum daily loads are required for Spencer Creek, Callaghan Creek, and Stumpy 

Point Bay, which are also impaired due to fecal coliform. 

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

that quality supports. The classifications for the waters surrounding the Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuge are listed in Table 4. It should be noted that all comments and evaluations about 

water quality refer to human health and development potential. Ecologically speaking, the water 

quality on the refuge is okay. 

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 with the industry, traffic, and power 

plants, the area has exceeded only ozone level standards in 2002. Monitoring has indicated 

unhealthy levels only twice and unhealthy levels for sensitive groups only thirteen times. The 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 

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

liabilities of burning even though permissible. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Table 4. Classifications of water bodies around the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Water Body or 

Stream 

Classification Best Uses 

Swan Creek 

Swan Creek Lake 

Whipping Creek 

Whipping Creek Lake 

Sandy Ridge Gut 

Sawyer Lake 

C– Low Quality Freshwater* 

Sw – Low Velocity Water 

ORW – Outstanding 

Resource Water 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

Billy’s Ditch C– Low Quality Freshwater* 

Sw – Low Velocity Water 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

Pamlico Sound 

Croatan Sound 

Spencer Creek 

Callaghan Creek 

Stumpy Point Bay 

Back Lake 

Long Shoal River 

Deep Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Clark Creek 

Pains Bay 

Parched Corn Bay 

Sandy Bay 

SA – Highest Quality 

Saltwater 

HQW – High Quality Water 

Commercial Shellfishing and All Other Tidal 

Saltwater Uses 

Albemarle Sound SB – Moderate Quality 

Saltwater 

Primary Recreation (Including Swimming) 

Alligator River 

Milltail Creek 

Boat Bay 

SC– Low Quality Saltwater* 

Sw – Low Velocity Water 

ORW – Outstanding 

Resource Water 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

East Lake 

The Frying Pan 

South Lake 

Northeast Prong of 

 East Lake 

Liehue Gut 

Hooker Gut 

Deer Creek 

Deep Bay 

Broad Creek 

SC– Low Quality Saltwater* 

Sw – Low Velocity Water 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

Tom Mann Creek 

Gar Gut 

Davis Pond 

Spence Creek 

Poster Gut 

SC– Low Quality Saltwater* Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

* These evaluations describe water quality for human consumption and development potential. 
22 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge offers a great variety of habitats and wildlife species; however, 

some effort on the part of the observer is often required in order to see and appreciate the offerings. In 

2004, Sawyer Lake Road was opened for year-round access to facilitate wildlife and habitat viewing in the 

south Twiford Farming Unit area. There certainly exists a grand opportunity for visitors to see and 

experience habitats and wildlife not available in other places, but the “seeing and experiences” are not 

necessarily easy to do. From the shorelines of Pamlico, Albemarle, and Croatan sounds and the Alligator 

River, visitors can watch sunrises, sunsets, forest silhouettes, and other scenic vistas. One of the most 

popular and first sights seen by refuge visitors is the view from the top of the bridge over the Alligator 

River. For many, this is the first introduction to pocosin habitat. 

Numerous trails and roadways, some with interpretive signage; many fishing areas; and opportunities for 

canoeing and kayaking into dense and unique habitats all make this largely wild refuge a popular spot. 

The Buffalo City area of the refuge, once a company town, offers historical and biological interpretive 

opportunities. The Wildlife Drive, beginning at the Creef Cut Trailhead, offers scenic vistas of wildlife 

management areas and good, close-up examples of the unique “pocosin.” Sawyer Lake Road also 

provides wildlife viewing opportunities. 

U.S. Highway 64, as it passes through Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, is designated a North 

Carolina Scenic Byway and motorists in the area frequently hope to spot black bear and the far more 

elusive American alligator, red-cockaded woodpecker, and red wolf. The Charles Kuralt Trail also 

highlights the refuge. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

Human development activities have affected the refuge’s plant communities over time. Some of these 

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

notable today are the road/canal systems, public highways, farmland, and the refuge maintenance/ 

support facilities. However, the refuge’s vast expanse of undisturbed swamp forest and wetlands contain 

many important wildlife and ecological resources. Because clear-cutting, peat mining, and agricultural 

conversion have developed much of the Pamlico peninsula, this area remains one of the most remote 

and diverse swamps in eastern North Carolina. The refuge’s principal natural communities include broad 

expanses of nonriverine swamp forests, pocosins, and freshwater and salt marshes. Its isolation and 

undisturbed quality add to the value of its rich wildlife habitats. The Alligator River area is part of the 

northern border of the American alligator's range and remains as a stronghold for the black bear in North 

Carolina and the mid-Atlantic coast. The refuge also provides habitat for the endangered red-cockaded 

woodpecker, and bald eagles, and is the site for reintroduction of the red wolf. More recently, prescribed 

fire has altered plant communities and successional stages on part of the refuge. The plant community 

descriptions in this document are not intended as complete species lists. 

There are twelve habitat types/land uses found on the refuge (Figure 4 and Table 5). Except for the 

cropland, these cover types, for the most part, are classified as wetlands based upon vegetation, 

degree of soil saturation, and hydroperiod. All cropland is classified as prior converted wetland. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 
24 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 5. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Habitat Type Approximate 

Acreages 

Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin 50,012.5 

Pond Pine/Cane Pocosin 4,260.5 

Brackish Marsh 11,889.1 

Low Shrub Pocosin 4194.5 

Non-Alluvial Hardwood Forest 1,800.0 

Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest* 21,377.4 

Atlantic White Cedar Forest 6,700.3 

High Shrub Pocosin 14,127.4 

Cropland 3,468.5 

Managed Wetlands 1,001.2 

Cypress-Gum Forest 7,488.0 

Freshwater Pools, Ponds, & Creeks 2306.7 

Administrative 1,580.5 

Bay Forest 1,345.2 

Shrub/Marsh Transition 6,960.0 

Mixed Hardwood Swamp** 11,503.8 

Loblolly Pine Forest 3,001.5 

Total Acres 153,017.4 

* Includes Mixed Forest. 

** Cypress nor Black Gum a component of this habitat type. 

Freshwater Lakes, Ponds, and Pools 

Except for vernal pools, this “open water” habitat type is found in association with the peninsular 

drainage areas. These areas are Spencer Creek, Callaghan Creek, Long Shoal River, Milltail Creek, 

Whipping Creek, and Swan Creek. Milltail Creek Lake, Whipping Creek Lake, and Swan Creek Lake 

are enlarged portions of the creek channels. Laurel Bay Lake drains into Alligator River, Sawyer 

Lake drains into Milltail Creek, and Lost Lake drains into Swan Creek. Tidal streams such as Peter 

Mashoes Creek flowing into the Albemarle Sound and Deep Creek flowing into the Pamlico Sound 

are not typical of the other refuge drainage systems. East Lake and South Lake are estuarine bays 

off of Albemarle Sound. Numerous man-made canals also dissect the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

These aquatic systems can be best described as low-energy, sluggish systems with flows largely 

dependent upon wind tides in surrounding water bodies. Stream and lake systems are relatively deep (4–

20 feet) and have vertical banks that are sometimes hollow underneath. There is a profound absence of 

shallow water within these systems. The bottom substrate consists of a liquefied organic muck varying 

from 2 to 4 feet deep. Water quality is usually poor, with low dissolved oxygen and a pH ranging from 3.5 

to 5.5. The water is darkly stained due to tannins from organic soils and vegetation with low turbidity. 

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. Often referred to as "high marsh," this community is 

subjected to irregular flooding mostly from wind tides along the Outer Banks. 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 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, wax myrtle, 

bulrush, sedges, and spikerushes. As salinity increases, this community can grade into salt marsh; if 

salinity decreases, it grades into freshwater marsh. The largest acreage of brackish marsh on the 

refuge occurs primarily along the eastern boundary adjacent to Croatan Sound. This irregularly 

flooded marsh is also present along Callaghan and Spencer creeks and is associated with the mouth 

of almost every creek emptying into East and South lakes. 

Freshwater marsh occurs along fringes of rivers and streams, as patches in lakes, and as isolated 

pockets in disturbed areas. Panic grasses, arrow arum, blue flag, water lily, cattail, and sawgrass are 

predominant in this marsh type. Also present are duck weed, giant duck weed, water meal, cow-lilly, 

bladderworts, lotus, duck potato, sweet flag, pickerel weed, mock bishops weed, sedges, rushes, 

water willow, and marsh pennywort (Noffsinger et al. 1984). 

Flood-killed Land 

This cover type shares characteristics of marsh. At one time this was forested land, but years of 

storm tides, wind tides, hurricanes, and other salinity-increasing episodes have gradually killed most 

of the woody species. In some areas, pumping for agricultural drainage altered hydroperiods to the 

point that some woody species no longer survive. 

Cropland 

Description of Croplands. The acquisition of the 10,000-acre Prulean Farms inholding, including 

approximately 5,100 acres of cropland, in March 1988 gave the refuge even greater habitat 

diversity. This tract provided a large, functional farming area that has considerable potential for 

waterfowl management through the creation of moist soil units in agricultural land and cultivated 

fields with the assistance of cooperative farmers. Furthermore, the purchase and resulting 

development of waterfowl management units meets a goal established in the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan for the Atlantic Flyway. Prulean Farms developed the cropland from 

forested wetlands by encircling it with dikes and constructing drainage ditches. Five pumps at 

two stations drain the area. Each pump is capable of removing 250,000 gallons of water per 

minute from the farm fields. Pumping is required to keep the area dry enough to farm. 
26 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Geographic Divisions of Croplands. Cropland at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge was 

developed from hardwood swamp and pocosin habitat and does not exhibit readily apparent 

geographic variation. However, the area is divided into units because of distances between units and 

for reference purposes. 

The Laurel Bay Unit is on the west side of the refuge and consists of approximately 1085 acres of 

tillable land. The North Twiford Unit lies in the north/central section of the refuge north of Twiford 

Road and has approximately 684 acres of tillable land. The South Twiford Unit is on the south side of 

Twiford Road and has about 660 acres of tillable land. The Creef Unit lies on the east side of the 

agricultural area and has approximately 2044 acres of tillable land. The remaining acreage is in 

wooded blocks and forested buffer strips that were required as "mitigative" conditions during the landclearing phase while there was an active permit application. 

Soil Types of Croplands. Much of the land area that was cleared and drained for agricultural purposes 

would have been classified as pocosin even though some areas had undergone succession into 

hardwood swamp and white cedar swamp. Soils of pocosins vary from dark surfaced mineral soils 

(usually called ultisols or entisols) to deep organic soils called histosols. Histosols with a high fiber 

content and extending to depths of 24 inches or greater are called peat. Peat is formed when leaves, 

sticks, other vegetable matter become submerged in water and decompose slowly. In an unaltered 

condition, pocosin soils develop over thousands of years and drain poorly. Mineral soils in pocosins, often 

buried by organic soils, were deposited largely as recent marine sediments and vary from sand to clay. 

Considerable variation in mineral soils can occur over relatively short distances in pocosins. 

Typically, pocosin soils exhibit pH ranges of 3.0 to 4.0. Low pH and poor aeration cause reduction 

conditions (as opposed to oxidation), resulting in lower availability of nitrogen and phosphorous. As 

peat depth increases, nutrient availability decreases. 

Soil types in the Laurel Bay Unit include Hyde loam, Pungo muck, and Belhaven muck. The North 

Twiford and South Twiford units have Hyde loam, Roper muck, and Belhaven muck. The Creef Unit 

has Hyde loam, Roper muck, Belhaven muck, Ponzer muck, and Cape Fear loam. All of these series 

are considered to be very poorly drained soils; the mucks have an organic surface. Slopes range 

from 0 to 2 percent. 

Of these soil types, Hyde loam and Roper muck are considered prime farmland if properly drained. In the 

undrained state none are ideally suited for farming because of wetness, the possibility of flooding, and for 

some types, the presence of woody material such as logs, stumps, and roots in the soil. The texture of 

the marine sediments that were the origin of the soils and estimated crop yields are in Table 6. 

Although percentages have not been determined, visual observation of the Dare County soil survey 

maps clearly show that Hyde loam and Roper muck are the dominant soil types. 

Cropland Management Objectives. The primary purpose of the refuge’s agricultural program is to 

provide food and habitat for wintering waterfowl, including ducks, Canada geese, tundra swans, and 

many other wildlife species. Agricultural practices provide large, open areas with extensive amounts 

of food for migratory and resident wildlife. Priority is given to migratory waterfowl, endangered 

species, neotropical migratory birds, and resident game birds. Small nongame mammals provide a 

food base for predators. Mammalian game species such as the cottontail rabbit, white-tailed deer, 

and black bear thrive around the agricultural fields. A pack of red wolves has used this area as the 

center of its home range since release in 1987. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Table 6. Texture of soil and marine origin sediments and estimated crop yields for soils on 

the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Soil 

Series 

Surface 

Texture 

Texture of Marine 

Sediments Origin 

Estimated 

Corn Yield 

Estimated Soybean Yield 

Hyde Loam Loamy 150 45 

Roper Muck Loamy 160 45 

Cape Fear Loam Loamy, Clayey 140 45 

Belhaven Muck Loamy 125 40 

Ponzer Muck Loamy 130 40 

Pungo Muck Loamy, Clayey 100 25 

Other objectives include providing research opportunities for wildlife frequently using farmland and 

demonstrating benefits to wildlife from alternative farming practices. Also, the farming program 

results in grain availability for trapping and banding activities, reduces soil erosion while maintaining 

soil fertility, and prevents encroachment of undesirable vegetation. These objectives have been and 

will continue to be achieved through the refuge’s cooperative farmers, because this is the most 

economical and efficient approach. 

Managed Wetlands (Moist Soil Management Units) 

To date, approximately 1,900 acres of cropland have been placed under a moist soil management 

regime. Moist soil management units were located in those areas where farming was most difficult 

because of woody debris, deep organic soils, wetness, or combinations of these factors. 

Water management in the moist soil units is done to promote optimum growth conditions for 

vegetation adapted to growing in a moist environment that produces good waterfowl food. This 

entails a slow drawdown from late January through early March. A slow drawdown is necessary to 

avoid flushing nutrients and coliform bacteria from the farm fields. Each unit is dried out during the 

spring and early summer so that treatments such as burning, disking, and planting can be done as 

needed. Approximately 100–150 acres of millet or milo are planted on a rotational basis. Once the 

treatments are complete, moist soil conditions are maintained during the remainder of the summer. 

In early fall, the fields in each unit are gradually flooded. A sample water management plan is 

included in Appendix II. Management activities within these management units hinge upon 

assistance from cooperative farmers through their lease agreements. 

Cypress-Gum Forest 

This cover type is found primarily in the western half of the refuge. Although much of this habitat is 

riparian, there is no readily apparent river levee system associated with these systems. Cypress-gum 

forests also occur as wet flats in nonalluvial settings. Dominant tree species are bald cypress, black gum, 

red maple, and red bay. Other tree species may include Carolina water ash and green ash. An 

occasional loblolly or pond pine may be found scattered throughout. The average canopy height of these 

trees varies depending upon hydroperiod and past logging practices but can be 100–120 feet. Large 

trees suitable for denning by many wildlife species, including the black bear, may be found throughout this 
28 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

forest type. These den trees add a very important component to the overall habitat. Red bay, greenbrier, 

titi, and fetterbush make up the shrub layer. Very little if any herbaceous vegetation is present. 

Atlantic White Cedar Forest 

The white cedar forest habitat type usually exists in a landscape mosaic interspersed with pond pine 

pocosin, cypress-gum, and nonalluvial hardwood communities. The habitat type typically occurs as a 

relatively even-aged stand, often with a dense canopy and low plant species diversity. White cedar is 

predominant although black gum is an important coexisting species. An occasional pond pine or bald 

cypress may be present. Conversely, an occasional white cedar may be found in other habitat types. 

Average tree height in this area is about 60 feet. The shrub layer in these areas is dominated by 

sweet gallberry, fetterbush, and greenbrier. Virginia or netted chain-fern is usually the only 

herbaceous plant present in substantial amounts. 

Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 

Hardwood/mixed pine is found in scattered areas throughout the refuge. Red maple, red bay, and black 

gum are dominant hardwood trees with an average height of 50 to 60 feet. Pond pine and loblolly pine 

are the pine species present. Dominant shrubs are fetterbush, bitter gallberry, and sweet bay. Little or no 

herbaceous vegetation is present (Noffsinger et. al 1984). Cane may be found in some locations. 

Nonalluvial (Nonriverine) Hardwood Forest 

This habitat type occurs on poorly drained loamy or clayey mineral soils (mostly Hyde loam and Cape 

Fear loam) found primarily in the flats of the refuge between streams. These areas occur mostly on 

the margins of peatlands, grading into cypress-gum, Atlantic white cedar, or pond pine pocosin 

habitat types. Various hardwood trees typical of bottomland hardwoods dominate this forest. Over 

time, these forests on mineral soils have been most productive from a development perspective, as 

much of the total acreage has been targeted for residential development, conversion to pine 

plantation, or conversion to agriculture. A long history of poor logging practices has further degraded 

this habitat type. However, remaining areas in a more natural state are dominated by a tree canopy 

of water oak, laurel oak, cherrybark oak, swamp chestnut oak, overcup oak, white oak, black gum, 

sweetgum, red maple, green ash, and loblolly pine. Tulip poplar, persimmon, shagbark hickory, and 

serviceberry may also be found. Dominant understory vegetation includes American holly, deciduous 

holly, blueberry, sweet pepperbush, sweet and bitter gallberry, and fetterbush. The ground layer may 

have cane, netted and Virginia chain fern, royal fern, ebony spleenwort, and partridgeberry. Common 

woody vines are greenbrier, grape, poison ivy, Virginia creeper, and cross vine. 

Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin 

Pocosin – General. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge exhibits typical pocosin vegetation, which 

is a dense growth of shrubs sometimes associated with trees. The most common shrubs are titi, 

honey cup, fetterbush, bitter gallberry, and sweet gallberry growing with green brier. Shrubs and 

vines often grow so densely that walking through them is almost impossible. Some shrubs that 

inhabit the refuge are evergreen, but the two most important deciduous species are titi and honeycup. 

Dominant trees are usually pond pines with some loblolly bays, red bays, and sweet bays. Because 

of various factors, trees and shrubs change in height, density and relative species composition from 

one area to another throughout the refuge. In some areas, shrubs are fairly short (two to three feet) 

and the only trees are a few scattered pond pines that are crooked and very stunted. These shrubdominated areas are commonly referred to as short or low pocosin. Short or low pocosin is usually 

found over deeper peat deposits (McDonald et al. 1983). In other places on the refuge both trees 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

and shrubs are much taller and denser. Forested areas are sometimes called tall or high pocosin. In 

this plan, the pocosin community is differentiated as Low Shrub Pocosin, High Shrub Pocosin, Pond 

Pine/Shrub Pocosin, and Pond Pine/Cane Pocosin. 

Very few species are able to adapt to nutrient-poor, acidic, organic soils, and long hydroperiod of 

pocosin habitat. The diversity present is attributed to the fact that openings in the vegetation remain 

which permit establishment of such herbaceous species as sphagnum, Virginia chain-fern, sedges, 

trumpets, red pitcher plant, sundews, cotton grass, beakrush, bladderwort, yellow-eyed grass, 

hatpins, and broom sedge. These open areas may also have shrubs like lambkill, leatherleaf, and 

huckleberry that are less common in denser areas (Ash et al. 1983). 

Low Shrub Pocosin. The low shrub pocosin community is associated with the deeper organic soils 

that occur primarily in the southeastern portion of the refuge. The shrub layer is the dominant feature 

of this community and generally attains a canopy height of two to six feet. Bitter gallberry, fetterbush, 

titi, and honey cup dominate this shrub layer with Virginia chain-fern being the most abundant 

herbaceous plant (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Openings may occur and are usually dominated by 

sedges, pitcher plants, cranberry, and broom sedge. These areas are further characterized by long 

hydroperiods with widely spaced, stunted pond pines with heights of mature trees ranging from about 

six to twenty feet. These communities closely approximate a “quaking bog” as the ground actually 

moves in a vertical plane as you walk across it. False low shrub pocosin can be distinguished from 

true low shrub pocosin by the presence of tree residue and depth of the peat. 

High Shrub Pocosin. The high shrub pocosin community is associated with deep to intermediate 

organic soils, primarily in a transitional zone between low shrub pocosin and the pond pine pocosin. 

The shrub layer remains as the dominant feature of this community. However shrubs tend to be taller 

(ten to fifteen feet) and trees, mostly pond pine, may grow up to thirty to forty feet. Bitter gallberry 

and fetterbush dominate this shrub layer with Virginia chain-fern being the most abundant 

herbaceous plant (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Other shrub species may include wax myrtle and salt 

meadow bush, especially on edges and in areas of disturbance. Red bay and loblolly bay may be 

found, but are uncommon. Openings are less common than in low shrub pocosin, but may occur with 

species composition being about the same as the low shrub community. These areas are further 

characterized by intermediate to long hydroperiods. False high shrub pocosin can be distinguished 

from true high shrub pocosin by the presence of tree residue and depth of the peat. 

Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin. Pond pine pocosin occurs primarily in the eastern half of the refuge with large 

areas occurring in-the northeastern and southeastern sections on intermediate depth organic soils. This 

cover type is very similar to the high shrub pocosin, but contains more pond pine, bays, and red maple. 

Red bay and loblolly bay also reach heights greater than twenty feet in this cover type. Mature tree 

heights, including red maple, may vary from about thirty to forty feet. Fetterbush and bitter gallberry are 

the dominant shrubs with Virginia chain-fern 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/Cane Pocosin. This cover type is found primarily northeast of the Navy Bombing Range 

and south of Grouse and Cedar roads on essentially the same types and depths of organic soils. 

Pond pine is the dominant canopy with only small amounts of red bay, sweetbay, and red maple 

present. Average height of the overstory trees is forty to sixty feet. The shrub layer is dominated by 

river cane (Arundinaria gigantea) with bitter gallberry (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Differences in the Pond 

Pine/Cane and Pond Pine/Shrub communities are poorly understood. Past reports suggested that 

differences are attributable to fire frequency. However, subsequent observations suggest variation is 

due to factors other than fire frequency. Differences in hydroperiod and soil properties are the most 

likely explanations for the cane understory domination in some areas and not in others. For example, 
30 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

the areas with cane may be on organic soils with a higher mineral content, have subtle differences in 

depth of organic layer, or the physical and chemical properties of material underlying the organic 

layer may be causative factors for differences in surface plant community composition. 

Threatened and Endangered Plants 

Although there have been no comprehensive botanical surveys, there are no known federally listed 

plants on the refuge. 

Plant Species 

A comprehensive, in-depth botanical survey for plant species on the refuge has not been conducted. 

However, Appendix VI represents the most comprehensive list available. This botanical list will be 

revised as new information becomes available. 

WILDLIFE 

General 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and its surrounding waters support many species of resident 

and migratory fish and wildlife. Of these, 48 species are fish (Allen et al. 1979; Baker and Smith 

1965; Hester and Copeland 1975; Johnson et al. 1980); 145 are birds (Potter 1982a); 48 are reptiles 

and amphibians (Allen et al. 1979; Braswell and Wiley 1982); and 40 are mammals (Clark et al. 

1985). The refuge supports wildlife species that are important from both a regional and a national 

standpoint (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Its large size and dense vegetation makes it a haven for species 

that avoid man, such as the black bear. Also, the refuge harbors many species adapted to living in 

forested habitat as opposed to disturbed areas such as field edges. The refuge also lies at or near 

the northern limit of ranges for several vertebrate species (Noffsinger et al. 1984). 

Birds 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge provides habitat for a wide variety of birds. Because of the 

refuge's large size and plant community diversity, habitat is provided for forest-dwelling species as 

well as marsh-dwelling species. This somewhat unique complex of various wetland habitat types 

results in the presence of some unique avian forms such the Wayne’s black-throated green warbler, a 

distinct form of prairie warbler, and an unusually dense population of worm-eating warblers (Watts 

and Paxton 2002). Approximately 250 species of birds visit the refuge 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 25 

species of ducks winter either on the refuge or in its adjacent sounds and rivers. Migratory waterfowl 

numbers 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. The avian species 

composition changes throughout the year since most are migratory. 

Waterfowl. Until the addition of the moist soil management units, the refuge did not support large 

numbers of waterfowl. The wood duck is the most abundant year-round species. The species is 

most often associated with the numerous ditches, canals, and swamps. The most prevalent wintering 

species in moist soil units and refuge marshes include pintail, green-winged teal, gadwall, widgeon, 

mallard, and black duck. Other species wintering or migrating on the refuge and surrounding waters 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

may include blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, shoveler, scaup, canvasback, ruddy duck, red head, 

bufflehead, hooded merganser, and red-breasted merganser. Tundra swan numbers have increased 

steadily to a peak of about 1,500 birds on average. A few (less than ten) resident Canada geese are 

seen on the refuge periodically. Neither migratory Canada geese nor snow geese use the refuge. 

Breeding Birds. The species that breed on the refuge are characteristic of species that inhabit other 

coastal plain communities. However, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge differs noticeably from 

other coastal plain areas by having more warblers, especially prothonotary and black- throated green 

warblers, and fewer nuthatches, thrashers, and blue-gray gnatcatchers. The refuge is especially rich 

in woodpecker species, such as the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and the large pileated 

woodpecker. The red-cockaded woodpecker is found in pond pine pocosin. They use pond pine 

trees for nest cavity trees and the pond pine pocosin forest for foraging habitat. Typically, the redcockaded woodpecker prefers living trees 60 to 80 years old that are infected with red-heart fungus. 

The tree must also exude resin around the nest hole; a new cavity tree will be found when it no longer 

does so. The resin may serve as a defense against predators (Ash et al. 1983). Wading birds such 

as the great blue heron are common and breeding has been documented in at least two rookeries on 

and adjacent to the refuge. Bald eagles have also historically nested on the refuge and viable nests 

remain; nesting does not occur in every nest every year. 

Wintering Birds. Based upon results of the Christmas Bird Count since 2001, approximately 110 

bird species can be found on the refuge during the winter. The most common winter species are 

the American robin, yellow-rumped warbler, red-winged blackbird, sparrows, and northern 

bobwhite. Robins feed heavily on berries of redbay and greenbrier and roost in large 

concentrations in the Milltail Creek and Whipping Creek areas. Myrtle warblers use low-shrub 

pocosins, vegetated canal banks, and forest edges. They feed heavily on bayberry and wax 

myrtle berries. Northern bobwhite and red-winged blackbirds overwinter primarily in the 

agricultural fields within the refuge. Within the agricultural grassland filter strips, the song 

sparrow, fox sparrow, swamp sparrow, white-throated sparrow, and savannah sparrow may be 

observed. Mourning doves and crows winter on the refuge in smaller numbers making use of the 

farm fields. The American kestrel and the red-tailed hawk prey in the open areas of the refuge, 

while the northern harrier hunts over the marshes, fields, and low shrub pocosins. 

Transient Species. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge lies in the path of the Atlantic Flyway, a 

major migration route. The refuge provides resting and foraging areas for many migrant species 

which winter farther south. Species that migrate through the refuge during the fall include the bluewinged teal; raptors such as the broad-winged hawk and merlin; shorebirds; and a variety of perching 

birds such as the western kingbird, bank swallow, veery, Swainson's thrush, and warblers (yellow, 

magnolia, Cape May, black-throated blue, blackpoll, and palm); bobolink; northern oriole; and rosebreasted grosbeak (Noffsinger et al. 1984). 

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. Semiaquatic furbearers such as the muskrat, nutria, and river otter are 

common. Numbers of beaver are increasing. The white-tailed deer population has remained 

relatively constant at low numbers in recent years. However, deer herd health checks at five-year 

intervals show that the population is slightly higher than the 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. 
32 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

American Black Bear. The refuge has what is believed to be one of the largest concentrations of 

black bear found in the southeastern United States. A decline in bear numbers in this and other 

areas seems to have resulted from man's disturbing influence and the destruction of habitat (Hamilton 

1978). According to Hamilton and Marchiuto (1977 and 1978), major wetland forest types such as 

pocosin must be protected to maintain the Coastal Plain bear population. 

Hardy (1974) suggested a Dare County bear population of 25 to 35 individuals, of which 13 to 20 

were adult males, four to eight were adult females, and five to nine were juveniles. There was very 

little evidence of reproductive success. The population imbalance probably resulted from selective 

mortality engendered by excessive hunting.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at Virginia Tech completed a study 

of the black bear population at Alligator River in 2005. The estimated population is between 180 and 

293, with a density on good habitat of three bears per square mile. The normal population on good 

habitat is one bear per square mile. 

High hunting pressure associated with increased access through road construction was the apparent 

mechanism that reduced bear on and off the refuge. In the 1970s, state legislation made it illegal to hunt 

black bear in Dare County. The population has increased steadily since. The state legislature reestablished a hunting season for Dare County in 1992, but the season was not opened on the refuge due 

to insufficient population data. A research project, conducted by the University of Tennessee from 1992–

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 (Folta 1998; 

Allen 1998). An effort to estimate the population through genetic analysis of hair samples began during 

2003 by Virginia Tech and data collection will continue through 2004. 

Limiting factors on black bear on the refuge have been identified as blackgum mast, disturbance, and 

availability of escape cover. Although blackgum fruit has been identified as limiting, the diet of the 

black bear varies with the seasons and availability of food. Spring foraging appears to be largely 

opportunistic with a high occurrence of ants and leaves in the diet. Blueberries and switchcane 

stems are preferred through the summer. Fall feeding shifts to blackgum, with winter diets consisting 

mainly of greenbrier, sumac, and gallberry (North Carolina State University 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 refuge with its road system to gain access to large blocks of habitat 

suitable 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 following best estimates: approximately 6 deer per square mile for pocosin habitat; 

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 refuge, 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 

Alligator River deer were "...within an optimal stocking density for the nutritional capacity of the 

habitat. Additional increase in deer numbers should be avoided by removal of deer through 

management by sport-hunting" (Nettles 1985; Davidson 1992 and 1998). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Furbearers. The Alligator River Refuge 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 canals and streams that run through the refuge. The gray fox does not penetrate very deeply into 

the unmodified areas of the refuge, but it does make good use of the edges feeding on small 

mammals as well as blackberries and other fruits (Ash et al. 1983). 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 (Ash et al. 1983). 

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

Sixty-one species of reptiles and amphibians are reported for the refuge. Reptiles and amphibians 

are most numerous and diverse around permanent and semi-permanent open water, marshes, 

creeks, lakes, and canals. They also thrive in disturbed or modified/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; the southern leopard frog; and a wide variety of 

snakes. Three species of venomous snakes have been documented on the refuge. They are the 

cottonmouth moccasin, canebrake (timber) rattlesnake, and copperhead. The pygmy rattlesnake has 

been documented in Hyde County; however, even though the refuge extends into 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 canals. They prefer areas where the water turbidity is low and the water quality is high, with 

the presence of an adequate food source (McDonald et al. 1983). Milltail Creek Lake, Whipping 

Creek, and Swan Creek Lake usually provide prime alligator habitat (Noffsinger et al. 1984). 

Fish 

The fisheries on and surrounding Alligator River Refuge are diverse and productive. The refuge's 

interior lakes and streams 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 streams and lakes of the refuge. They also use the open water of Alligator 

River and the sounds for spawning, nursery and foraging habitat. These resident species provide a 

large portion of the diet of migratory and anadromous species, which are important to both sport and 

commercial fishermen (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Migratory species use the refuge's estuaries as 

spawning grounds and the surrounding waters as a nursery area. Migratory species that use the 

refuge include Atlantic croaker, spot, Atlantic menhaden, and the southern and summer flounders. 

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. The Alligator River 

and Milltail and Whipping creeks are used heavily by these species, which include striped bass, alewife, 

and blueback herring. The mouth of Alligator River serves as an important wintering area for sexually 

immature female striped bass. This area is important because the Albemarle Sound population does not 

make coastal migrations as do other Atlantic coast striped bass populations. 
34 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

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 U.S. Forest Service closely monitor gypsy moth populations. 

Both agencies use pheromone traps located throughout the Dare County mainland and the barrier 

islands, including refuge lands. When large-scale outbreaks are detected, they use integrated pest 

management techniques to suppress but not necessarily eliminate gypsy moths 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 other than on Roanoke Island. 

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 and Pest 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, especially in the farm unit. Due to pesticide use restrictions on 

the refuge, it is not possible to eradicate this species. 

The coyote, a carnivorous species native to the grasslands of the midwestern United States, has 

migrated eastward as wooded habitat was cleared. Coyotes are now present throughout the refuge, 

but they represent a carnivore that is not native to the refuge or North Carolina. 

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) is currently found on the refuge in ditches adjacent to 

Highway 64, Milltail Road, and Longcurve Road. Common reed (Phragmities australis) is found 

throughout various refuge areas, including disturbed sites and farming units. Efforts have recently 

begun to control these invasive, noxious plants. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Several federally listed species occur in the area. Among them are the red-cockaded woodpecker, 

red wolf, bald eagle, and American alligator. All species except for the red-cockaded woodpecker 

occur throughout the refuge. 

The Service first reintroduced the red wolf on the refuge 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 red-cockaded woodpecker is federally listed as an endangered species. Known red-cockaded 

woodpecker clusters occur on the south end in the vicinity of Whipping Creek Road, north of U.S. 

Highway 264 just east of Stomper Road, and on the Dare County Bombing Range. One inactive cluster 

with one known cavity tree occurs in the vicinity of the east side of Koehring Road just north of the Pollock 

Road intersection. The area around Stumpy Point was surveyed by helicopter during 1999 and no 

evidence of the red-cockaded woodpeckers was found in the areas outside of those described. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

The bald eagle is federally listed as a threatened species and is seen infrequently throughout the 

year. Sighting numbers have been increasing in recent years. Eagle nesting has been documented 

near the North Twiford Farm Unit and near Swan Creek Lake on the south end of the refuge. Mature 

bald eagles have been observed adjacent to Stumpy Point Bay and nesting is suspected, but the 

refuge has not been able to find and confirm a nest. Another possible eagle nest may be under 

construction at the mouth of Laurel Bay Lake. 

The American alligator is listed as threatened by similarity of appearance in North Carolina and is 

found in aquatic habitat throughout the refuge. The Service has documented nesting in recent years 

on the refuge, but the current population is not known. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The wetland environment 

makes it unlikely that there are many cultural resources on the refuge. The small area of uplands is 

the most likely site of settlements or encampments. The staff must conduct management activities so 

as to avoid compromising sensitive sites. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge lies within mainland Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. 

Recently made more accessible to the mainland by bridges and ferries and primarily supported by 

tourism, coastal Dare and Hyde 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. As a result, 

the refuge, with its location along U.S. Highway 64, has seen greater recreational and public use due 

to this increase in visitors. However, the region’s natural resources of land and water have suffered 

increasing demands, often with negative impact. As one of the few remaining tracts of intact natural 

land, the refuge and, consequently, its management considerations, have become even more critical. 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and Dare and Hyde counties are located in the northeastern 

part of North Carolina and are bounded by the Albemarle Sound to the north, Tyrrell and Beaufort 

counties to the west, and the Pamlico Sound to the south. 

Dare County. The Alligator River forms the western boundary of Dare County, which is bound to the 

north by the Albemarle Sound, to the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and to the south by the Hyde 

County line dividing the Pamlico Sound. 

For many decades, Dare County 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, Dare County is still predominantly rural, with the largest town 

being Kill Devil Hills (2000 population: 5,897). 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 Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge and its appropriate management is, therefore, easily understood. 
36 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Hyde County. Hyde County is in northeastern North Carolina with the Atlantic Ocean and Dare 

County, North Carolina to the east, Pamlico Sound to the south, Beaufort County, North Carolina to 

the west, and the Tyrrell County, North Carolina to the north. The area has had little growth since 

1900 despite rapid growth in Dare County on the coast to the east and the major highway to the coast 

passing through the county. Ocracoke Island on the Outer Banks of North Carolina is the only part of 

the county with a growing population and economy. The lack of growth in mainland Hyde County is 

due in large part to the poorly drained, deep organic soil that makes development expensive and 

environmentally hazardous. The county’s unemployment and poverty rates are much higher than the 

state averages, and its high school and college graduation rates are below the state averages. The 

area is still predominantly rural, and the largest town and county seat is Swan Quarter (2000 

population: 300). Like other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor activities are both popular 

and necessary. Hunting and recreational fishing are popular pastimes. Farming, commercial fishing, 

and forestry are important elements of the economy. 

HISTORY 

Dare County. The original residents of the area were Native Americans described as those of the 

Coastal Algonkian linguistic group at the time of European contact. Northeastern North Carolina was 

the most southern extent of Coastal Algonkian habitation. One chiefdom was located on the Outer 

Banks on Hatteras Island (Haag 1958). They lived in permanent villages where they could hunt, fish, 

shellfish, and farm in close proximity to the village. The Algonkians utilized seasonal villages to follow 

migrating fish and wildlife populations. They grew corn, beans, sunflower, and squash in small 

gardens; and hunted deer, bear, alligators, turtles, and a variety of small mammals. Mention of the 

Algonkians ceased by the mid-eighteenth century (Mathis and Crow 1983). 

As early as 1584, English officers spent two months exploring Roanoke Island and its surrounding 

area. In 1585, Sir Walter Raleigh sent a fleet of seven vessels of men back to the island in an 

attempt to establish the first English colony in what is now eastern North Carolina. Fort Raleigh was 

built on Roanoke Island, but the following year the survivors returned to England. In 1587, Raleigh 

sent an expedition of 117 people that included women and children to give permanence to the colony. 

Led by John White, these settlers rebuilt the fort. On August 18, 1587, White’s granddaughter, 

Virginia Dare, was born in the colony; she was the first English child born in the New World. Later 

that year, White sailed back to England for supplies, but Spanish hostilities and England’s financial 

hardships delayed his return for three years. Upon arriving back at Roanoke Island in 1590, he found 

no trace of the colonists. Many theories have been proposed about the fate of those 117 people—

“The Lost Colony”—but the mystery remains unsolved. 

The area remained unpopulated for more than a half century after the disappearance of the Lost Colony. 

Sir John Colleton established the first permanent settlement on Collington Island on the Outer Banks in 

the winter of 1664–1665. Shipwrecked sailors and settlers from Virginia established the first settlements. 

These settlers made an effort to grow tobacco, grow grapes for a winery, and raise hogs. The only real 

profit was from oil extracted from beached whales. Raising livestock on the grasslands of the dunes 

became an important occupation. The only agriculture was in small gardens (Stick 1958). 

In the early 1700s, pirates moved into the area to prey on ships that passed too close to the 

treacherous shoreline. The most famous of these pirates, Blackbeard, made his headquarters on the 

Outer Banks. His death in 1718 brought an end to early day piracy. Around 1726, residents built 

windmills to grind grain on Roanoke Island and the Outer Banks. The residents made a living from 

farming, fishing, hunting, and beachcombing (U.S. Department of the Interior 1981). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Modern tourists first found the Outer Banks of Dare County at Nags Head in the 1830s when planters 

from inland counties came to escape the hot humid summer. Cottages and the Nags Head Hotel 

were home to visitors. The hotel was the scene of nightly dinners and dances, and built a railway for 

transportation to the beach (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). 

In the early 1800s, the Atlantic Ocean earned the name “Graveyard of the Atlantic” as numerous vessels 

sank. During the Civil War, Union forces captured Fort Hatteras and Roanoke Island to secure access to 

North Carolina by sea. The Union ironclad ship USS Monitor sank in a gale off Cape Hatteras on 

December 30, 1862 (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). In 1870, the state assembly 

established Dare County (named for Virginia Dare) from parts of Hyde, Currituck, and Tyrrell counties. 

During this time, most opportunities for work were in the U.S. Coast Guard as lighthouse operators or 

weather station employees. The improvements of inlets and advances in navigation and transportation 

allowed commercial fishing to become an important part of the economy (Stick 1958). 

On December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright made the first successful power-driven airplane 

flight from Kill Devil Hills near Kitty Hawk on the Outer Banks. German submarines filled the waters 

off the North Carolina coast during World Wars I and II. Since the World War II, tourism replaced 

hunting and fishing as the principal industry (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). 

The rivers and sounds were once the major transportation avenues in the area. As the area grew 

and the railroad arrived, boat traffic declined. In the twentieth century with the popularity of 

automobiles, the state developed a network of highways connecting the county to all areas of the 

eastern United States. The state replaced a drawbridge across the Croatan Sound on U.S. Highway 

64 at Manns Harbor in 2002 with a high-rise bridge so motorists can bypass downtown Manteo on 

their way to the Outer Banks. The state is widening U.S. Highway 64 to four lanes that will connect 

the area to Interstate 95 and the Outer Banks. There are small local airports in Manteo and Frisco; 

regional airports in Greenville; and an international airport in Norfolk, Virginia. Amtrak provides 

passenger rail service as far east as Rocky Mount. 

Hyde County. 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. With its rich soil with an organic topsoil layer, Hyde County 

has always had a good reputation for agricultural production, especially in corn. People traveled to 

the county from across the state for corn. 

In 1837, the State Literary Board owned Lake Mattamuskeet and ordered the lake drained with a canal to 

the Pamlico Sound. This decreased the size of the lake from 120,000 to 50,000 acres and its depth from 

a range of six to nine feet to two to three feet. The state established Mattamuskeet Drainage District in 

1910 to drain Lake Mattamuskeet completely with more drainage canals and a pumping plant for crop 
38 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

production. The cost of maintaining the water levels necessary for production exceeded the profits from 

the crops. In 1932, the developers abandoned the operation. The large pumping plant built for the 

project was then converted into a hunting lodge and is now Mattamuskeet Lodge. 

In 1934, the lake and the surrounding area became the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. The lake 

attracts large populations of wintering waterfowl and the area is a haven for hunters and birdwatchers. 

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 forestry production due to the deep organic soils. They manage 

those areas for wildlife habitat, the protection of unique ecological communities, and outdoor 

recreation. Recreation based on natural and cultural resources is a growing part of the local lifestyle. 

LAND USE 

Dare County. Logging and farming have never been important sources of income in Dare County 

due to the deep, sandy soils of the dunes, saturated soils of the marshes on the Outer Banks, and 

wetlands with deep organic soils on the mainland. The forest and marsh plant communities have 

always provided hunting opportunities, and the marshes are important nursery areas for fish. The 

beaches, dunes, wildlife, and fishing opportunities on the Outer Banks are major attractions to tourists 

for their summer vacations. 

There is limited residential construction in the marshes, pocosins, and forested wetlands of the 

county. The largest development has been on the northern end of the coastal barrier island known 

as the Outer Banks, from Hatteras Village to Corolla. 

Before the Civil War, farmers cultivated up to 5,000 acres of corn and tobacco on mainland Dare 

County in a settlement known as Beechlands near Milltail Creek. They also grazed cattle on 25,000 

acres of marsh. The Dare County Lumber Company harvested enough timber on 168,000 acres of 

mainland Dare County to set up a settlement called Buffalo City that eventually went bankrupt. Both 

areas are now part of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Today, Dare County is 57 percent forested (142,212 acres) and 3 percent farmland (4,961 acres). 

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms decreased slightly percent from 4,961 acres to 4,954 acres; the 

average size of farms increased 12 percent from 551 acres to 619 acres; the number of full-time farm 

operators remained the same at 6; the total market value of agricultural products sold increased 10 

percent from $836,000 to $916,000; and the average market value of agricultural products sold per 

farm increased 22 percent from $92,920 to $114,470 (Table 7). 

Soybeans are the most important crop in Dare County. Production decreased substantially between 

1997 and 2002 (Table 8) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1997). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Table 7. Dare County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture. 

Number of Farms 8 

Acres in Farms 4,954 

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 619 

Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,098,170 

Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,268 

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $110,232 

Total Cropland (Acres) 2,094 

Market Value of All Products Sold $916,000 

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $114,470 

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 6 

Operators with Anther Occupation as Principal Occupation 2 

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 1,623 

Table 8. Commodity production in Dare County in 1997 and 2002. 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 2002-1997 Change 

Soybeans (acres) 1,623 3,516 Decreased 56% 

Wheat (acres) 471 0 N/A 

From the 2002 and 1997 USDA Census of Agriculture 

Hyde County. 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 9). 

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 10) (USDA 2002). 
40 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 9. 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 

Table 10. 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% 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Dare County. Dare County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 29,967 in 2000 

(Table 11) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The county population increased 32 percent between 1990 

and 2000. Kill Devil Hills is the largest town with a population of 5,897. 

The population is 94.7 percent White, 2.7 percent Black, 2.2 percent Hispanic, 0.4 percent Asian, and 

0.3 percent Native American (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the median family income was 

$35,258, about the same as the state average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 8.1 percent, well 

below the state average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average unemployment 

rate in 2004 was 5.1 percent, slightly below the State of North Carolina’s unemployment rate of 5.5 

percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). 

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years old is 60 percent; the 

percentage of college graduates is 16 percent. The state averages are 56 percent for high school 

and 14 percent for college (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The home ownership rate is 74.5 percent, 

above the state average rate of 69.4 percent. There are 2.34 persons per household in Dare County, 

slightly below the state average of 2.49. 

Hyde County. Hyde County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 5,826 in 2000 

(Table 11) (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, 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’s unemployment rate of 5.5 

percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). 

EMPLOYMENT 

Dare County. The hotel and food service and retail trade industries are the largest employers in Dare 

County, employing 3,028 and 3,022 of 12,543 employees with an annual payroll of $281.6 million in 2000 

(U.S. Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns 2000). This is due in large part to the tourist 

industry on the Outer Banks (North Carolina Department of Economic Security Commission 1999). 

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

hotel and food service, retail trade, construction, real estate, wholesale trade, professional services, 

administrative support, health care, manufacturing, and finance (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

County Business Patterns, 2000). 

Hyde County. 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). 
42 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 11. 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 8 million +21% since 1990 

Counties in the Vicinity of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Dare $35,258 8.1 5.1 29,967 +32% since 1990 

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 

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 

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

lodging and food service, retail trade, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, wholesale trade, 

health care, finance, forestry and fishing, real estate, administrative and support services, and 

recreation (U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census 2000). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

FORESTRY 

Dare County. Timber was a source of wealth for Dare County before the Civil War. However, the 

Service now manages much of the forestland primarily for wildlife habitat and timber is a secondary 

product of the land. 

Today, Dare County is approximately 57 percent forested, with 142,212 acres of timberland. In 

contrast, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Forty-nine percent of the county’s forest is in 

loblolly pine and 45 percent is oak-gum-cypress (USDA Forest Service 1991). 

Hyde County. 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 

contrast, 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 count’s 

forestland. The federal government owned 28 percent, forest industry owned 15 percent, and the 

state government owned 2 percent (USDA Forest Service 2002). 

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE AREA 

Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Dare and Hyde 

counties have always had an abundance of fish and game, due to their 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 Alligator River 

National Wildlife Refuge to preserve and restore habitat for native wildlife and migratory birds. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service also manages the Pocosin Lakes and Mattamuskeet national wildlife 

refuges, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission manages the Dare County Bombing 

Range as a game land to provide hunting opportunities in the area. 

Recreation in the area is also based on the water in the ocean, sounds, rivers, and lakes. Swimming in 

the ocean and sunbathing on the beach are the anchors of recreation on the Outer Banks. Boat ramps 

provide access to the river and sound. Numerous outfitters provide boats and guided tours. The North 

Carolina Coastal Plain Paddle Trails Guide lists trails through the Pea Island and Alligator River national 

wildlife refuges (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 2001). 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 Fish and Wildlife Service at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge; the National Park 

Service at Cape Hatteras National Seashore; the State of North Carolina at Jockey’s Ridge State 

Park and the State Aquarium; 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. At least one fishing tournament is held every month 

from May to November. The Nature Conservancy at Nags Head Woods holds week-long ecocamps 

throughout the summer. 
44 Alligator River 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. Secondly, hunting 

and fishing are economically important to local businesses, both directly as the local population 

spends money and indirectly as an attraction that draws sportsmen from outside the county. 

Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the preservation of fish and wildlife resources, combined 

with channel dredging and wetland clearing and draining, has led to the loss of valuable fishery 

spawning grounds and the loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In the attempt to protect and 

restore some of these resources, the Alligator River Refuge 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, either through observation, photography, education, or interpretation; or 

more directly through fishing. 

There have been no studies performed on Alligator River Refuge 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 nongovernmental organization in northeastern North Carolina. There 

are also numerous studies of ecotourists and birdwatchers on national wildlife refuges and other 

areas throughout the United States. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service surveyed participants in wildlife-dependent recreation in North Carolina in 

2001. The survey documented an average expenditure of $69 per day by anglers, $74 per day for 

hunters, and $199 per day for wildlife observers and photographers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 

The Partnership for the Sounds sponsored a study of the economic impact of its facilities. The study 

demonstrated that the average visitor spent $108 per visit, with a range of $64 to $333 per day 

(Vogelsang 2001). A similar study of visitors at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia also 

showed a range of expenditures from $62 to $101 per day (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997). 

A study commissioned by the State of New Jersey demonstrated that the average visitor to 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). 

Birdwatchers from the local area in High Island, Texas, reported an average expenditure of $46 per 

day, and nonresidents reported $693 per trip (Eubanks et al. 1993). The average visitor to the Great 

Texas Coastal Birding Trail spent $78 per day (Eubanks and Stoll 1999). 

Studies at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas demonstrated a range of 

expenditures from $88 to $145 per day on nature-based tourist activities. The Laguna Atascosa 

National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas reported a range of $83 to $117 per day (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 1997). 

Birdwatchers to the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge in California spent an average of $57 per day 

(National Audubon Society 1998). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

With improved facilities and staffing, Alligator River Refuge can continue to serve as an important 

commodity in the economic life of the community. Ecotourism, fishing, wildlife observation and 

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 

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; the 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. These include 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. 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge could serve as an additional attraction to tourists visiting the 

area at least seasonally. If the refuge had more facilities and permanent 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 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, Pamlico, Croatan, and Roanoke sounds and the Alligator River. While today these 

waterways are no longer necessary for most of the transportation needs within the county, they are 

still important as sources of income and for recreation. 

U.S Highways 64 and 264 run east and west through the refuge and connect population centers in central 

North Carolina and Interstate 95 to Dare County. U.S. Highways 158 and 168 run north and south 

through the Outer Banks to the east of the refuge and connect Dare County with population centers in 

southeastern Virginia. A number of smaller roads connect the various communities in the area. 

Visitors can reach Alligator River Refuge via U.S. Highways 64 and 264. The refuge’s dike roads are not 

open to vehicular traffic. The refuge has 100 miles of gravel roads. Travel off the roads by foot or boat 

will primarily be limited only by a user’s willingness to exert the manpower. 
46 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Dare 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 20 small galleries. A summer-long production of “The Lost Colony” is 

offered annually at the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, commemorating the first English settlers on 

Roanoke Island since 1936. Greenville, North Carolina and East Carolina University, located 100 

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 

the performing arts, with national touring collections and companies. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge currently covers 153,017.4 acres (Table 12). The refuge’s 

approved acquisition boundary is 239,800 acres (Figure 5). 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The refuge is an important link to the other natural areas that together make these experiences 

possible. Carefully selected and managed staff, programs, and facilities will provide the wildlifedependent environmental education, interpretation, and recreation opportunities that refuge visitors 

expect. A few commercial businesses have interests in guiding canoeing and kayaking tours and 

angling adventures. 

The refuge’s current visitor facilities are shown in Figure 6. 

Table 12. Acquisition history of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

DATE TRACTS ACRES COST COST 

ACRE 

TOTAL 

ACREAGE 

TOTAL 

COST 

1984 1 114,259.00 $0 $0 114,259.00 $0

1988 2 10,060.03 $3,518,000 $349 124,319.03 $3,518,000

1989 2 13,272.00 $951,000 $72 137,591.03 $4,469,000

1990 1 11,100.00 $0 $0 148,691.03 $4,469,000

1991 2 40.40 $687,167 $17,009 148,731.43 $5,156,167

1993 4 3,429.94 $507,100 $148 152,161.37 $5,663,267

1996 1 34.00 $0 $0 152,195.37 $5,663,267

2002 1 65.44 $31,000 $475 152,260.81 $5,694,267

2003 1 331.88 $347,500 $1,047 152,592.69 $6,041,767

2004 1 324.66 $347,500 $1,070 152,917.35 $6,389,267

2007 1 100 $165,000 $1,650 153,017.35 $6,554,267

Total 17 153,017.35 $6,554,267 $42.83
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Figure 5. Current boundary of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 
48 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Hunting 

Hunting is restricted to specific areas, times, and seasons. A refuge hunting permit is required. In 

general, most species for which there are state seasons and bag limits are designated as game species 

on the refuge. The refuge’s hunting regulations are in keeping with management objectives to ensure the 

activity continues at a level compatible with the achievement of maintaining optimum populations of 

hunted species and other species that may be impacted by the hunt. Raccoon hunting is one of the rare 

night uses of the refuge. For refuge hunts, a state license is required, and all state regulations apply. 

Fishing 

Alligator River Refuge offers freshwater fishing throughout its navigable waterways. The refuge also 

provides access to boaters who wish to fish the waters surrounding the refuge. Several small, 

unimproved boat launching ramps are located within the boundary of the refuge, as well as 

riverbanks, canal banks, and bridges for land-based fishing activities. The Creef Cut Trail offers a 

universally accessible fishing platform. On the interior waters of the refuge, bluegill, crappie, 

blackfish, fliers, yellow perch, and madtom catfish are common. Depending on the salinity of the 

sound water, both freshwater and saltwater fish may be caught in the sounds. State regulations 

apply; a state fishing license is required for refuge fishing in most cases. 

Environmental Education 

The refuge offers guided canoe tours, nature talks and walks, outreach programs in the local school 

systems, and special seminars and conferences, including the nationally recognized Wings over 

Water, on a regular and continuing basis. The staff makes many of these program offerings in 

conjunction with Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The staff also makes themselves available to 

judge science fairs in local schools and provide guidance and encouragement for scout and other 

environmental education projects. 

The refuge currently has no visitor center. The administrative office is located approximately fifteen 

miles east in Manteo. Several sites on the refuge offer refuge literature and educational panels. A 

refuge tour tape/compact disc and a Kuralt Trail tape/compact disc are available for purchase and 

offer educational information about the refuge. 

The refuge participates actively in a highly successful intern and work camper program, affording 

more specific environmental education opportunities to residents and visitors who take advantage of 

these unique resources. The book store at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge offers numerous 

books on the wildlife specific to Alligator River Refuge, and films and tapes on the refuge are 

available both at Pea Island Refuge and the Manteo office. 

Interpretation 

Alligator River Refuge offers two interpretive kiosks at roadside facilities easily accessible to the 

motoring public, as well as pamphlets providing information on the refuge, the red wolf program, and 

the refuge hunting program. A cassette outlining the unique habitats at Alligator River Refuge is 

available both in Manteo and at Pea Island Refuge. 

Regularly scheduled interpretive programs, including a guided canoe tour of the Milltail Creek area, 

are available during the warmer months. During the spring and summer months, “wolf howlings” are 

conducted on a regular basis to enable the public to gain a better understanding and enjoy a unique 

experience with this endangered mammal, which has successfully been reintroduced into the wild. 
50 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Wildlife Observation 

The refuge offers two half-mile universally accessible trails: Creef Cut and Sandy Ridge. Boating, 

canoeing, and kayaking opportunities, a wildlife drive, and limited driving over former logging roads are 

available for unique wildlife observation opportunities. The black bear population at Alligator River Refuge 

is one of the largest in the northeast, and many visitors find it quite easy to get a glimpse of a bear in the 

wild. More fortunate visitors observe a red wolf or an alligator; however, these observations are usually a 

result of just being in the right place at the right time. While birding is not a major attraction here, there is 

a wide variety of land birds, raptors, and many species of waterfowl and other migratory birds. There is 

ample opportunity to view reptiles and small mammals, and more limited opportunity to see the 

threatened red-cockaded woodpecker, American alligator, and bald eagle. A number of plant species, 

terrestrial and hydrophytic, as well as the unusual pocosin areas, are also readily observed. 

Wildlife Photography 

The mammalian population of Alligator River Refuge, together with the walking trails along the 

waterways and in hardwood swamps and marshes, offer unlimited opportunities for landside wildlife 

photography. Canoe and kayak trips through the 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. 

Universal Access 

Alligator River Refuge gives special attention to ensure that visitors with disabilities can visit the refuge for 

pleasure, education, interpretation, and wildlife observation opportunities. The Creef Cut Trail and Sandy 

Ridge Trail are level and accessible by wheelchair, and a wheelchair is available at no charge for those 

who request it. A special access permit is available to hunters with disabilities. 

Public Involvement 

The refuge offers nearly limitless involvement on either a volunteer or spectator basis for the 

interested public. It offers special educational opportunities to the scores of local residents and 

visitors who volunteer for these unique experiences. Waterfowl and black bear surveys and red wolf 

radio telemetry programs not only provide assistance for the species, but also enable the refuge staff 

to educate the public on the habits and habitats of these wildlife species. Volunteers and staff share 

their information with visitors who may otherwise have no interest, concern, or knowledge in 

protecting or managing those species. The Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society is the nonprofit local 

organization established to raise funds for continued maintenance of the refuge and its educational 

programs, and to recruit volunteers for continuation of this process. 

The refuge’s intern program provides unique experiences for college students and graduates geared 

towards careers in the environmental sciences. It also provides additional volunteers to maintain the high 

standards of the refuge. A work camping program, in which volunteers barter a campsite and utilities in 

exchange for work hours, enables the refuge to take advantage of a wide spectrum of individual 

experiences and expertises that will enhance the refuge. Each of these programs instills a sense of pride 

and public stewardship among the volunteers, ensures them of their role in ownership of the land, and 

heightens their awareness about the critical need for protecting the human/natural interactions. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

When the Service created Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, it combined Alligator River Refuge 

with Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge to manage the two refuges as a complex. Today, the refuge 

staff administers the Alligator River and Pea Island Refuges from an office located in Manteo. The 

refuge’s current staff is listed in Table 13. 

Table 13. Staff of the Alligator River and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuges, 2005. 

Position Status Percent of Time on 

Alligator River 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-14 PFT 40 

Deputy Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13 PFT 70 

Assistant Refuge Manager, GS-0485-12 PFT 75 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-12 PFT 40 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-12 PFT 40 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-09 PFT 10 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-09 PFT 70 

Administrative Officer, GS-0341-09 PFT 75 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07 PPT 75 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-07 PFT 50 

Forestry Technician, GS-0462-07 PFT 50 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-05 TEMP 10 

Secretary, GS-0318-05 TERM 75 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-05 TEMP 50 

Student Intern, GS-0499-04, SCEP 50 

Engineering Equipment. Operator Supervisor, WS-5716-09 PFT 75 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09 PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09 PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-08 PFT 90 

Automotive Worker, WG-5823-08 PFT 90 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-06 TERM 30 

Fire Management Program 

Fire Management Officer, GS-0460-12 PFT 50 

Fire Management Officer (Wildland Urban Interface), GS-0401-11 PFT 40 

Prescribed Fire Specialist, GS-0401-07 PFT 40 

Forestry Technician, (Fire) GS-0462-08 PFT 80 
52 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Position Status Percent of Time on 

Alligator River 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-06 PFT 80 

Forestry Technician, (Fire) GS-0462-04 PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08 PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08 PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08 PFT 80 

Red Wolf Program 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-13* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-11* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-07* TERM 0 

Bio. Science Tech., GS-0404-07* PFT 0 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07* TERM 0 

PFT = Permanent Full Time employee 

TERM = Term Employee (up to four years) 

TEMP = Temporary Employee (not to exceed one year) 

SCEP = Student Cooperative Education Program 

REFUGE INFRASTRUCTURE 

Roads and Trails 

The refuge has two established half-mile-long trails: the Creef Cut Trail and the Sandy Ridge Trail. 

These trails are accessible to visitors with disabilities and feature several overlooks and one wildlife 

observation platform. Pedestrians can walk, drive, or ride bicycles around 100 miles of gravel roads 

on the refuge. The trail is part of a series of trails among the eleven refuges and one fish hatchery in 

eastern North Carolina established in honor of the late Charles Kuralt for the recognition he brought 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

At the south end of Buffalo City Road, a series of four, color-coded paddle trails totaling 15 miles are 

available for canoes and kayaks. 

Communication Systems 

The refuge’s communications system currently consists of mobile radios with a base station on mainland 

Dare County. The staff uses cellular phones for communication between the field and office. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Waste Collection and Disposal 

Volunteers and temporary staff transfer general trash to dumpsters located at the shop that Dare 

County empties for a fee. The North Carolina Department of Transportation is responsible for 

removing trash from the rights-of-way of U.S. Highways 64 and 264. Septic systems treat sanitary 

waste from the shop and intern quarters. There are portable toilets at the Creef Cut Trail parking lot 

at the intersection of Milltail Road and U.S. Highway 64 and at the end of Buffalo City Road. 
54 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act requirements, public 

involvement was a crucial factor throughout the development of this Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The plan was written with input and assistance from 

interested citizens, conservation organizations, and officials of local and state agencies. The 

participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management 

direction for the refuge. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular are very grateful 

to each individual who 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. 

Representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agency personnel attended the initial 

planning meetings. At these initial meetings, they discussed strategies for completing the plan; identified the 

staff’s issues and concerns; and compiled a mailing list of likely interested government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and individual citizens. The Service invited these agencies, 

organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in a series of public scoping meetings that were held 

on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001, in Washington, Plymouth, Columbia, Swan Quarter, and Manns 

Harbor, North Carolina, respectively. At these public scoping meetings, the audiences were introduced to 

the refuge and its planning process, and asked to identify their issues and concerns. The Service 

advertised the meetings in advance by publishing announcements giving their locations, dates, and times in 

the Federal Register and legal notices in local newspapers. The Service also sent press releases to local 

newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio stations. Service personnel placed 

50 posters announcing the meetings in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The Service expanded the planning team’s identified issues and concerns to include those generated 

by the agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. These issues and 

concerns formed the basis for the development and comparison of the objectives in the different 

alternatives described in the environmental assessment, which was prepared in conjunction with the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

The alternatives were subjects of discussion at a second-round public meeting held on April 26, 2005, in 

Manns Harbor, North Carolina. The planning staff again published announcements giving the location, 

date, and time for the public meeting as legal notices in local newspapers. The staff also sent press 

releases to local newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio stations. The staff 

placed 75 posters announcing the meeting in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

At this second-round public meeting, the refuge staff and planning team briefed members of the 

public on the alternatives. The audience provided feedback on the alternatives and suggested 

additions to the alternatives that were not mentioned in the previous scoping meetings. The staff 

considered this input in revising the draft plan and selecting a preferred alternative. 

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Alligator River 

National Wildlife Refuge was then completed and released for public review in May of 2006. A news 

release and flyers were sent on June 5, 2006, announcing the availability of the document for public 

review and comment, with a deadline for submitting comments by July 14, 2006. In addition, a public 

open house was held on June 13, 2006, at the Refuge Administrative Office in Manteo, North 
56 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Carolina, to solicit comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment. The comments were submitted either orally at the meeting or by mail or e-mail. 

All comments were considered and evaluated in preparing the final comprehensive conservation plan 

for Alligator River National Wildlife refuge. Some changes were incorporated into the plan. 

A summary of the comments received from the public scoping meetings, as well as the comments 

received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment and the 

Service’s responses to them, are provided in Appendix IV, Public Involvement. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The input of local citizens and public agencies, the team members’ knowledge of the area, and the 

resource needs identified by the refuge staff and biological review team all contributed to the issues 

and concerns addressed in the plan. The Fish and Wildlife Service assembled a planning team to 

evaluate the resource needs. The team then developed a list of goals, objectives and strategies to 

shape the management of the refuge for the next 15 years. The individual members of the planning 

team, biological review team, and other expert contributors are identified in Appendix X, Consultation 

and Coordination. 

These issues and concerns provided the basis for developing the refuge’s alternative management 

objectives and strategies. These issues played a role in determining the desired future conditions for 

the refuge and were considered in the preparation of the long-term comprehensive conservation plan. 

The issues and concerns are described below. They are of local, regional, and national significance 

and reflect similar issues that were, in part, identified by the public at the scoping meetings. 

HYDROLOGY 

Drainage Ditches 

Previous managers of the land that is now Alligator River Refuge developed a network of ditches to 

drain the land for agriculture and timber harvest. These ditches and the roads created from the 

excavated material from the ditches remain on the refuge. The establishment of water control 

structures and management of water on the refuge is important to the maintenance and restoration of 

wetland communities. Water management is also the key to successfully managing wildfire threats 

and prescribed burning. 

Global Warming and Sea Level Rise 

It is clearly evident from elevation, topographic relief, and proximity to the ocean that impacts on the 

refuge stemming from global warming will manifest themselves through rising sea level and coastal 

storms. Much of the outer refuge boundary is at or only slightly above sea level. Rising sea level will 

result in wetter hydrologic regimes and saltwater intrusion. Saturated marshes, pocosins, and 

hardwood forests cover the majority of the refuge. Scientists predict that the sea level along the 

North Carolina coast will rise from two to three feet in the next 100 years due to global warming. This 

rise in the water levels has initiated change and will continue to change the types of vegetative cover 

on the refuge. Grass-dominated marsh areas will transition to open water while marsh vegetation will 

expand into areas currently covered by pocosin and hardwood forests. Bald cypress and swamp 

black gum are likely to expand into areas currently occupied by hardwood forests. It is conceivable 

that several hundred acres of forested wetlands will begin transition into brackish coastal marsh 

during the time span covered by this comprehensive conservation plan. Similarly, considerable 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

acreages of the marsh fringe will have eroded and become open water. More frequent and more 

intense coastal storms on the refuge coupled with frequent fuel reduction burns will hasten the 

transition from forested habitat to marsh habitat. 

As the habitats change, the wildlife species that inhabit those habitats will also change. Colonial 

nesting birds such as herons and egrets that currently utilize tall trees along the river will lose their 

roost sites as trees die and fall. New candidate roost trees further upslope will be separated from 

open water by freshwater marshes. Cavity-nesting waterfowl, land birds, and mammals will lose their 

cavities as the trees they currently use fall, but other trees further upslope will replace them as cavity 

trees. The freshwater marshes that will expand into the former pocosins and hardwood forests will 

provide habitat for species of land birds and waterfowl not currently inhabiting the refuge and 

additional habitat for waterfowl and wading birds currently using the refuge. The marshes will also 

provide more habitats for groups of species currently on the refuge, including marsh birds and a 

greater abundance and diversity of aquatic species. 

The refuge has a history of working with conservation organizations and other agencies on management 

issues arising due to the effects of global warming. One of the first land-based workshops focusing on the 

problems and possible adaptive management strategies was co-sponsored by the refuge in early 2006. 

Of the management strategies discussed to date, there is an overall consensus that considerably more 

scientifically valid data are needed to effectively and efficiently implement management actions. 

Management actions with the highest probability of being implemented include use of flap gates on 

primary canals to prevent or slow wind tides from pushing salt water further and further into the refuge 

interior and planting certain tree species that are more tolerant to elevated salinity. For example, mature 

cypress appears to withstand frequent saltwater intrusion better than pine. If this is indeed the case, the 

question then becomes, “Are cypress growth rates faster than the rate of habitat change induced by rising 

sea level?” Alternatively, the question “How far away from the marsh/forest interface should cypress be 

planted?” could direct another strategy. 

Due to the current state of our knowledge with regards to the nature and extent of global warming 

impacts on the refuge, the focus of this comprehensive conservation plan is to gather the best 

scientific data possible for future planning. The most immediate action the refuge can take is to 

incorporate more information on changes brought about as a result of global warming through 

education and outreach to the public. In addition, the refuge will work cooperatively with other 

organizations and agencies to develop prudent adaptive management strategies that work in concert 

with changes brought about due to global warming. These strategies could involve changes in refuge 

infrastructure features such as the road/canal system. It is the intent of the refuge to develop data 

bases and management actions to cope with the effects of global warming that will carry through into 

the next century. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

The refuge staff and the public at the scoping meetings contributed ideas for the fish and wildlife 

population issues. In addition, staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies and 

organizations conducted a biological review of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in 1999 and 

2000 as part of the comprehensive planning process. They identified the objectives and strategies 

needed to protect the refuge’s wildlife populations and meet the minimum feeding and nesting habitat 

requirements of waterfowl, shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds. 
58 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important 

responsibility delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Four threatened or 

endangered species of animals use (or could use) Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge: the bald 

eagle (federally threatened), red-cockaded woodpecker (federally endangered), red wolf (federally 

endangered), and American alligator (federally threatened). 

Bald eagles use the refuge for foraging. Currently, two bald eagle nests are located within the refuge 

boundary; however, nesting does not occur in every nest every year. The refuge staff surveys the 

nests in January in conjunction with waterfowl surveys. The refuge should perform surveys in April 

and May to document nesting success. 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers nest in pines in the southern part of the refuge. Adequate pine habitat 

does exist on other areas of the refuge. Before Hurricane Isabel in September 2003, there were two 

active clusters on the refuge, at least one of which was successful every year. The red-cockaded 

woodpecker nesting areas received extensive damage during Hurricane Isabel. The extent of this 

damage and potential impacts should be evaluated in the future. The refuge also should survey the 

habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker and manage the stands to provide optimum habitat. The 

hurricane has reduced the canopy coverage and may have reduced the canopy enough to have 

improved the habitat to optimum condition. There is no commercial demand for the species in the 

forest the woodpeckers inhabit. 

The Service introduced red wolves to the refuge in 1987. The first animals were captive-bred animals 

that were the offspring of the last wild red wolves in existence. The total population on the AlbemarlePamlico peninsula is approximately 100 adults. 

American alligators are listed as threatened due to their similarity of appearance to crocodiles. They 

do live and reproduce throughout the refuge in small numbers. The exact population is uncertain. 

Waterfowl 

Management of the refuge’s moist soil units and marshes for waterfowl is important for meeting the 

refuge’s purpose. The refuge’s waterfowl objectives help guide water management actions on the 

refuge. In order to meet its waterfowl objectives, the refuge must maintain the moist soil units to meet 

waterfowl habitat needs and provide sufficient sanctuary areas that provide undisturbed resting and 

feeding areas for waterfowl. 

Shorebirds 

Management of refuge’s moist soil units for shorebirds is also important for meeting the refuge’s 

purpose. The refuge’s shorebird objectives help guide operation and management actions on the 

refuge. The refuge could manage the moist soil units to meet shorebird habitat needs, especially 

during the fall and spring migration periods, and provide sufficient sanctuary areas that provide 

undisturbed resting and feeding areas for shorebirds. Extensive pumping and soil disturbance would 

be required to create the habitat. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Wading Birds 

The refuge should protect heron rookeries and monitor them to document nesting success. Two 

rookeries are currently on the refuge: one on Whipping Creek Lake and one on Swan Creek Lake. 

Some canoeing and kayaking use occurs in those areas, but there is no access for surveys. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds are a species group of special management concern. Providing habitat 

(i.e., pocosins, hardwood forests, pine forests, brackish marshes, and maritime shrub) for these birds 

is a refuge objective. Strategic marsh management compatible with the refuge’s waterfowl habitat 

objectives contributes to the maritime shrub needs of neotropical migratory birds. Black-throated 

green warblers utilize the transition areas between Atlantic white cedar and pond pine stands. The 

staff must maintain that transition zone. 

Data Needs 

Wildlife data collection on the refuge has focused on waterfowl and recently black bear. Cooperating 

federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the public have all encouraged the 

Service to continue that data collection and expand it to include all the wildlife species on the refuge 

and the effects of refuge management and public use on the diversity and health of the wildlife. 

Specific needs include aerial surveys for red-cockaded woodpecker cavities and bald eagle nests, 

and ground-truthing surveys for the red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

The refuge staff and the public at the scoping meetings contributed ideas for the habitat management 

issues. In addition, staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies and organizations 

conducted a biological review of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in 1999 and 2000 as part of 

the comprehensive conservation planning process. They identified objectives and strategies needed 

to meet the minimum feeding and nesting habitat requirements of waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

neotropical migratory birds. 

Moist Soil Area Management 

The staff manages the refuge’s moist soil units for moist soil vegetation and submerged aquatic 

vegetation for waterfowl habitat, mud flats for shorebird habitat, and grass habitat for marsh birds. 

Providing quality habitat requires water management using water control structures and pumps; 

vegetation management with disking; prescribed burning; mowing; and monitoring of water levels, 

vegetation, and invertebrates. 

Marsh Management 

The staff manages the refuge marshes for perennial emergent vegetation that provides habitat for 

waterfowl, marsh birds, wading birds, shorebirds, and neotropical migratory songbirds. The black rail, 

a marsh bird, is a federal species of concern. The staff must conduct prescribed burning so the 

secretive marsh birds have escape routes from the fire and so the fires create a mosaic of habitats. 

Providing quality habitat requires prescribed burning and control of invasive species such as common 

reed (Phragmites australis). 
60 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Data Needs 

Data collection on the refuge has focused on managed wetlands (moist soil units). Cooperating federal and 

state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the public have all encouraged the Service to continue 

that data collection and expand it to include all the habitats on the refuge and the effects of refuge 

management and public use on the diversity and condition of the habitats. The most significant of these 

needs are aerial surveys for red-cockaded woodpeckers and bald eagles, and ground surveys to monitor 

red-cockaded woodpecker nesting activity. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge offers the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Wildlife observation and 

photography, along with educational and interpretive programs, attract thousands of visitors annually to the 

refuge. Fishing is popular in the refuge’s ditches, creeks, and lakes. Hunting for deer and small game is 

permitted on the refuge during state hunting seasons. Hunting for waterfowl is prohibited in farming units, but 

is allowed on state waters including Milltail Creek and Sawyer Lake. Access to the refuge by motor vehicle, 

bicycle, boats, and horseback is an important issue in the public use program. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The refuge’s network of roads and paddling trails gives visitors visual access to wildlife in many 

different habitats throughout the refuge. Especially in peak migration seasons but also throughout 

the year, the refuge welcomes thousands of avid birdwatchers, photographers, nature lovers, and 

fortunate passers-by. 

Hunting 

Currently, hunting for deer, small game, and waterfowl is permitted on the Alligator River Refuge. Hunting 

and fishing are integral parts of the rural North Carolina culture. It is not surprising that there is 

considerable state and local interest in providing additional hunting opportunities, especially for the black 

bear, which is hunted on private lands surrounding the refuge. Any expanded hunting opportunities will 

be dependent upon providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with refuge purposes. 

Fishing 

The refuge attracts several thousand annual visitors for its fishing opportunities, primarily in the 

drainage ditches but also in lakes and creeks. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

The refuge provides an array of public tours and educational/interpretive programs to educate visitors 

about the refuge and the diversity and significance of its wildlife and habitat. Due to the limitations of 

a small staff, the refuge relies heavily on a network of local volunteers, student interns, and work 

campers for the implementation of this public outreach. Year-round, the refuge staff and a dedicated 

group of volunteers work to highlight the importance of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and 

the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

Nonpriority Public Uses 

The refuge owns the majority of the wild lands in Dare County and most of the access to streams that 

give the public access to the area’s bays and sounds. Since its establishment, the refuge has 

approved special use permits for several traditional noncommercial uses that have minimal impact to 

refuge resources. The public expressed concern that those uses be permitted in the future. The 

uses include the gathering of firewood; cutting small-diameter poles for pound nets; cutting big 

cordgrass to cover duck blinds; gigging frogs; and mooring small commercial fishing boats. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Cultural Resources 

There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The wetland environment 

makes it unlikely that there are many cultural resources on the refuge. The small area of uplands is 

the most likely site of settlements or encampments. The staff must conduct management activities so 

as to avoid compromising sensitive sites. 

Land Acquisition 

There are inholdings around the perimeter of the refuge within its approved acquisition boundary. 

Acquiring these inholdings would secure the Service’s ability to protect all refuge resources. 

Law Enforcement and Refuge Regulation 

The staff enforces applicable laws and regulations through the use of one full-time law enforcement 

officer who covers both the Alligator River and Pea Island refuges. The officer has obligations for 

more than 158,000 acres, and this extensive territory limits his ability to perform his functions. His 

other workload limits the amount of time he can devote to the monitoring of permits and enforcement 

of the conditions for the permits. During the fall and winter months, it is important to have more of a 

law enforcement presence on the Alligator River Refuge due to its large number of hunters. During 

the summer months, it is important to have more of a law enforcement presence on the Pea Island 

Refuge due to the large number of visitors to the beach and visitor center areas. 

Other Resource Protection 

Other threats to refuge resources require closer monitoring and management. Pest plants and animals 

and wildlife disease are all concerns to which the refuge should be paying closer attention.

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The refuge’s wilderness review is provided in Appendix IX. 
62 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

In summary, in examining the nature of the 46,715 acres selected as wilderness study areas, it was 

determined that there would be mostly passive management whether the lands were designated as 

wilderness areas or not. There is little opportunity for recreation because the deep organic soils support 

very little pedestrian traffic. Therefore, it was decided not to propose the acreage as wilderness. As a 

result of this decision, the question of whether lands falling within the currently approved acquisition 

boundary of the refuge would be proposed for wilderness designation is not addressed further as a part of 

this plan. Any future land acquisition outside the currently approved acquisition boundary would be 

evaluated independently for possible proposed wilderness designation. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 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. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation are therefore emphasized in this plan. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment: Alternative 1 (No Action); Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative); and 

Alternative 3. Each of those alternatives was described in the Alternatives section of the Draft 

Environmental Assessment. The Service chose Alternative 2 as the preferred management direction. 

Described below is the proposed comprehensive conservation plan for managing the refuge over the 

next 15 years. This proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies 

that will be used to achieve the refuge vision. 

This comprehensive conservation plan was derived from Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, of 

the environmental assessment (Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge). 

Implementing the preferred alternative will result in the Service protecting, maintaining, restoring, 

and enhancing refuge lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory nongame birds, and 

threatened and endangered species. The refuge staff will initiate extensive wildlife and plant 

census and inventory activities to develop the baseline biological information needed to 

implement management programs on the refuge. 

The refuge will direct all management actions towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes: (1) 

preserving nesting and migratory habitat for neotropical migratory land birds, and (2) helping to meet 

the habitat conservation goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. In addition, the 

staff will manage the refuge to contribute to other national, regional, and state goals for protecting 

and restoring populations of wildlife. 

The Service will implement active habitat management through forest management and moist soil 

unit management designed to provide a historically diverse complex of habitats that meets the 

foraging, resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of species. 

Under this plan, the refuge will continue to seek acquisition of all willing seller inholdings within the 

present acquisition boundary. The primary purpose for this acquisition is to provide a system of coastal 

marshes, pocosins, and forested habitats of sufficient size and carrying capacity to reach regional 

objectives associated with area-sensitive neotropical birds, anadromous fish, colonial nesting birds, forestassociated waterfowl, and wetland forest landscapes. Lands acquired as part of the refuge will be 

available for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. 
64 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

During the 15-year life of this plan, the refuge staff will develop and implement a habitat management 

plan, designed to maintain the present spatially and specifically diverse mosaic of habitats with little 

negative effect to wildlife objectives. 

The Service will provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation). 

The refuge will maintain the interior and exterior access roads to provide all-weather vehicular access 

to a broad segment of the public. The staff will permit hiking to support wildlife-dependent recreation 

to the extent that these opportunities do not substantially interfere or detract from the achievement of 

wildlife conservation. They will provide wildlife observation sites and platforms; interpretive trails, 

boardwalks, and kiosks; and restrooms at specific sites to allow for fully accessible environmental 

education and interpretation programs. The plan provides for quality fishing and hunting programs, 

consistent with sound biological principles with sufficient focus on migratory bird needs for resting, 

loafing, feeding and courting requirements. The Service will permit fishing along the banks of streams 

and ditches and from boats. The staff will continue to implement an environmental education plan, 

incorporating an aggressive and proactive promotion of both on- and off-site programs. 

VISION 

The vision for the refuge is as follows: 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge’s unique wetland habitats will become more critical for many 

wildlife, fish, and plants as eastern North Carolina is developed. Refuge habitats will be managed, 

enhanced, and restored for optimal diversity of wildlife, fish, and plants. Healthy and viable 

populations of threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife, fish, and plants will be 

managed and conserved. 

People will visit this refuge in greater numbers to witness its subtle beauty and to seize the opportunity to 

explore. Refuge staff and volunteers will assume a greater role in educating the visiting public to ensure 

that biological integrity is maintained and that people have a safe, pleasant and educational experience. 

Visitors will be encouraged to participate in compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

The proposed visitor center will serve as a gateway, not only for adventure into Alligator River 

Refuge, but also to encourage the many visitors to the Outer Banks to venture inland to other local 

national wildlife refuges. There will be a growing responsibility to reach out to local and national 

communities about the refuge’s importance as a valuable piece of the puzzle that connects all wildlife 

habitats together. 

Working with others, the refuge’s staff and volunteers will adaptively manage the refuge’s natural 

resources and create in this wild place a legacy of fish, wildlife, and plants for future visitors to 

experience, enjoy, and cherish. 

GOALS 

WILDLIFE AND FISH POPULATIONS 

Inventory, protect, and manage to maintain healthy and viable populations of threatened and 

endangered species (e.g., red wolf and red-cockaded woodpecker), other priority wildlife (migratory 

birds and black bear), and fish. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Inventory and manage to provide diverse, high quality mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain forested wetlands, 

marshes, aquatic habitats, and areas intensively managed for wildlife. 

PUBLIC USE/OUTREACH 

Provide safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities for people to learn about and enjoy 

the wildlife resources and habitats of the refuge and of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Limit the adverse impacts of development to refuge resources and allow natural processes to 

dominate on candidate wilderness areas. 

OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies addressed below are the Service's responses to the issues, 

concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff, and the public. These goals, 

objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the purposes of the enabling 

legislation for the establishment of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge; the mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System; the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; and the purpose and vision for 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, 

and strategies during the next fifteen years. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

Fish 

Objective: Document the populations of fish and other freshwater/estuarine species annually in 

internal creeks, lakes, canals, and adjacent waters. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of fish species and quarterly studies and investigations of fisheries 

resources and water quality parameters. These studies and investigations will help evaluate the 

impact of refuge management on fisheries resources. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of fish species as they are observed. 

• Conduct quarterly studies and investigations on fisheries resources and water quality 

parameters. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 
66 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Invertebrate Species 

Objective: Document presence or absence of invertebrate species as they are identified. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of invertebrate species and invertebrate population surveys in moist 

soil units, ditches and canals every five years. These surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge 

management on invertebrates.

Strategies: 

• Conduct invertebrate population surveys in moist soil units, ditches, and canals every five 

years prior to raising water levels. 

• Document presence or absence of invertebrate species as they are observed. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

Land Birds 

Objective: Document the use of resting, nesting, and foraging habitat by land birds annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of land bird species and grassland bird surveys in farmland filter strips 

each spring and fall. These surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on land birds. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of land bird species as they are observed. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct banding activities as requested or directed. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct studies and investigations, as requested. 

• Conduct grassland bird surveys in farmland filter strips each spring and fall. 

• Monitor response of land birds to habitat management activities using point counts or another 

statistically valid method in selected habitats for selected species. 

Mammals 

Objective: Monitor, collect data from, and manage for black bear, red wolf, white-tailed deer, and 

other selected mammals annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of mammal species. These surveys will help evaluate the impact of 

refuge management on mammals. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of mammal species as they are observed. 

 

• Document black bear and white-tailed deer populations in cooperation with cooperating 

agencies, organizations, and universities. 

• Maintain communication with the Red Wolf Recovery Team and its population monitoring efforts. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Objective: Monitor reptile and amphibian populations as opportunities present themselves. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of reptile and amphibian species and monthly breeding surveys. 

These surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on reptiles and amphibians. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of reptile and amphibian species as they are observed. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

• Conduct monthly breeding surveys of reptiles and amphibians. 

Shorebirds 

Objective: Document the use of habitat for shorebirds, to the extent possible, during the spring and 

fall migration and through the winter. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of shorebird species and woodcock and snipe surveys. These 

surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on shorebirds. 

Strategies: 

• Assist others with banding activities as directed. 

• Document presence or absence of shorebird species as they are observed utilizing 

International Shorebird Survey (ISS) protocols. 

• Count shorebirds in areas specifically managed for shorebirds. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

• Conduct woodcock and snipe surveys during fall migration and in winter. 
68 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Waterbirds (Marsh Birds and Wading Birds) 

Objective: Document the use of habitat for waterbirds (wading birds and marsh birds) continuously. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for rookery 

surveys. These surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on wading birds. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of waterbirds (wading birds and marsh birds) as they are 

observed. 

• Count waterbirds in areas specifically managed for waterbirds. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

• Conduct rookery surveys during the nesting season. 

Waterfowl 

Objective: Document the use of wintering habitat for 2,000 tundra swans and 6,000 dabbling ducks 

annually from November to March. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the same activities as the current management does. The current 

surveys help evaluate the impact of refuge management on waterfowl. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct about 18 ground surveys from October through March. 

• Conduct about 12 aerial surveys bimonthly from October through March. 

• Conduct productivity surveys for tundra swans each winter as requested. 

• Monitor 40 wood duck nest boxes annually. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct banding activities as directed. 

• Meet annual wood duck quota. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct studies and investigations to the extent possible, as requested. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Objective: Protect threatened and endangered animal species and associated habitats as identified. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for annual 

surveys of alligators. These surveys and the surveys currently conducted will help evaluate the 

impact of refuge management on threatened and endangered species. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Strategies: 

• Conduct aerial surveys every five years to locate red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. 

• Groundtruth aerial surveys for red-cockaded woodpecker cavities as identified. 

• Monitor and band red-cockaded woodpeckers annually to determine population characteristics. 

• Document occurrence of alligators and conduct annual surveys during spring and summer. 

• Document occurrence of bald eagles and monitor nesting activity annually. 

• Conduct aerial and ground surveys for red wolves continuously. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Freshwater Pools, Ponds, and Lakes 

Objective: Protect about 1,582 acres of freshwater pools, ponds, lakes, creeks and canals 

continuously for the benefit of waterfowl, wading birds, fish, amphibians and other wildlife annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for studies 

and investigations on water quality parameters every five years. These studies will help evaluate the 

impact of refuge management on water quality. 

Strategies: 

• Compile existing data for water quality to establish baseline. 

• Conduct studies and investigations on water quality parameters every five years. 

• Evaluate impacts to water quality and create management recommendations to improve 

conditions, where feasible. 

Brackish Marsh 

Objective: Protect and manage 19,014 acres of brackish marsh continuously for the benefit of 

waterfowl, wading birds, land birds, and other wildlife and fisheries. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for scientific 

evaluations of selected management activities. These studies will help evaluate the impact of refuge 

management on brackish marsh. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain 2,000 to 3,000 acres of optimum quality emergent brackish marsh annually. 

• Utilize prescribed fire, herbicide application, and mechanical vegetation management. 

• Allow and assist minimal scientific evaluations of selected management activities. 
70 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Managed Wetlands 

Objective: Provide about 1,903 acres of managed wetlands continuously for a variety of wildlife, 

1,200 acres of which will be managed to provide high quality moist soil habitat for the benefit of 

waterfowl, marsh birds, and shorebirds. 

Discussion: This alternative is an improvement on the current management because it provides for an 

increase in acreage from 900 to 1,200 acres and evaluations of vegetation production annually. 

Strategies: 

• Manage water levels and vegetation to provide optimum conditions for waterfowl and marsh birds. 

• Manage headlands to provide tall native grass habitat for marsh birds. 

• Monitor vegetation annually to evaluate the effectiveness of water and vegetation management. 

• Allow and assist evaluations of vegetation production annually. 

Cropland 

Objective: Manage 3,481 acres of cropland continuously, 1,500 acres of which will be managed to 

produce food for wintering waterfowl, black bear, red wolf, and other wildlife; and 1,500 acres of 

which will be managed as filter strips to effect water quality and to provide habitat for grassland birds, 

ground-nesting birds, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the survival and growth of planted hardwoods in the cropland. This monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on cropland. The filter strips are 75 feet on either side of 

150-foot-wide crop fields on a landscape with ditches 300 feet apart. Tundra swans seem to be 

reluctant to feed in the relatively narrow 150-foot-wide fields. Revised recommendations for filter strip 

widths will allow their narrowing to 25 feet on either side of a 250-foot crop field. 

Strategies: 

• Allow and assist evaluations of vegetation production annually. 

• Convert 15 acres of cropland annually to nonalluvial hardwoods to provide corridors and 

habitat for a variety of wildlife. 

• Monitor survival and growth of planted hardwoods annually. 

• Evaluate the use of crop fields by tundra swans. 

• Consider making filter strips more narrow and crop fields wider when the Conservation 

Reserve Program contract expires in fields close to moist soil areas. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Cypress-Gum Forest 

Objective: Protect, monitor, and inventory 7,515 acres of cypress-gum forest habitat continuously for 

black bear, colonial nesting birds, American bald eagle, land birds, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: The plan provides for the same activities as the current management does. The studies 

conducted by other agencies, organizations, and universities will help evaluate the impact of refuge 

management on cypress-gum forest. 

Strategy: 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Atlantic White Cedar Forest 

Objective: Protect 6,725 acres of white cedar habitat and manage selected areas continuously for 

land birds and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring and inventory of selected areas periodically and managing selected areas within the white 

cedar habitat type to ensure perpetuation of the habitat type. This monitoring will help evaluate the 

impact of refuge management on Atlantic white cedar forest. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor and inventory selected areas periodically. 

• Manage selected areas within the white cedar habitat type to ensure perpetuation of the 

habitat type. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 

Objective: Protect 24,468 acres of mixed pine/hardwood forest habitat continuously for red wolf, black 

bear, American bald eagle, land birds and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. This monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on the mixed pine/hardwood forest. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 
72 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Non-alluvial Hardwood Forest 

Objective: Protect 14,703 acres of non-alluvial hardwood forest habitat continuously for red wolf, 

black bear, American bald eagle, land birds, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

restoration of 400 acres and monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species 

present. The restoration will provide more habitat and the monitoring will help evaluate the impact of 

refuge management on non-alluvial hardwood forest. 

Strategies: 

• Restore 400 acres of cropland over fifteen years. 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. 

• Manage the forest canopy through timber harvest and thinning to provide an adequate understory 

for wildlife. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin 

Objective: Protect and manage 50,198 acres of pond pine/shrub pocosin habitat continuously for redcockaded woodpeckers, other land birds, red wolf, black bear, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. The monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on pond pine/shrub pocosin. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor forest health annually. 

• Treat infestations of pests and diseases as needed. 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for its value for the wildlife species present. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Pond Pine/Cane Pocosin 

Objective: Protect and manage 4,275 acres of pond pine/cane pocosin habitat continuously for redcockaded woodpeckers, other land birds, red wolf, black bear, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present and restoration of areas 

killed by the southern pine beetle. The monitoring will help evaluate the impact of refuge 

management on pond pine/cane pocosin. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

Strategies: 

• Monitor forest health annually. 

• Treat infestations of pests and diseases as needed. 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for its value for the wildlife species present 

• Restore areas killed by the southern pine beetle. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

High Shrub Pocosin 

Objective: Protect and manage 14,186 acres of high shrub pocosin habitat continuously for black 

bears and land birds. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. The monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on high shrub pocosin. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat for its value for the wildlife species present. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Low Shrub Pocosin 

Objective: Protect 4,210 acres of low shrub pocosin habitat continuously for black bear and land birds. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. The monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on low shrub pocosin. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for unique plant communities and its value for the 

wildlife species present. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Objective: Protect threatened and endangered plant species and associated habitats as identified. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the same activities as the current management does. The studies 

will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on threatened and endangered species. 
74 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategy: 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Hunting 

Objective: Provide annual opportunities for public hunting use days as follows: waterfowl, 350; other 

migratory birds, 125; upland game, 1,000; and big game, 2,400. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for more big 

game hunting, an evaluation of hunting with pursuit hounds, and increased information and law 

enforcement. 

Strategies: 

• Evaluate, develop and update refuge hunting regulations annually. 

• Evaluate the potential to provide bear hunting, wild turkey, and increased quail hunting 

opportunities. 

• Meet annually with hunters and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

representatives to discuss refuge hunting. 

• Provide opportunities for hunting with pursuit hounds in selected areas (approximately 83,000 acres). 

• Evaluate the potential to provide new opportunities for hunting with pursuit hounds on the west 

side of the refuge (Gum Forest Unit). 

• Evaluate the discontinuation of hunting with pursuit hounds east of U.S. 264, and the area 

north of U.S. 64 and east of Billy’s Ditch. 

• Provide opportunities for hunting with retrievers in selected areas (approximately 34,000 acres). 

• Provide opportunities for hunting without dogs on approximately 35,000 acres. Hunting 

without dogs is allowed on all areas open to hunting. 

• Improve quality through increased information and law enforcement. 

Fishing 

Objective: Provide access opportunities for 4,250 fishing visits annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for more 

visitors by providing more access on the refuge and improving maintenance of access areas. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Strategies: 

• Work with partners to maintain nine fishing and boating access areas on refuge and one 

universally accessible fishing platform around the refuge. 

• Improve and maintain parking and access roads for five fishing and boating access areas on refuge. 

• Disseminate fishing information via the refuge visitor center. 

Environmental Education 

Objective: Provide environmental education opportunities for 1,000 students per year on the refuge 

and 500 students per year off the refuge to meet demand. Provide environmental education 

opportunities for up to 35,000 additional students annually after refuge visitor center is completed. 

Discussion: This alternative is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a 100 

percent increase in visitation on the refuge and 100 percent increase off the refuge. The new visitor 

center will provide a valuable venue for programs and volunteers will be an important asset in conducting 

the programs. 

Strategies: 

• Train staff, college interns, work campers, and community volunteers to conduct education 

programs continuously. 

• Construct visitor center with space for environmental education programs. 

Interpretation 

Objective: Provide interpretation opportunities for 42,500 visitors, including staff/volunteer-conducted 

talks for 375 visitors, tours for 375 visitors, and demonstrations for 375 visitors; 6,250 kiosk visits; and 

29,375 visits on existing interpretive trails annually. Provide interpretive opportunities for 700,000–

800,000 annual visitors in a newly constructed visitor center. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a 25 

percent increase in visitation. This increase in planned capacity would meet the current demand for 

interpretive programs. The new visitor center and increased trail maintenance will be valuable assets 

to facilitate the increased capacity. 

Strategies: 

• Train staff, college interns, work campers, and community volunteers to conduct education 

programs continuously. 

• Improve interpretive programming and facilities (e.g., trails, kiosks, signage, and brochures) 

continuously. 

• Construct visitor center to provide interpretive opportunities. 
76 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Wildlife Observation 

Objective: Provide 45–50 quality guided observation tours annually, averaging 8 people each to meet 

current levels of use. Maintain observation facilities for 12,500 annual visits. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a 25 percent 

increase in observation opportunities by providing more tours and maintaining access areas better. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain roads, trails, boardwalks, and platforms for access to wildlife observation 

opportunities continuously. 

• Evaluate the need for additional quality, low impact wildlife observation opportunities 

continuously. 

• Consider and manage means and methods of access (e.g., horseback riding, canoeing, 

kayaking, and bicycling) for wildlife observation continuously. 

Wildlife Photography 

Objective: Provide quality opportunities and facilities for wildlife photography sufficient for 2,400 visits 

annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a 20 

percent increase in photography opportunities by maintaining access areas better. 

Strategy: 

• Maintain roads, trails, boardwalks, and platforms for access to wildlife photography 

opportunities continuously. 

Public Use Facilities 

Objective: Construct and operate visitor center to provide education and interpretation for Alligator 

River and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuges. 

Discussion: The refuge currently has no central meeting place for staff, volunteers, and visitors. The 

entire refuge is wetlands and development on the refuge is prohibited. The Service owns land in 

Manteo on Roanoke Island adjacent to the National Park Service headquarters and Fort Raleigh 

Historic Site. Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks just east of Manteo. A visitor center built in 

Manteo will serve as a gateway to refuges and other public lands in eastern North Carolina. 

Strategies: 

• Secure funding for the visitor center. 

• Contact the engineering and contracting sections in the Service’s regional office for assistance 

in design, contracting, and construction inspection. 

• Contact the regional archeologist for a cultural resources investigation. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Nonwildlife-dependent Public Uses 

Objective: Evaluate nonwildlife-dependent public uses on a monthly and case-by-case basis; regulate the 

numbers for certain tolerated uses to limit impacts; prohibit visits for recreational uses that are not feasible. 

Discussion: This plan proposes to improve on the status quo by actively enforcing refuge regulations 

with a refuge law enforcement officer. The refuge is located in a heavily used tourist area on the way 

to the Outer Banks. Visitors are not necessarily aware of the subtle differences between permitted 

recreational uses on the refuge and state or national parks. There is a practical limit as to how much 

signage the refuge can erect and how effective the signage is, and how many of the nonwildlifedependent recreational uses the refuge staff can prevent. The staff must prohibit noncompatible 

uses and enforce regulations efficiently. There are several traditional noncommercial uses of the 

refuge that the refuge allows by special use permit, including: gathering firewood, cutting small 

diameter poles for pound nets, and cutting big cordgrass to cover duck blinds. 

Strategies: 

• Utilize management and biological staff to evaluate requests for uses. 

• Enforce regulations with a full-time law enforcement officer. 

Outreach 

Objective: Maintain communication with media, conservation organizations, elected officials, local 

communities, and other potential supporters to provide basic and detailed refuge information on 

programs, resources, management, and regulations to approximately ten million people continuously. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for an 

increase in the outreach audience and improvement in the quality of outreach tools. The plan 

provides for an extensive use of the Internet as an outreach tool. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain inventory of and distribute refuge brochures, tear sheets, and fact sheets 

continuously. 

• Develop press releases to publicize and report refuge activities and accomplishments as they 

are warranted. 

• Maintain the refuge’s web site continuously. 

• Maintain proactive monthly schedule of outreach contacts on the Internet. 

Refuge Support 

Objective: Work formally with the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society and informally with other groups to 

provide approximately $150,000 annually to support refuge programs and facilities. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a larger 

fund-raising effort by the refuge’s Friends Group and the development of additional support groups. 

The refuge’s new visitor center will play a substantial role in attracting additional refuge support. 
78 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

• Identify refuge need for additional organizational support and activity; develop additional 

support groups as needed. 

• Work formally and informally with advocacy groups. 

Special Events 

Objective: Work with others to plan, coordinate, and execute two major and four minor quality special 

events annually in eastern North Carolina for 3,000 people. 

Discussion: This plan provides for a 50 percent increase in special event participation. These events 

attract a new and different audience to the refuge and introduce them to the Service and the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Establish and maintain relationships with other agencies and organizations to conduct special 

events. 

• Publicize events with fliers and personal contacts, in the print media, and on the Internet. 

Visitor Protection 

Objective: Identify safety hazards and ensure the safety of visitors by eliminating hazards; controlling 

access into hazardous areas; and informing visitors of potential hazards. 

Discussion: This plan improves on the current management. It improves visitor protection by 

providing for patrols by the refuge law enforcement officer frequently enough to warn visitors of 

hazards. It provides for additional staff to identify hazards and react to them appropriately. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain an awareness of potential safety hazards and inform the proper staff when hazards 

are reported or discovered. 

• Notify the public of safety hazards with signs and printed material. 

• Conduct law enforcement patrols on a regular basis. 

Volunteer Program 

Objective: Recruit, train, and coordinate volunteers to donate 12,500 hours of service annually to 

support and enhance designated refuge programs. 

Discussion: This plan proposes a 25 percent increase over the current level of management. Volunteers 

are critically important to the public use, biological, and maintenance programs on the refuge. College 

interns, work campers, and community volunteers all contribute to the volunteer effort. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

Strategies: 

• Recruit volunteers from the local community, conservation and youth organizations, 

universities, work camper news, and the Internet. 

• Utilize the public use staff to coordinate the volunteers. 

• Utilize the appropriate staff to train and supervise volunteers engaged in support of the public 

use, biological, and maintenance programs. 

Commercial Ecotours 

Objective: Allow permitted, quality, guided paddling ecotours and evaluate impacts on an annual basis. 

Discussion: This plan maintains the current management by evaluating permits as applications are 

received and evaluating the impacts of the ecotour activity. 

Strategies: 

• Review applications for permits for paddling ecotours and grant permits to the most qualified 

applicants. 

• Consider applications for permits for other ecotour opportunities. 

• Provide training and information to permitees to ensure that visitors are aware of the refuge 

and its mission. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Communication Towers 

Objective: Minimize impacts to refuge resources by providing review and comment on all 

communication tower projects that are proposed. 

Discussion: This plan is the same as the current level of management. Communication towers pose 

threats to migrating birds as they fly at night and strike the towers, often in large flocks. There is only 

one tower on the refuge, but there are great demands to erect more towers in the area in which the 

refuge is located. This plan provides for additional staff to assist with reviewing permits and 

coordinating with the operators of towers. 

Strategy: 

• Avoid adverse impacts to refuge resources by developing special use conditions for 

communication tower construction and maintenance proposals. 

Utility Line and Highway Corridors 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by coordinating on development and maintenance of 

corridors continuously. 
80 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: This plan is the same as the current level of management. The State of North Carolina 

and the local electric cooperative have rights-of-way through the refuge. These rights-of-way are 

subject to conditions that ensure compatibility with the refuge purposes. The staff reviews proposals 

to move those rights-of-way and acquire new rights-of-way. At the present time, the North Carolina 

Department of Transportation is beginning the planning process for upgrading U.S. Highway 64 from 

a two-lane to a four-lane system. It is expected that this project will require some new right-of-way for 

the highway and the adjacent utility transmission line. 

Strategies: 

• Minimize impacts to refuge resources by providing review and comment on all other corridor 

projects that are proposed. 

• Avoid adverse impacts to refuge resources by developing terms and conditions to ensure the 

compatibility of corridor construction and maintenance proposals. 

Cultural Resources 

Objective: Avoid all impacts to cultural resources by following the policies and procedures in the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Manual continuously. 

Discussion: This plan is the same as the current level of management. The Historic Preservation Act 

mandates that the Service protect cultural resources on the refuge. There have been no 

comprehensive cultural resources studies of the refuge. The staff will refer all land-disturbing 

activities to the Service’s Regional Office. 

Strategies: 

• Evaluate all proposed external projects and coordinate with the Regional Office within thirty 

days of receiving a proposal. 

• Avoid all impacts to cultural resources by coordinating all internal projects with the Regional 

Office within thirty days of receiving funds. 

• Manage and limit impacts to identified cultural resources by restricting access to or regulating 

activities in the vicinity of cultural resources. 

• Document above-ground resources as they are discovered or as lands are acquired and 

stabilize the resources. 

Inholdings 

Objective: Monitor at least annually, the use, management, and potential future development of 

approximately 1,200 acres of refuge inholdings. 

Discussion: This plan is the same as the current level of management. Activities in inholdings have 

the potential to cause negative impacts on refuge resources. Activities on the refuge, such as 

prescribed burning and wetland restoration, have the potential to cause negative impacts in 

inholdings. The refuge works cooperatively with the owners of the inholdings to minimize conflicts. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

Strategies: 

• Enhance refuge resources and programs by coordinating specific inholder activities on a 

case-by-case basis. 

• Limit impacts to refuge resources by developing special use conditions for permitted inholder 

activities on the refuge. 

Interagency Coordination and Cooperative Agreements 

Objective: Facilitate and enhance refuge programs and protect refuge resources by coordinating with 

local, state, federal, public, and private agencies continuously. 

Discussion: This plan improves on management beyond the current level. The management of 

Alligator River Refuge requires an extraordinary amount of coordination because the Dare County 

Bombing Range, Dare County Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, and three small 

communities are located within the refuge, and two federal highways run through it. The plan 

provides for additional staff to coordinate with other agencies and organizations. 

Strategies: 

• Coordinate with local, state, federal, public, and private agencies at least 25 times annually. 

• Represent the Service throughout the year at a minimum of 25 local meetings, 25 state meetings, 5 

national meetings, 10 public meetings, and 5 meetings with private organizations annually. 

• Coordinate management programs with the Dare County Bombing Range; Dare County; 

North Carolina Department of Transportation; North Carolina Forest Service; and North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Review and revise existing cooperative 

agreements by meeting formally at least once per year. 

• Enhance refuge programs and resources by developing or maintaining cooperative 

agreements with other local, state, and federal agencies annually. 

Land Protection 

Objective: Acquire an estimated 1,200 acres of inholdings within the refuge, as they become available 

from willing sellers. Acquire an estimated 47,200 acres from the Dare County Bombing Range, as they 

become available. Acquire 39,140 acres of private land, as it becomes available from willing sellers. 

Discussion: The refuge has an approved acquisition boundary 87,540 acres beyond the current 

refuge ownership. The refuge will maintain contact with the landowners within the boundary, pursue 

acquisition from willing sellers, and post and maintain the land that is acquired. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain contact with owners of land within the approved acquisition boundary. 

• Survey and post boundaries, suppress wildfires, conduct prescribed burns, perform law 

enforcement, and incorporate the areas into existing management programs. 
82 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Law Enforcement 

Objective: Ensure public safety and protect refuge resources by encouraging voluntary compliance 

and enforcing refuge regulations as necessary. 

Discussion: This plan improves on the current management by encouraging voluntary compliance 

and developing cooperative agreements. 

Strategies: 

• Provide assistance to and coordinate with appropriate local, state, and federal law 

enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal laws. 

• Develop cooperative agreements with local and state law enforcement agencies. 

Navigable Waters 

Objective: Identify and manage 1,127 acres of selected navigable waters over which the refuge 

requires limited regulatory control to ensure protection of refuge resources. 

Discussion: There are lakes, streams, bays, and inlets on and adjacent to the refuge that are waters of 

the State of North Carolina, but are in close proximity to refuge lands. Enforcement of state laws on these 

waters would be facilitated if the refuge law enforcement officers had the authority to enforce those laws. 

This plan proposes to develop an agreement to allow cooperative management of those waters. 

Strategies: 

• Identify selected navigable waters (1,127 acres) over which the refuge requires limited 

regulatory control to ensure protection of refuge resources. 

• Consult with the state to establish a cooperative management agreement to regulate certain 

activities within selected waters. 

• Coordinate selection of waters with Fish and Wildlife Service coordinating refuge manager. 

Permits 

Objective: Limit impacts to or enhance refuge resources annually by evaluating approximately 60 use 

proposals on a case-by-case basis. 

Discussion: This plan improves management beyond current levels. It increases the capacity for permit 

review from 40 proposals in the status quo to 60 proposals. Visitors and researchers apply for permits to 

engage in recreation activities or perform research on the refuge. The staff reviews the permits and 

establishes and enforces conditions under which the applicants may engage in the activity. The plan 

adds staff to assist in permit review and development and monitoring of permit conditions. There are 

several traditional noncommercial uses that the refuge allows by special use permit, including the 

gathering of firewood; cutting small-diameter poles for pound nets; cutting big cordgrass to cover duck 

blinds; gigging frogs; and mooring small commercial fishing boats. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Strategy: 

• Protect refuge resources annually by developing special conditions for those permitted uses 

that are compatible. 

Pest and Exotic Animals 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by monitoring, controlling, or eradicating pest animals as 

necessary. 

Discussion: This plan maintains the current level of management. Pest animals, particularly feral cats 

and dogs, are a threat to wildlife populations. 

Strategies: 

• Encourage the refuge staff to be vigilant of pest animals continuously. 

• Monitor populations of pest animals systematically and control them as necessary. 

Pest and Exotic Plants 

Objective: Monitor the refuge for pest plants and control and eradicate approximately 75 acres of pest 

plants per year in moist soil units, public use trails, and ditch banks and road shoulders in the farm unit. 

Discussion: This plan maintains the current level of management. Pest plants, particularly common 

reed (Phragmites australis) and alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), are a threat to the 

refuge’s natural vegetative communities. The refuge staff is currently managing common reed with 

herbicides, and pest plants on roadsides and in the vicinity of the maintenance shop with mowing. 

Strategies: 

• Document the distribution of and assess the impacts of pest plants on native plant 

communities by monitoring the entire refuge for pest plants. 

• Improve and limit impacts to native plant communities by managing pest plants. 

• Control 75 acres of common reed. 

Significant Natural Heritage Areas 

Objective: Manage significant natural heritage areas to maintain the natural vegetative communities. 

Discussion: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has designated the majority of the refuge 

as a significant natural heritage area in recognition of the integrity of the vegetative communities. 

The plan proposes to maintain the current level of management by conducting prescribed burning of 

fire-dependent communities at natural frequencies. 

Strategy: 

• Conduct prescribed burning of fire-dependent plant communities at natural frequencies to 

maintain the natural plant communities. 
84 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Water Quality 

Objective: Monitor the water quality of pump discharges on the refuge and of runoff from the Dare 

County Construction and Demolition Landfill annually. 

Discussion: The plan improves the management over the current level. Measuring the water quality 

of pump discharges annually will keep the staff aware of potential pollution from refuge ditches and 

moist soil units. 

Strategy: 

• Measure dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, conductivity, and temperature annually. 

Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention 

Objective: Manage refuge resources to minimize the potential for wildlife disease continuously. 

Discussion: This plan maintains the current level of management. There have not been any 

significant incidences of wildlife disease on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor for outbreaks continuously. 

• Minimize losses from disease outbreaks continuously. 

• Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies as necessary to monitor and minimize 

wildlife disease. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Capital Property Management 

Objective: Use increased level of resources to effectively operate, maintain, and dispose of capital 

property; and acquire minimum equipment necessary to support refuge programs. 

Discussion: This plan maintains the current level of capital management. The addition of a refuge 

operations specialist and computer specialist will increase the refuge’s capability to manage capital property. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct one capital property inventory annually. 

• Manage capital property according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 

Financial Management 

Objective: Manage budget and develop and administer contracts continuously in accordance with 

Fish and Wildlife Service policy. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Discussion: This plan maintains the current level of financial management. 

Strategies: 

• Develop annual and long-term budgets. 

• Develop and execute contracts. 

• Process travel vouchers. 

• Maintain Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System 

(MMS) databases by adding new needs and deleting funded projects. 

• Apply for flex funding and other grants. 

Office Space and Utilities 

Objective: Coordinate with the General Services Administration to provide adequate office space and 

parking facilities in Manteo for the staff levels prescribed in this plan. 

Discussion: The refuge headquarters is currently in leased office space that has the staff fragmented 

and cramped. The plan provides for the Service to construct a new office on Service-owned land in 

Manteo, across the street from the National Park Service headquarters and Fort Raleigh Historic Site. 

Strategies: 

• Provide fuel, office supplies, and utilities for refuge operations and staff continuously. 

• Manage office space according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual continuously. 

• Construct a new headquarters and visitor center on property in Manteo currently owned by the 

Service. 

Personnel Management 

Objective: Hire and manage minimum levels of staff (24.75 full-time equivalents) to meet refuge 

objectives at approved full-time equivalent levels. 

Discussion: This plan maintains the current level of personnel management and adds five positions to 

better meet the goals, objectives, and strategies in the plan. 

Strategies: 

• Recognize employee performance annually through the employee incentive program. 

• Provide the minimum 40-hour staff training opportunity for professional, technical, and 

leadership development goals. 

• Manage personnel according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 
86 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Real Property Management 

Objective: Use the level of funding and staff in this plan to maintain existing buildings, grounds, 

firebreaks, structures, roads, and equipment to protect the health and safety of the refuge staff and 

public continuously. 

Discussion: The refuge maintains a number of buildings, pumps, water control structures, and parking 

lots in addition to 100 miles of gravel roads. This plan maintains the current level of management of 

those facilities and adds a Service-owned office and visitor center in Manteo. 

Strategies: 

• Evaluate the need for, acquire, and maintain additional buildings, structures, and equipment to 

support refuge programs continuously. 

• Maintain the quality, quantity, and extent of current public use facilities and those specified in 

approved public use plans continuously. 

• Conduct one real property inventory annually. 

• Manage real property according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual continuously.

All Risk Management 

Objective: Prepare for and respond to risks present on the refuge daily and risks brought by natural 

disasters continuously. 

Discussion: The management of 152,260 acres of land involves the management of inherent risks of 

having employees and visitors working and recreating on the land. The refuge is also subject to 

natural disasters in the form of wildfires, hurricanes, and severe storms. This plan maintains the 

current level of management. 

Strategies: 

• Respond to wildfires on a case-by-case basis following current approved plan. 

• Respond to storms on a case-by-case basis. 

• Respond to catastrophes on a case-by-case basis. 

• Assess risk to human health and safety and provide minimal property protection. 

• Assess facility designs for surviving risk events. 

• Evaluate and determine mitigation measures. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter outlines the staff and activities that will execute the strategies specified in Chapter IV 

and the new staff, budget, equipment, and facilities that are needed. The priorities assigned to the 

Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) projects in 

Appendix VIII determine the priorities of the strategies. There is no direct correlation between a 

specific position, piece of equipment, or facility and a specific strategy because any one position, 

piece of equipment, or facility executes more than a single strategy. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

The proposed projects are summarized in Tables 14–18. 

Table 14. Projects supporting Wildlife Strategies. 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Protect wildlife. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Hire new law enforcement officer 

(RONS 00098). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

refuge manager, assistant manager, administrative 

officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment to 

survey and protect wildlife. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 
88 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 15. Projects supporting Habitat Strategies. 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Conduct prescribed burning. Use existing fire management officer, wildlife 

biologist, forestry technicians, and engineering 

equipment operators. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Protect habitat. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Hire new law enforcement officer 

(RONS 00098). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

refuge manager, assistant manager, administrative 

officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

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). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Table 16. Projects supporting Public Use Strategies. 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Plan, design, and conduct programs and 

outreach. 

Use existing park rangers. 

Recruit, hire, and train new park rangers 

Maintain education, interpretation, wildlife 

observation, and wildlife photography 

facilities. 

Use existing maintenance staff and volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, and train two new maintenance 

workers (RONS 97018 and 00092) and a heavy 

mobile equipment mechanic (RONS 00096). 

Protect visitors. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Recruit, hire, and train new law enforcement officer 

(RONS 00098). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

refuge manager, assistant manager, administrative 

officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

assistant manager, and park rangers. 

Recruit, hire, and train new park rangers. 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment to 

maintain facilities as necessary. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace parking lots, kiosks, boat ramp, and boat 

dock (various MMS projects). 
90 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 17. Projects supporting Resource Protection Strategies. 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel 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 project leader, deputy project 

leader, assistant manager, and wildlife 

biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001), forester (RONS 

00003), and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing maintenance staff and 

volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, and train two new maintenance 

workers (RONS 97018 and 00092) and a 

heavy mobile equipment mechanic (RONS 

00096). 

Enforce regulations. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Hire new law enforcement officer 

(RONS 00098). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project 

leader, refuge manager, assistant manager, 

administrative officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing project leader, deputy project 

leader, assistant manager, and wildlife 

biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001), forester (RONS 

00003), and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

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). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

Table 18. Projects supporting Refuge Administration Strategies. 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

refuge manager, assistant manager, administrative 

officer, and office assistant. Recruit, hire, and train 

new refuge operations specialist (RONS 02001). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing maintenance staff and volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, and train two new maintenance 

workers (RONS 97018 and 00092) and a heavy 

mobile equipment mechanic (RONS 00096). 

Recruit, hire, and train new computer specialist 

(RONS 00094). 

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). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

The Service administers Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge from an office in Manteo, North 

Carolina, ten miles east of the refuge’s eastern boundary. Construction on the refuge is prohibited 

because the entire refuge is wetland. The staff stores the refuge’s equipment on a site that previous 

owners had developed. The Service uses staff from the Manteo office and equipment from the 

refuge to also manage the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge that is fifteen miles east of Manteo. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Currently, the Service has approved a staff of 25 permanent positions to serve the Alligator River and 

Pea Island national wildlife refuges. Of the 25 positions, 17.8 full-time equivalents are spent on 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Of the 25 positions, nine are funded for fire management. 

To complete the extensive wildlife habitat management and restoration projects and conduct the 

necessary inventorying, monitoring, and mapping activities, the refuge requires funding to maintain and 

replace equipment and facilities, perform studies, and more staff to administer the refuge programs. 

The locations of the proposed public use facilities are shown on Figure 7. The proposed staffing plan 

(Table 19) outlines a staff of 39 employees (24.75 full-time equivalent positions dedicated to Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge) that would enable the refuge to achieve its plan objectives and 

strategies within a reasonable time. The annual cost of implementing the plan, including salaries and 

benefits, would be $1,896,000. 
92 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7. Proposed visitor facilities for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

Table 19. Proposed staffing plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Position Status 

Percent 

of Time on Alligator 

River 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-14* PFT 40 

Deputy Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13* PFT 70 

Assistant Refuge Manager, GS-0485-12* PFT 75 

Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-0485-09** PFT 50 

Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-0485-09** PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-12* PFT 40 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-11** PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-07** PFT 55 

Forester, GS-0460-11** PFT 80 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-12* PFT 40 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-11** PFT 0 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-09* PFT 10 

Park Ranger (Volunteer Coordinator), GS-0025-09** PFT 40 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-09* PFT 70 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-07** PFT 50 

Computer Specialist, GS-0???-11** PFT 90 

Administrative Officer, GS-0341-09* PFT 75 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07* PPT 75 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-07* PFT 50 

Forestry Technician, GS-0462-07* PFT 50 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-05* TEMP 10 

Secretary, GS-0318-05* TERM 75 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-05* TEMP 50 

Student Intern, GS-0499-04* SCEP 50 

Engineering Equipment. Operator Supervisor, WS-5716-09* PFT 75 

Heavy Mobile Equipment Mechanic, WG-5716-10** PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09* PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09* PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-08* PFT 90 

Automotive Worker, WG-5823-08* PFT 90 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-08** PFT 50 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-05** PFT 100 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-06* TERM 30 
94 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Position Status 

Percent 

of Time on Alligator 

River 

Fire Management Program 

Fire Management Officer, GS-0460-12* PFT 50 

Fire Management Officer (Wildland Urban Interface), 

GS-0401-11* 

PFT 40 

Prescribed Fire Specialist, GS-0401-07* PFT 40 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-08* PFT 80 

Forestry Technician (Fire Program Technician) (Fire), 

GS-0462-07** 

PFT 100 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-06* PFT 80 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-04* PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator (Fire), WG-5716-08* PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator (Fire), WG-5716-08* PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator (Fire), WG-5716-08* PFT 80 

Red Wolf Program 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-13* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-11* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-07* TERM 0 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-07* PFT 0 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07* TERM 0 

PFT = Permanent Full Time employee 

TERM = Term Employee (up to four years) 

TEMP = Temporary Employee (not to exceed one year) 

SCEP = Student Cooperative Education Program 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

VOLUNTEERS 

The refuge depends on volunteers extensively, especially for its visitor services programs. 

Volunteers currently contribute 10,000 staff hours; this plan anticipates contributions of 12,000 hours. 

The refuge utilizes volunteers from the community, college interns, and work campers. The college 

interns rotate through work assignments in the visitor services, biology, and maintenance programs. 

The staff recruits work campers for the skills the refuge needs. The refuge provides quarters for 

college interns and pads for recreational vehicles for the work campers. 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this comprehensive conservation plan 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, the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, The Nature Conservancy, 

Ducks Unlimited, and National Audubon Society. At the local government level, the refuge has 

already established partnerships with Dare County and the North Carolina Division of Water 

Resources for snagging logs from creek channels on the refuge after Hurricane Isabel. 

The refuge’s volunteer program and the 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 will take the opportunities to expand the volunteer program and 

develop partnerships. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the management direction of the 

refuge. Before the staff can implement some of the strategies and projects, they must prepare or update 

detailed step-down management plans. To assist in preparing and implementing the step-down plans, 

the refuge staff will develop partnerships with local agencies and organizations. The staff will develop 

these plans in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the identification 

and evaluation of alternatives and public review and comment prior to their implementation. 

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 land birds, neotropical passerines, and 

waterfowl); listed species (federal and state threatened and endangered species and species of 

concern); key resident species; and monitor population trends. 

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 type on the refuge and an analysis of the potential effects of global climate change 

on that habitat type. The staff will develop procedures, techniques, strategies, and timetables for 

achieving desired future conditions into an overall plan. 

Moist Soil/Water Management Plan (Update): This plan will describe the strategies and procedures 

(timing and duration of flooding and disturbance) for manipulating the refuge’s water management 

units to meet habitat management objectives. 
96 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Marsh Management Plan (Develop): This plan will describe strategies for meeting the refuge’s 

marsh management objectives. The plan will also address scrub/shrub habitat management. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Fire Management Plan (Update): This plan will describe wildfire and prescribed fire management 

techniques that the staff will employ on the refuge. The wildlife habitat objectives will guide planning 

for prescribed burning. Wildfire control descriptions will include initial attack strategies and 

cooperative agreements with other agencies. 

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 universal accessibility for visitors with disabilities. The 

environmental education, fishing, hunting, and sign plans will be sections of this plan. 

Environmental Education Plan (Develop): This plan will reflect the objectives and strategies of the 

comprehensive conservation plan and address environmental education guidelines following Service 

standards. 

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, 

universal accessibility for anglers with disabilities, facilities needed, and refuge-specific regulations. 

Hunting Plan (Update): This plan, as part of the Visitor Services Plan, will address specific aspects 

of the refuge’s hunting program. It will define season structures, area designations, methods, access, 

universal accessibility for hunters with disabilities, facilities needed, and refuge-specific regulations. 

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. 

Law Enforcement Plan (Update): This plan will provide a reference to station policies, procedures, 

priorities, and programs concerning law enforcement. 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources under 

which the staff utilizes the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information to evaluate 

and change practices. More specifically, adaptive management is a process by which projects are 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

implemented within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions and 

assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, the staff would adopt specific survey, inventory, and monitoring 

protocols for the refuge. They would evaluate habitat management strategies systematically to 

determine management effects on wildlife populations. They would use the information 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 nontarget species and/or communities, then the refuge 

would alter its management projects. Subsequently, the staff would revise the refuge’s 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

The Service would describe specific monitoring and evaluation activities in the step-down 

management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The staff will review this comprehensive conservation plan annually to determine the need for 

revision. A revision would occur if and when substantial information becomes available, such as a 

change in ecological conditions or when the Service plans a major refuge expansion. The staff would 

augment the plan 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 comprehensive 

conservation plan and the step-down management plans would be subject to public review and 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 
98 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 99

APPENDICES 

Appendix I. Glossary 

Adaptive Management A process in which projects are implemented within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions outlined within the comprehensive conservation 

plan. The analysis of the outcome of project implementation 

helps managers determine whether current management should 

continue as is or whether it should be modified to achieve 

desired conditions. 

Alternative Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge 

purposes, goals, and objectives and contributing to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. A reasonable way to fix the identified 

problem or satisfy the stated need. 

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. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes.

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). 

Categorical Exclusion A category of actions that do 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 of 1969. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 
100 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge 

Manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the 

fulfillment of the mission or the purposes of the refuge. 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 the 

refuge; provides long-range guidance and management 

direction for the Refuge Manager to accomplish the purposes, 

goals, and objectives of the refuge; and contributes to the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and meets 

relevant mandates. 

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 agreement 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 Resources The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people of 

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 sometime 

during the year. 

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 systemwide 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. 
Appendices 101

Environmental Health 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. 

Even-aged Forests Forests that are composed of trees with a time span of less than 

20 years between oldest and youngest individuals. 

Endangered Species 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. 

Endemic Species Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and 

whose distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environmental Assessment A concise 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 a finding of no 

significant impact. 

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 reminder of the owner’s life). 

Finding of No Significant Impact A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental 

assessment, which 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. 
102 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Floodplain Woods Bottomland hardwood forests. Consists of hardwoods (oldgrowth and midsuccession-aged timber) and cypress tupelo 

stands found on low ridges that drain slowly and subject to 

flooding. Species include overcup, willow, and water oaks, 

sweetgum, and green ash. Old-growth typically exceeds 120 

years of age. Red oaks were removed in the 1940s. 

Midsuccession-aged timber is 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. 

Goal Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired 

future conditions that convey a purpose but does not define 

measurable units. 

Geographic Information System A computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data. 

Ground Story (flora) Vascular plants less than one meter in height, excluding tree 

seedlings. 

Herbaceous Wetland Annually or seasonally inundated with vegetation consisting 

primarily of grasses, sedges, rushes, and cattail. 

Historic Conditions 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. 

Habitat The place where an organism lives. The existing environmental 

conditions required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. 

Indicator Species A species of plant or animal that is assumed to be sensitive to 

habitat changes and represents the needs of a larger group of 

species. 

Inholding Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national wildlife 

refuge. 

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. 

Migratory The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Monitoring The process of collecting information to track changes of 

selected parameters over time. 
Appendices 103

National Environmental Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

Policy Act environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the 

planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate this Act with other planning requirements, and 

prepare appropriate policy documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision-making.

National Wildlife Refuge A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

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, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl 

production areas. 

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. 

Objective A concise quantitative (where possible) target statement of what 

will be achieved. Objectives are derived from goals and provide 

the basis for determining management strategies. Objectives 

should be attainable and time-specific. 

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 a 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. 

Preferred Alternative 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. 

Refuge Operating Needs System 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. 
104 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Purposes 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 

subunit. 

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 the birth rate is 

generally less than the death rate and the population density is 

maintained by immigrants from source populations. 

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 Plans Step-down management plans provide the details necessary to 

implement management strategies and projects identified in the 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Strategy A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, 

tools, and techniques used to meet unit objectives. 

Threatened Species 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. 

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. 

Understory Any vegetation with canopy below or closer to the ground than 

canopies of other plants. 

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 long-term survival or 

reproduction. 
Appendices 105

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. 
106 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 107

Appendix II. References and Literature Cited 

Allen, C., M. Corcoran, L. McDade, J. Travis and D. Wheeler. 1979. An ecological survey of selected 

inland Dare County sites, with evaluation for conservation potential. Unpublished report. 

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of 

Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 53 pp. 

Allen, T. G. 1998. Black Bear Population Dynamics and Habitat Use in Coastal North Carolina. MS 

Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 131 pp. 

Ash, A., C. McDonald, E. Kane and C. Pories. 1983. Natural and Modified Pocosins: Literature 

Synthesis and Management Options. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Biological Services. FWS/OBS/04. 165 pp. 

Baker, W. and W. Smith. 1965. Survey and Classification of the Scuppernong-Alligator Rivers and 

Tributaries, North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland 

Fisheries. 15 pp. + tables and appendices. 

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, North Carolina. 

168 pp. 

Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. 544 pp. 

Braswell, A. L. and J. E. Wiley. 1982. Preliminary survey of the amphibians and reptiles of First 

Colony Firm's land on mainland Dare County. Pages 62–95 in E. Potter, ed., A Survey of the 

Vertebrate Fauna of Mainland Dare County, North Carolina. North Carolina Biological Survey, 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 190 pp. 

Clark, M. K., D. S. Lee, and J. B. Funderburg, Jr. 1985. The mammal fauna of Carolina bays, 

pocosins, and associated communities in North Carolina. Brimleyana No. 11:1-38. 

Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services 

FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. 

Davidson, W. R. 1992. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Deer Herd Health Check. 

Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Athens, Georgia. 

Davidson, W. R. 1998. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Deer Herd Health Check. 

Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Athens, Georgia. 

Eubanks, T., P. Kerlinger and R.H. Payne. 1993. High Island, Texas: A case study in avitourism. 

Birding 25(6):415-420). 

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. 
108 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Folta, J. E. 1998. Reproduction, Survival, and Denning Ecology of Black Bears on the Dare County 

Peninsula, North Carolina. MS Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 120 pp. 

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: 1950s to 1970s. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 32 pp. 

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, ed., Waterfowl in Winter. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Halls, L. K. 1984. White-tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. 870 pp. 

Halls, L. K. and T. H. Ripley. 1961. Deer Browse Plants of Southern Forests. U.S. Forest Service, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 78 pp. 

Hamel, P. B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Hamilton, R. J. 1978. Ecology of the Black Bear in Southeastern North Carolina. MS Thesis, 

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 

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. 

Hardy, D. M. 1974. Habitat Requirements of the Black Bear in Dare County, North Carolina. MS 

Thesis, Virginia Technical Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 121 pp. 

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. University of North Carolina Sea Grant College, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

UNC-SG-5-02. 129 pp. 

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. 

Finch and P. W. Stangel, eds., Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds.

U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-229, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Hunter, W. C., L. H. Peoples and J. A. Collazo. 2001. South Atlantic Coastal Plain Partners in Flight 

Bird Conservation Plan. Partners in Flight, www.partnersinflight.org. 

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. Special 

Science Report 36. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community 

Development, Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City. 204 pp. 
Appendices 109

Kerlinger, P. 1994. The Economic Impact of Birding Ecotourism on Communities Surrounding Eight 

National Wildlife Refuges. Washington, DC: National Fish and Wildlife Association. 

Kerlinger, P. 1999. Birding Tourism and Dauphin Island. 

Landers, J. L., R. J. Hamilton, A. S. Johnson, and R. L. Marchinton. 1979. Foods and habitat of 

black bears in southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(l): 143-153. 

Lee, D. S., M. K. Clark, and J. B. Funderburg, Jr. 1982. 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. North Carolina Biological Survey, 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Mathis, M. A. and J. J. Crow. 2000. The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological 

Symposium. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Division of Archives and History. 

McDonald, C. B., A. N. Ash and E. S. Kane. 1983. Pocosins: A Changing Wetland Resource. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Survey 

FWS/OBS-83/32. 22 pp. 

Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New 

York, New York. 722 pp. 

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, Pennsylvania. 

National Audubon Society. 1998. Campaign on HR 3267. National Audubon Society, New York, 

New York. 

Nettles, V. V. 1985. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Deer Herd Health Check. Southeastern 

Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Athens, Georgia. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Wildlife-associated Recreation on the 

New Jersey Delaware Bayshore. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, 

Trenton, New Jersey. 

Noffsinger, R. E., R. W. Laney, A. M. Nichols, D. L. Stewart and D. W. Steffeck. 1984. Prulean 

Farms, Inc.: A Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 200 pp. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2002. Largest Employers by County. 

www.ncesc.com. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2004. Unemployment Rates by County. 

www.ncesc.com. 

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 2001. North Carolina Coastal Plain Paddle Trails 

Guide. North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Seven Springs, North Carolina. 
110 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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. 

Potter, E. F. 1982a. Wintering and breeding birds of pocosins and adjacent agricultural fields in Dare 

County, North Carolina. Pages 96–190 in E. Potter, ed., A Survey of the Vertebrate Fauna of 

Mainland Dare County, North Carolina. North Carolina Biological Survey, Raleigh, 

North Carolina. 190 pp. 

Potter, E. F., ed. 1982b. A Survey of the Vertebrate Fauna of Mainland Dare County, North 

Carolina. North Carolina Biological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina. 190 pp. 

Riggs, S. R. and D. K. Belknap. 1988. Upper Cenozoic processes and environments of continental 

margin sedimentation: eastern United States. Pages 131–176 in R. E. Sheridan and J. A. 

Graw, eds., The Geology of North America, Volumes 1-2, the Atlantic Continental Margin. 

U.S. Geological Society of America. 

Robison, T. M. 1977. Public Water Supplies of North Carolina, Northern Coastal Plain. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. pp. 49–50. 

Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakely. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: 

Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp. 

Sharitz, R. and J. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosins) and Carolina 

Bays: A Community Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/ OBS-82/04. 93 pp. 

Tetterton, B. and G. Tetterton. 1998. North Carolina County Fact Book. Vols. I and II. Broadfoot’s 

of Wendell, Wendell, North Carolina. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Prulean Farms, Inc., 

Dare County. September 1982. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, 

Regulatory Functions Branch, Wilmington, North Carolina. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 1997. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

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. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Soil Survey of Hyde 

County, North Carolina. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

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. 
Appendices 111

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Soil Survey of Dare County, North 

Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000a. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General 

Profile: Dare County, North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000b. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General 

Profile: Hyde County, North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997a. Economic Census, Dare County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997b. Economic Census, Hyde County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000a. Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program, 2000: Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimates for Dare County, 

North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000b. Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program, 2000: Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimates for Hyde County, 

North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Nature-based Tourism. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Significant Wildlife Resource Areas of North Carolina. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Area Office, Asheville, North Carolina. 139 pp. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-associated 

Recreation. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation - North Carolina. Washington, DC. 

Vogelsang, Hans. 2001. Assessing the Economic Impact of Ecotourism Developments on the 

Albemarle/Pamlico Region. Greenville, North Carolina: East Carolina University, Department 

of Recreation and Leisure Studies. 

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, Virginia. 21 pp. 
112 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 113

Appendix III. Relevant Legal Mandates 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM AUTHORITIES 

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation’s fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the 

primary federal agency responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain 

marine mammals, and anadromous fish. This responsibility to conserve our Nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources is shared with other federal agencies and state and tribal governments. 

As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System. This system 

is the only nationwide system of federal lands managed and protected for wildlife and their habitats. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 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. 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is managed as part of this system in accordance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Executive Order 

12996 (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and other 

relevant legislation, executive orders, regulations, and policies. 

KEY LEGISLATION/POLICIES FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

The Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes and 

illustrates management area projects with standards and guidelines for future decision-making and 

the staff may adjust them through monitoring and evaluation, as well as amendment and revision. 

The plan approval establishes conservation and land protection goals, objectives, and specific 

strategies for the refuge and its expansion. The Refuge Manager has identified and approved 

compatible recreation uses specific to the refuge. This plan provides for systematic stepping down 

from the overall direction as outlined when making project or activity level decisions. This level 

involves site-specific analysis (e.g., Forest Habitat Management Plan) to meet National 

Environmental Policy Act requirements for decision-making. 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, federal or non-federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, 

rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting. 
114 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the uses. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal 

land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. 

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. (Refuge 

Administration 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 for 

which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for 

the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography and environmental education and 

interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; established the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires 

a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of 

the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and 

facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of 

any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires that programmatic and physical accessibility be made available 

in any facility funded by the Federal Government, ensuring that anyone can participate in 

any program. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major 

wetland modifications. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by the flood plain. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): The purpose of the Act is to promote the 

conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the 

acquisition of wetlands and other essential habitat, and for other purposes. 
Appendices 115

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control 

or contain undesirable plant species; and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other 

federal and state agencies. 

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations 

and services. 

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. It also presents four principles to guide management of the system. 

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Emergency Wetland 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 also requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation 

Plan, requires the states to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund an amount equal to import duties on arms 

and ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended: Public Law 

93-205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

December 5,1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 act amended the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). The 1973 Endangered Species Act 

provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, 

wildlife, and plants depend, both through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of 

state programs. The Act authorizes the determination and listing of species as threatened and 

endangered; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; 

provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for threatened and endangered wildlife 

and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or 

regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest 

and conviction of anyone violating the Act and any regulation issued there under. 

 

Environmental Education Act of 1990(20 USC 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law 101-619, 

signed November 16,1990, established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a federal environmental education 

program. Responsibilities of the Office include developing and supporting programs to improve 

understanding of the natural and developed environment, and the relationships between humans and 

their environment; supporting the dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education seminars; managing a federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. The Office is required to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
116 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management: The purpose of this Executive Order, signed 

May 24, 1977, 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 flood plain 

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 preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains. 

Fish and Wildlife 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 of the Interior 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. 

Antiquities Act (16 USC 431 - 433)--The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225): This act authorizes 

the President of the United States to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interests on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act required that a permit 

be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering of objects 

of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and 

provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 47011)-- Public Law 96-95, 

approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721): This act largely supplanted the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological items. It established detailed requirements for 

issuance of permits for any excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from Federal and 

Indian lands. It also established civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, 

or damage of any such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal and 

Indian lands in violation of any provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in 

such resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold value of 

artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act from $5,000 to $500, made attempting to commit 

an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the land managing agencies to establish 

public awareness programs regarding the value of archaeological resources to the nation. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c)--Public Law 86-523, 

approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220), and amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 24, 

1974, (88 Stat. 174): This act directed federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior 

whenever a federal, federally assisted, or licensed or permitted project may cause loss or destruction 

of significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeologic data. The Act authorized use of appropriated, 

donated and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection and preservation of such data. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467)--The Act of August 

21,1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 

89-249, approved October 9,1965, (79 Stat. 971): This act declared it a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection of such sites. Among other 

things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of this Act. As of 

January, 1989, thirty-one national wildlife refuges contained such sites. 
Appendices 117

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n)--Public Law 89-665, 

approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended: This act provided for 

preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid 

program to the states. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of 

matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent 

independent agency in Public Law 94-422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). That Act also 

created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places. As 

of January 1989, ninety-one such sites on national wildlife refuges are listed in this Register. 

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 of 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. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), as 

amended: The Duck Stamp Act, of March 16, 1934, requires each waterfowl hunter, 16 years of age 

or older, to possess a valid federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited 

in a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not 

subject to appropriations. 

National and Community Service Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 12401:104 Stat. 3127), Public Law 101-

610, signed November 16,1990: This act authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the 

United States in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job 

skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. Several provisions are of particular 

interest to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps: A federal grant program established under 

Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults between the ages of 16-25, or 

in the case of summer programs, 15-21, to engage in approved human and natural resources 

projects which benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. To be eligible for 

assistance, natural resource programs must focus on improvement of wildlife habitat and recreational 

areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands protection, pollution control and similar 

projects. A stipend of not more than 100 percent of the poverty level will be paid to participants. A 

Commission established to administer the Youth Service Corps will make grants to States, the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 

83 Stat. 852) as amended by Public Law 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and Public Law 94-83, 

August 9,1975, 89 Stat. 424): Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act requires that 

all federal agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for every recommendation 

or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in 

environmental impact statements, and required that federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary 

approach in related decision-making and develop means to ensure that unquantified 

environmental values are given appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical 

considerations. Title II of this statute requires annual reports on environmental quality from the 
118 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

President to the Congress, and established a Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive 

Office of the President with specific duties and functions. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Public Law 105-57, amended the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), and provided guidance for 

management and public use of the Refuge System. The Act mandates that the Refuge System be 

consistently directed and managed as a national system of lands and waters devoted to wildlife 

conservation and management. The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses of the Refuge 

System. Six wildlife-dependent uses are specifically named in the Act: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These activities 

are to be promoted on the Refuge System, while all non-wildlife-dependent uses are subject to 

compatibility determinations. A compatible use is one that, in the sound professional judgment of the 

Refuge Manger, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, fulfillment of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Mission or refuge purpose(s). As stated in the Act, The mission of the system 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 Act also requires 

development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge and that management be 

consistent with the plan. When writing a plan for expanded or new refuges, and when making 

management decisions, the Act requires effective coordination with other federal agencies, state fish 

and wildlife or conservation agencies, and refuge neighbors. A refuge must also provide 

opportunities for public involvement when making a compatibility determination. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 44O1~4412) Public Law 

101-233, enacted December 13, 1989: This act 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 Act converts the Pittman-Robertson 

account into a trust fund, with the interest available without appropriation through the year 2006, to 

carry out the programs authorized by the Act, along with an authorization for annual appropriation of 

$15 million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States’ share of the cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of 

projects on federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds received are 

to go to Canada and Mexico each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1952: 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 oriented recreational development 

or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s): Section 401 of the Act of June 15,1935, (49 Stat. 

383) provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. Public Law 88-523, approved August 30,1964, (78 Stat. 701) made major 

revisions by requiring that all revenues received from refuge products, such as animals, timber 

and minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be deposited in a special Treasury account and 

net receipts distributed to counties for public schools and roads. Public Law 93-509, approved 

December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys remaining in the fund after payments be 

transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition under provisions of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) 
Appendices 119

expanded the revenue sharing system to include National Fish Hatcheries and Service research 

stations. It also included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid 

carcasses. Payments to counties were established as follows: on acquired land, the greatest 

amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the appraised 

value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced from the land; and on land withdrawn from the 

public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 

1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662). This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any 

difference between the amount in the fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any year. The 

stipulation that payments be used for schools and roads was removed, but counties were required to 

pass payments along to other units of local government within the county that suffer losses in 

revenues due to the establishment of Service areas. 

The Sikes Act: Military lands comprise over 25 million acres that are largely protected from 

development and that represent diverse habitat types containing a wealth of plant and animal life. 

These lands preserve ecologically important native habitats such as old-growth forests, tall-grass 

prairies, and vernal pool wetlands. In many cases, these lands are havens for rare and unique plant 

and animal species. 

The Sikes Act recognizes the importance and value of military lands to natural resources. It seeks to 

ensure that these ecosystems are protected and enhanced while allowing the military lands to 

continue to meet the needs of military operations. 

The Sikes Act (16 USC 670, et seq.) requires the Department of Defense (DoD) to develop and 

implement Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) for military installations. The 

law was originally enacted in 1960, and has been amended several times since enactment. INRMPs 

are prepared cooperatively with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and State fish and 

wildlife agencies to ensure proper consideration of fish, wildlife, and habitat needs. INRMPs are 

required at almost 380 military installations across the Nation, and direct the management and use of 

the lands on these installations. 

The Sikes Act and the INRMPs require integration of many different aspects of natural resource 

management. Through the Sikes Act, the Service helps military installations manage their natural 

resources by providing expertise on the following issues: 

• endangered species 

• fisheries and aquatic resources 

• invasive species 

• migratory birds 

• law enforcement 

• wetlands 

• environmental contaminants. 

Wilderness Act of 1954: Public Law 88-577, approved September 3,1964, directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. 
120 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 121

Appendix IV. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS 

The Service invited agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in a series of public 

scoping meetings held on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001, in Washington, Swan Quarter, 

Plymouth, Columbia, and Manns Harbor, North Carolina, respectively. A total of 176 citizens attended 

these five public scoping meetings. The staff introduced the attendees to the refuge and its planning 

process and asked them to identify their issues and concerns. The Service published announcements 

giving the locations, dates, and times for these public meetings in the Federal Register and legal notices 

in local newspapers. The Service also sent press releases to local newspapers and public service 

announcements to television and radio stations. Service personnel placed 50 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 environmental assessment. 

The objectives were subjects of discussion at a second-round public meeting held on April 26, 

2005, in Manns Harbor, North Carolina. The Service published announcements giving the 

location, date, and time for this public meeting as legal notices in local newspapers. In addition, 

press releases were sent to local newspapers and public service announcements to television 

and radio stations. Service personnel placed 75 posters announcing the meeting in local post 

offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The issues raised at the meetings are summarized in the next few pages, followed by worksheets that 

were completed by the participants at each workshop. 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Scoping Meetings 

February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001 

Area of 

Concern 

Issue Disposition 

Wildlife-General Continue surveys. In plan. 

Conduct surveys. In plan. 

Consider wildlife first. In plan. 

Consider non-game species in 

management. 

In plan. 

Share data with other agencies. In plan. 

Discuss plant and wildlife species 

occurring on the refuge and focus on 

federally listed species and statelisted and sensitive species that may 

be of management concern 

In plan. 
122 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Area of 

Concern 

Issue Disposition 

Wildlife-General 

(continued) 

Increase study and protection of 

reptiles, amphibians, and 

invertebrates (inventory). 

In alternative 3. 

Describe life histories of species 

occurring on the refuge. 

Not practical to include in plan. 

Wildlife-Fish Evaluate water management impacts 

to fish and wildlife on each refuge. 

Dependent on willingness of partners to 

conduct research. 

WildlifeInvertebrates Evaluate food chain impacts of fire 

ants on other species. 

Dependent on willingness of partners to 

conduct research. 

WildlifeMammals Control bear populations. Currently conducting population survey. 

Results may justify hunting for bear. 

Develop beaver management 

guidance. 

Specific guidance will be in the 

nuisance animal step-down plan. 

Study deer population carrying 

capacities and determine whether 

hunting needs to be increased. 

In alternative 3. 

Habitat-General Increase study and protection of 

plants (inventory). 

Protection in all alternatives, inventory 

in alternatives 2 and 3. 

Make sure the management practices 

fit the wildlife requirements. 

In all alternatives. 

Habitat-Canals Develop erosion and sediment control 

plans and best management practices 

for canal and road maintenance 

activities. 

All alternatives propose to maintain 

vegetated road shoulders and canal 

banks. 

HabitatNonriverine 

Wet Hardwood 

Forest 

Evaluate the status of American elm 

on refuge between Milltail and Navy 

Shell Road. 

Dependent on willingness of partners to 

conduct research. 

Habitat-Roads Develop erosion and sediment control 

plans and best management practices 

for canal and road maintenance 

activities. 

All alternatives propose to maintain 

vegetated road shoulders and canal 

banks. 

Evaluate impacts of the practice of 

daylighting roads on adjacent canal 

hydrology. 

Dependent on willingness of partners to 

conduct research. 

Public UseGeneral Coordinate public uses to avoid user 

conflicts 

In plan. 

Coordinate public uses with the 

Bombing Range (especially roads) 

Uses are coordinated as much as 

possible. Many bombing range 

operations are not scheduled well in 

advance. 

Public UseHunting Develop a program for dog hunting. The refuge has areas designated for 

hunting with pursuit hounds and 

retrievers. 
Appendices 123

Area of 

Concern 

Issue Disposition 

Public UseHunting 

(continued) 

Discuss any future limitations on dog 

hunting thoroughly with the public. 

Any changes will be subject to the 

National Environmental Policy Act that 

requires public notification. 

Expand areas available for dog 

hunting (Milltail Creek to Poplar 

Ridge). 

Evaluation of expansion in alternatives 

2 and 3. 

Initiate working group meetings for 

dog hunters. 

Annual meetings in alternatives 2 and 

3. 

Work with dog hunters to maintain or 

improve relationships 

Annual meetings in alternatives 2 and 

3. Comments are welcome any time. 

Make open areas practical for 

hunting. 

The open areas are accessible for more 

months currently than they were in 

2001. Most areas with resting 

waterfowl are still closed during the 

months when waterfowl are present. 

Make sure hunting areas correspond 

to road closures, for accessibility. 

Road closures often correspond to poor 

road conditions despite the hunting 

season. 

Rotate hunting areas or distribute 

more evenly across landscape. 

Areas for retrieving dogs set where 

waterfowl are located. Areas for pursuit 

hounds avoid waterfowl and bears. 

Additional areas for hunting without 

dogs could be considered. 

Continue to allow dog hunting on the 

refuge 

In plan. 

Public UseEnvironmental 

Education 

Develop a facility on mainland Dare 

County that is part of a cooperative 

multi-agency effort to educate the 

public and conduct research on the 

value and function of the types of 

wetlands 

In alternatives 2 and 3. 

Public UseAccess Allow off road vehicles on selected 

refuge areas. 

Only vehicles that can be licensed by 

the state are allowed on the refuge 

roads. Off road use in wildlife habitat is 

prohibited. 

Consider providing more refuge 

access. 

The refuge has adequate access with 100 

miles of roads and 9 boat ramps on and 1 

boat ramp off the refuge. 

Conduct comprehensive review of the 

road system across the refuge to 

balance the public use with ecological 

requirements. 

Dependent on willingness of partners or 

availability of grants to conduct review. 

Public UseNon-Wildlife 

Dependent 

Public Use 

Continue to allow horseback riding on 

the refuge. 

Horseback riding still allowed by special 

use permit. 

Add horseback riding as a priority 

public use. 

Priority public uses designated by 

Congress. 
124 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Area of 

Concern 

Issue Disposition 

Public UseNon-Wildlife 

Dependent 

Public Use 

Increase programs for horseback 

riders. 

Horseback riding still allowed by special 

use permit. 

Resource 

Protection-Land 

Protection 

Consider and evaluate the long-term 

costs and methods for acquiring land 

to create corridors. 

Will be in land protection step-down 

plan. 

Determine whether easements could 

include transfer of rights (i.e. dog 

hunting) between refuge and 

landowner property. 

Will be in land protection step-down 

plan. 

Determine whether fee-simple is more 

advantageous than easement 

purchase 

Will be in land protection step-down 

plan. 

Resource 

Protection-Law 

Enforcement 

Discuss what law enforcement means 

for the refuge in the plans. 

In plan. 

Increase funding for law enforcement In plan. 

Increase law enforcement staff One full time officer hired since 2001. 

Second full time officer in alternative 3. 

Resource 

Protection-Pest 

Plants 

Evaluate distribution of noxious weeds 

and exotic species. 

In all alternatives. 

Control invasive species. In all alternatives. 

Resource 

ProtectionWilderness 

Avoid putting wilderness where 

popular commercial fish landings and 

deer hunting occur. Review drainage 

easements for wilderness. 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are not close to commercial fish 

landings. Deer hunting would be 

allowed if wilderness is considered in 

the future. 

Avoid putting wilderness areas too 

close to populated areas 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are not fire dependent habitats. Fire 

would be a minimum tool if wilderness 

is considered in the future. 

Discuss fire management in 

wilderness. 

Wilderness not nominated. Fire would 

be a minimum tool if wilderness is 

considered in the future. 

Consider areas with ditches that could 

be restored. 

Wilderness inventory discounted areas 

with drainage ditches because they 

serve as firebreaks and drain areas that 

are not on the refuge. 

Consider eastern wilderness act. Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are all more than 5,000 acres. 

Smaller areas are dissected by 

drainage ditches and firebreaks 

necessary for fire management. 
Appendices 125

Area of 

Concern 

Issue Disposition 

Resource 

ProtectionWilderness 

Consider smaller areas than 5,000 

acres. 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are all more than 5,000 acres; 

smaller areas are dissected by drainage 

ditches and firebreaks necessary for fire 

management. 

Evaluate the impacts of wilderness 

designation on adjacent refuge uses. 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are not currently actively managed 

for wildlife and are not fire dependent 

habitats. 

Evaluate and discuss the impacts to 

wildlife in general. 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are not currently actively managed 

for wildlife. 

Evaluate the impacts of jet noise on 

wilderness. 

National guidance directs the refuge to 

ignore jet noise. 

Review drainage easements for 

wilderness. 

Wilderness inventory discounted areas 

with drainage ditches. 
126 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

ALLIGATOR RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PLANNING ISSUES WORKSHEET 

ACTIVITY 

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

Keep the 

Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

WILDLIFE SURVEYS AND MANAGEMENT

Waterfowl Survey and Management 46% 7% 43% 4%

Shorebird Survey and Management 48% 4% 41% 7%

Land Bird Survey and Management 46% 4% 39% 11%

Reptile/Amphibian Survey and Management 36% 4% 46% 14%

Fish Survey and Management 43% 7% 47% 3%

Endangered Species Survey and 

Management 34% 14% 41% 11%

Black Bear Management 21% 10% 55% 14%

White-tailed Deer Management 33% 13% 50% 4%

WILDLIFE HABITAT ACTIVITIES 

Water Management 

(Farming, Moist Soil Management) 48% 4% 30% 18%

Prescribed Burning 42% 6% 35% 17%

Forest Thinning 33% 11% 37% 19%

Mechanical Vegetation Management (Mowing, 

Disking) 48% 0% 37% 15%

Chemical Vegetation Management 49% 17% 17% 17%

Shoreline Maintenance 55% 11% 26% 8%

Planting, Seeding, Clearing for Habitat 

Improvement 42% 6% 45% 7%

Habitat Restoration (Hydrology, Reforestation) 34% 3% 52% 11%

Wildlife Management 35% 4% 54% 7%

Insect and Disease Management 44% 6% 44% 6%

Exotic and Invasive Species Eradication 40% 3% 50% 7%

Special Protection Status (Wilderness) 40% 20% 32% 8%

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES

Fishing 38% 7% 45% 10%

Hunting 35% 9% 26% 30%
Appendices 127

ACTIVITY 

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

Keep the 

Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

Environmental Education (School Students) 30% 0% 60% 10%

Environmental Education (School Teachers) 34% 0% 55% 11%

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES 

Wildlife Interpretation (Formal Programs) 32% 4% 43% 21%

Wildlife Interpretation (Printed Material) 37% 4% 37% 22%

Wildlife Interpretation (Walking Trails) 40% 3% 41% 16%

Wildlife Interpretation (Canoeing Trails) 43% 3% 36% 18%

Wildlife Interpretation (Buildings, Kiosks) 46% 3% 29% 22%

Wildlife Interpretation (Interpretative Signs) 41% 4% 33% 22%

Wildlife Photography Opportunities 38% 4% 46% 12%

Wildlife Observation Opportunities 38% 4% 42% 16%

Vehicle Parking Lots 51% 9% 32% 8%

Access for Fishing, Boating, Canoeing 46% 4% 46% 4%

LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Visitor Protection 73% 0% 21% 6%

Wildlife Protection 41% 0% 50% 9%

Trespass Violations 48% 0% 48% 4%

Littering/Dumping Violations 41% 0% 59% 0%

Hunting and Fishing Compliance Checks 50% 4% 46% 0%

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Canal Maintenance 43% 0% 52% 5%

Road and Firebreak Maintenance 52% 0% 43% 5%

Facilities Maintenance (Signs, Buildings) 50% 5% 33% 12%

Dike and Trail Maintenance 59% 0% 35% 6%

Water Control Structures, Pump Stations 57% 0% 31% 12%

Boundary Posting 40% 7% 46% 7%
128 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSES 

This section summarizes the public comments that were received on the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, and 

the Service’s responses to each comment. The Draft CCP/EA was made available for public review 

and comment from June 5 to July 14, 2006. 

(NOTE: Comments were electronically scanned and reproduced as accurately as possible.) 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

(Comments submitted by Stephen Rhynas, NC Division of Coastal Management, and Chrys Baggett 

of the NC Department of Administration State Clearinghouse) 

Comment 1: 

“The proposed action will be occurring within Dare and Hyde Counties, which are coastal counties 

within the meaning to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA). The CZMA 

requires that Federal agencies proposing activities within a State's coastal zone to provide the State, 

in this case, the NC Division of Coastal Management, with a consistency determination prior to 

implementing the activity to document that the proposed activity would comply with the enforceable 

policies of North Carolina's approved coastal management program and would be conducted 

consistent with the State's coastal management program.” 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 2: 

“Based on our review of the Draft, the broad goals, objectives, and strategies outlined appear to be 

consistent with the State's coastal program. Nevertheless, the Draft notes that the management plan 

proposes the following types of activities: "The refuge would maintain interior or exterior roads to 

provide all-weather vehicular access to a broad segment of the public. Administrative 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 2 half-mile trails, 12 miles of paddling trails, 10 miles of 

wildlife drives, one wildlife observation platform, and an interpretive kiosk.” Many of these projects 

have a potential to effect coastal resources and would thus require consistency review by DCM 

before implementation. Conformance of the proposed Federal activity with the enforceable policies of 

the State's certified coastal management program was not evaluated in the Draft.” 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 3: 

“Though not a requirement, 15 CFR 930.37 provides a Federal agency with the discretion to use its 

NEPA documents "as a vehicle" for its consistency determination. Inclusion of the consistency 

analysis into the environmental documents simplifies the environmental review process and focuses 

the decision-making process by condensing the required analysis into one document. At this point in 

time, USFWS may either incorporate the consistency analysis into the final document or it may 

prepare a stand-alone consistency determination. Prior to implementing the proposed 

comprehensive conservation plan, the USFWS will need to submit to DCM a consistency 

determination and obtain the concurrence of DCM.” 
Appendices 129

Response: The refuge prepared a Consistency Determination for the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and submitted it to the Division of Coastal Management on October 17, 2006 for review. The 

review concluded with a determination that the proposed Federal activity is consistent, to the 

maximum extent practical, with the enforceable policies of the North Carolina coastal management 

program. We further understand that development projects (as determined by statutory definition) will 

require additional consistency review as they are funded and plans become finalized. 

Comment 4: 

“DCM recommends, under NEPA, that Appendix III (Relevant Legal Mandates) and the Regulatory 

Effects Section be revised to incorporate a review of the proposed action with the Coastal Zone 

Management Act and North Carolina's coastal management program. This review would an 

independent analysis and not part of the consistency review process.” 

Response: Appendix III has been modified to include a discussion on the Coastal Zone Management Act 

of 1972, as amended, and the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act. The “Regulatory Effects 

Section” has been modified to include reference to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 

Comment 5: 

“DCM also recommends, as part of the consistency review process, that the USFWS review the 

applicability of 15 CFR 930.33(a)(4) and 15 CFR 930.36(c). Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.33(a)(4), the 

USFWS may request that environmentally beneficial activities conducted in compliance with the 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan be excluded from further 

consistency review. Furthermore, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.36(c), the USFWS may propose a general 

consistency determination when a Federal agency proposes repeated activities (other than a 

development project) where the incremental actions do not affect any coastal use or coastal resource 

when performed separately.” 

Response: Comment noted. The response to Comment 3 addresses part of this comment. 

Comment 6: 

“North Carolina's coastal zone management program consists of, but is not limited to, the Coastal 

Area Management Act, the State's Dredge and Fill Law, and the land use plan of the County and/or 

local municipality in which the proposed project is located. In preparing the consistency 

determination the USFWS will need to review these documents and to evaluate the conformance of 

the proposed comprehensive conservation plan with the State's coastal program. The website for the 

Division of Coastal Management can be found at: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/index.htm. The State's 

consistency webpage is located at: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Permits/consist.htm. Additionally, 

NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM) has a webpage on the 

consistency process at: http:// coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/federal_consistency.html.” 

Response: The Consistency Determination submitted on October 17, 2006 reflected consideration 

and review of the referenced documents. 

Comment 7: 

“DCM encourages the USFWS to include North Carolina's Coastal Reserve Program for inclusion as 

a State Partner. Should the USFWS have any questions on the consistency process relative to the 

proposed comprehensive conservation plan, please give me a call. Thank you for your consideration 

of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.” 
130 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Response: The Fish and Wildlife Service in general and the refuge staff in particular welcome the 

opportunity to partner with the North Carolina Coastal Reserve Program. It is only through mutual 

cooperation that a better understanding of each agency’s mission and purpose will occur, and more 

importantly, our natural resources will realize greater benefits through a collaborative effort. 

Defenders of Wildlife 

(Comments submitted by Noah Matson, Director, Federal Lands Program) 

Comment 1: 

“Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Defenders of 

Wildlife is a non-profit, public interest institution with nearly 500,000 members nationwide dedicated 

to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. Defenders has 

been a long-time advocate for the Refuge System and continues to take a special interest in the 

Refuge System planning process. Defenders published the Citizen's Wildlife Refuge Planning 

Handbook in 1999 to help the public understand the refuge planning process. In addition, Defenders 

served as a judge in last year's Refuge System planning awards. 

Defenders has the following comments on the proposed CCP/EA.” 

Response: Comments noted. 

Comment 2: 

“Wilderness Review – Despite the fact that the CCP/EA identifies five potential wilderness study 

areas that meet the specific criteria for wilderness designation, none of them are recommended in the 

preferred alternative. The CCP/EA does not provide any reasonable justification for not 

recommending these five areas as wilderness. The CCP/EA states: 

In effect, these lands would be managed and utilized the same way whether designated as 

wilderness or not. Therefore, it was decided not to propose the acreage as wilderness, since the 

designation would offer little additional protection. (CCP/EA at 86). 

Even if the designation would provide "little additional protection" compared to current management, 

this does not constitute a valid reason for not recommending the areas as wilderness. Based on the 

assumption that designation would provide "little additional protection," why, then, are the areas 

recommended for wilderness designation in Alternative 3? 

Furthermore, statements in the CCP/EA actually refute the argument that wilderness designation 

would provide "little additional protection" to the potential wilderness study areas. Regarding Unit 8, 

the CCP/EA states that: 

This area, in which dog hunting for bear is currently prohibited, was identified by local hunters during 

comprehensive conservation plan public scoping meetings as one of the best potential bear hunting 

areas on the refuge. However, if this area becomes a wilderness study area, the use of dogs would 

almost certainly be prohibited, due to the expected increase in motorboat use for that activity 

(CCP/EA at 291). 

Obviously, wilderness designation would provide additional protection for this unit by securing the 

prohibition of dog hunting. Additionally, the CCP/EA indicates that public use in the five units would, 

in fact, have negative consequences: 
Appendices 131

Frequent pedestrian traffic would result in habitat destruction. (CCP/EA at 86). 

Therefore, we recommend the FWS reevaluate the Wilderness Review and propose all units that 

meet the specific criteria for wilderness designation.” 

Response: Comments noted. Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the 

comprehensive conservation planning process. The wilderness review is attached in Section B, as 

Appendix IX. Minor changes were made to the plan. 

Comment 3: 

“Turkey Hunting – The issue of expanding the hunting program to include turkey hunting is identified 

in each of the alternatives. Defenders of Wildlife is not against regulated hunting programs on 

national wildlife refuges. However, the CCP/EA is unclear in its justification for the potential 

expansion of the hunting program to include turkey hunting. For example, the CCP/EA states that: 

Currently, the turkey population is doing well with a number of sightings each year (CCP/EA at 166). 

We feel that this is much too vague to provide adequate justification for a potential turkey hunting 

program as a population management strategy. If no research has been conducted to determine the 

size of the population that exists on and around the Refuge, how could the FWS justify a population 

management strategy and hunting program for the species? Prior to any expansion of the hunting 

program that would include turkey hunting, we strongly recommend the FWS complete the following: 

• Estimate the population size of wild turkey on and around the refuge; 

• Develop a specific strategy that will address how the FWS will adequately monitor the turkey 

population over time, especially if a hunting program is established for the species.” 

Response: The text about the turkey population doing well is indeed an anecdotal type of comment. 

However, it is based upon substantial increases in sightings of individual turkeys as well as flocks of 

20–25 birds on the refuge. The steady increase in the number of sightings each year by lay persons 

and professional wildlife biologists strongly suggests a significant increase in numbers compared to 

the original release of 16 birds for the restoration project in 1999. Most wildlife biologists consider this 

to be a population that is doing well. 

Prior to expanding the hunting program to include any additional species, the refuge will use sound 

professional judgment and best available science to make the decision with regards to species and 

the type of hunting pressure that would be allowed. In addition, the refuge will consult with 

professional wildlife biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 

before adding species to the hunting program. Hunting for certain species such as the wild turkey or 

black bear would likely be a permit system, possibly administered by the NCWRC with regards to 

issuing permits, and that would regulate numbers of hunters and areas that could be hunted. The 

first and foremost goal is to provide healthy wildlife populations with recreational opportunities being 

subordinate to that goal. 
132 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment 4: 

“Trapping of Furbearers – The Compatibility Policy (65 Federal Register 62491) states that: 

Implicit within the definition of sound professional judgment is that adequate resources (including 

financial, personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure) exist or can be provided by the Service or a 

partner to properly develop, operate, and maintain the use in a way that will not materially interfere 

with or detract from fulfillment of the refuge purpose(s) and the System mission ... If adequate 

resources cannot be secured, the use will be found not compatible and cannot be allowed. 

The CCP/EA states that: 

The refuge needs additional resources to conduct this use. The existing staff cannot administer 

permits and monitor this use as part of routine management duties. (CCP/EA at 223). 

Despite the fact that adequate resources do not exist, this use is still determined to be compatible. 

This determination violates the Compatibility Policy. Not only does the refuge not have the resources 

to conduct or monitor this use, but the ability to successfully monitor the use is an essential function in 

maintaining its compatibility. For instance, if the FWS does not have the resources to monitor this 

use, how can the FWS ensure there won't be incidental take of endangered red wolves, alligators and 

other non-target wildlife? The CCP/EA clearly implies this risk by stating that "...no trapping program, 

regardless of how well it is designed, can prevent the possible take of other species. The refuge staff 

will require trappers to report the incidental take of other species." (CCP/EA at 223). 

Voluntary reporting of incidental take of other species, including federally listed species, is not an 

acceptable monitoring program for any use. In the CCP/EA, the FWS clearly acknowledges the fact 

that the refuge lacks sufficient resources to conduct this use, and should therefore identify this 

use as incompatible.” 

Response: The statement in the CCP/EA has been rewritten to more accurately reflect the current 

situation on the refuge with regards to trapping. Given current levels of requests for trapping Special 

Use Permits on the refuge, there are adequate resources to issue and monitor the program. Usually, 

there are only 1–2 requests for any given year, and there are some years when there are no requests 

for trapping furbearers on the refuge. Most of the requests received are from individuals who have 

trapped most of their lives as a recreational pursuit (even though they sell most of the pelts they 

catch) more than a type of subsistence trapping. It is widely known that interest in trapping is highly 

correlated with the price of furbearer pelts for many “intermittent” trappers. These are the trappers 

that could affect an increase in permit requests in the future. As the furbearer market is highly 

dependent upon demand, fur prices change rapidly and interest in trapping declines proportionately. 

Current furbearer trapping is limited to species of management concern. 

To help resolve some issues with regards to trapping, many states are establishing trapper education 

programs and requiring certification through these programs prior to purchasing a trapping license. 

Such a program will help to educate new and experienced trappers on appropriate traps for the target 

species, the proper methods for setting traps to reduce trapping non-target species and reducing 

injury, and continue to reinforce a code of outdoor ethics. The State of North Carolina is currently 

developing a trapper education program and we fully support their efforts. 
Appendices 133

Comment 5: 

“Special Use Permits – All of the noncommercial uses that the refuge allows by special use permit 

(including the gathering of firewood, cutting small-diameter poles for pound nets, cutting big 

cordgrass to cover duck blinds, mooring small commercial fishing boats, and gigging frogs) are 

extractive uses, as opposed to scientific research uses, for which the FWS has not completed 

compatibility determinations. Included in Alternative 3, and notably missing from the preferred 

alternative, is a plan to monitor permitted activities (special use permits) for impacts to the biological 

resources and assets of the refuge. Without monitoring the impacts, how can FWS verify that the use 

is, and remains, compatible? We strongly recommend that the preferred alternative adopt a plan to 

monitor activities allowed by special use permits on the refuge in order to ensure that each use 

remains compatible and does not materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the refuge 

purpose(s) and the System mission. 

The plan also adds staff to assist in permit review and development and monitoring of permit 

conditions. We feel that additional staff should be sought to monitor permitted activities, not to 

increase the capacity for permit review. The plan has outlined the need for additional refuge staff to 

conduct refuge management actions towards achieving the refuge's primary purposes, including 

conserving unique wetland habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife. Providing additional staff to 

expedite the permit review process does not serve the interests of the refuge, but, rather, serves the 

interests of a few visitors seeking special use permits to conduct extractive, non-traditional 

activities on the refuge.” 

Response: Uses stated in the comment appear to be derived from the text under the heading “Nonpriority Public Uses” on page 61. Public input requested that these uses be allowed in the future. Of 

these described uses, the only one not covered by an existing Compatibility Determination is “cutting 

big cordgrass to cover duck blinds.” Use of vegetative materials to cover waterfowl hunting blinds is a 

traditional use in the area before the refuge was established and has occurred on the refuge since it 

was established. Most of the activity was on a very small scale and was barely noticeable. During 

2004, cutting Phragmites and big cordgrass increased substantially on the southern end of the refuge 

and a need to regulate the activity became apparent. As they were discovered, individuals were 

advised of the need to obtain a Special Use Permit prior to collecting the plant material. To date, 

there have been no requests for a SUP to collect plant material for duck blinds. A Compatibility 

Determination will be completed prior to deciding whether or not to issue a SUP for that use. 

While the refuge does not have specific staff dedicated to monitoring uses on the refuge, all staff and 

the general public are constantly providing feedback with regards to impacts on uses. For example, 

the wood gathering permit for pound net stakes was significantly modified several years ago when 

the refuge biologist discovered that one permittee had almost established a logging operation on the 

refuge. The new permit restricts the number of stakes that can be collected in any given area as well 

as the types of equipment that can be used. Naturally, additional staff would make monitoring uses 

and permit conditions more effective, but that should not be interpreted to mean that monitoring and 

incorporation of remedial measures for those activities with adverse impacts are not occurring on the 

refuge with current staffing levels. 
134 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment 6: 

“Surveys of Deformities of Reptiles and Amphibians – Under the preferred alternative, the refuge staff 

would not conduct surveys of deformities of reptiles and amphibians on the refuge. Due to the 

presence of productive cropland on and around the refuge, with the presence of pesticides and 

herbicides, we feel these surveys are crucial. Deformities may result from the presence of certain 

chemicals in the water, which may otherwise appear to be clean. Regularly surveying for deformities 

will alert refuge staff to a contamination of the refuge by toxic substances, which can pose a serious 

threat to the health of entire populations of wildlife on the refuge. 

In the CCP/EA, the Service discusses the degradation of water quality on the refuge as "the most 

critical issue on the refuge." Water quality is major factor contributing to the formation of deformities 

in reptiles and amphibians. The potential exists for deformities to create ecological problems on the 

refuge, so the refuge staff must take precautions and survey for deformities to provide early detection 

of a contamination.” 

Response: The refuge has been involved in a pilot study to identify “hot spots” for malformed 

amphibians. Sampling was done in and around the cropland on the refuge as well as interior portions 

of the refuge not associated in any way with the cropland. Although deformities were found and were 

pretty much evenly distributed throughout the sample areas, it was determined that the rate of 

deformities was not sufficient to justify including the refuge as one of the primary study areas for the 

current studies. 

The statement in the draft CCP/EA that “water quality is the most critical issue on the refuge” is one 

that is easily misinterpreted as it is worded. The text on page 166 has been edited to more 

accurately describe the water quality issue. Within refuge boundaries, the use of substantial filter 

strips on field borders and limiting pesticide use to only those approved by the Service and only when 

needed does not result in the same level of water quality degradation that would be expected from 

areas not incorporating such best management practices. This may explain why the rate of 

deformities in amphibians was no greater than other areas away from the farm unit and may also 

partially explain why the refuge did not have significant deformity rates overall. 

Comment 7: 

“Global Warming and Sea Level Rise – We are very pleased that the CCP includes a discussion of the 

impacts of global warming and sea level rise on the Refuge. However, we believe the CCP can be 

strengthened by including specific strategies to address both current and future impacts of climate change 

on the Refuge's wildlife and habitat. Climate change has the potential to disrupt the delicate balance of 

entire ecosystems and threaten the biological integrity of the Refuge. By not including a plan to actively 

manage the Refuge in response to climate change, we believe FWS will not be able to adequately 

manage and protect the Refuge, and therefore fulfill the Refuge's specific legislative purpose.” 

Response: Comments noted. The CCP has been changed to more clearly reflect actions to date 

and future refuge plans to address the effects of global warming on refuge lands. The refuge has 

established a cooperative record of working towards a better understanding of impacts to refuge 

lands resulting from global climate change and especially the effects of rising sea level. However, the 

CCP has a 15-year planning horizon and, for this reason, it is difficult to recognize, plan for, and 

implement management actions to soften the consequences of global climate change within such a 

relatively short planning period. Accepting the change that will inevitably occur as a result of global 

climate change and then managing for optimum wildlife habitat as the change occurs will be more 

productive than trying to prevent or protect the refuge from the change. 
Appendices 135

Predicting effects from global climate change on the future refuge landscape would be possible only 

in a most general way. The most recent models suggest that, if sea level continues to rise at current 

rates, most of the refuge we know today will be either marsh or under water within the next 100 years. 

The CCP may have been rewritten 6–7 times during that period. At best, the current CCP can 

recognize that there are impacts on refuge and other lands as a result of climate change. These 

impacts may be in the form of rising sea level, increased storm frequencies, or increased intensity of 

individual storms. Beyond the recognition of these effects and adaptively managing the landscape to 

the extent technically and economically possible, there is a standing commitment to pro-actively 

accept the responsibility of working with the research community to provide data for managing habitat 

for changes brought about by increased hydrologic regimes and salinity. 

Comment 8: 

“Aquatic Vegetation Surveys and Water Quality Studies – According to the CCP/EA, the most critical 

issue on the refuge is the water quality of the streams, bays, and sounds surrounding it. In fact, the 

CCP/EA states: 

Non-point source pollution has decreased the water quality over the years. Submerged aquatic 

vegetation has also decreased. The submerged aquatic vegetation provides food for waterfowl and 

habitat for fisheries resources (CCP/EA at 166). 

Despite the importance of aquatic vegetation to waterfowl and fisheries on the refuge, the preferred 

alternative does not include a plan for refuge staff to ever survey aquatic vegetation. Alternative 3, 

however, does include a plan to survey aquatic vegetation every two years. We strongly recommend 

the Service include a periodic survey of aquatic vegetation on the refuge in the final CCP. 

Again, FWS acknowledges water quality as the most critical issue on the refuge. Yet, the Service's 

preferred alternative outlines minimal strategies to monitor this important issue. Alternative 3, which is not 

thy Service's preferred alternative, provides a plan to monitor water quality more frequently (quarterly 

instead of annually for pump discharge, and every 2 years instead of every 5 years for freshwater, ponds, 

and lakes), and more rigorously (including monitoring for heavy metals and toxics) than the Service's 

preferred alternative. In order to examine the "critical issue" of water quality, the refuge should make it a 

top priority to establish a plan to monitor and study water quality on the refuge.” 

Response: The statements in the CCP/EA with regards to water quality and water quality 

degradation are referring to the rivers, creeks, bays, and sounds surrounding the refuge. None of 

these systems are part of the refuge as the refuge boundary stops at the shoreline. However, these 

waters flow through and around the refuge, depending upon the direction of the wind tide. 

Management actions on the refuge are not causing significant degradation in water quality either 

within or outside the boundaries other than discharge of freshwater into estuarine systems. 

Numerous water control structures have been installed in canal systems to slow down the discharge 

of fresh water and restore a more natural hydrology to the peninsular system. 

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is not found to any great extent in the creeks and rivers within 

or adjacent to the refuge. This is due to the dark, deep water with low pH and DO. Consequently, 

waterfowl used in these systems is mostly for roosting and loafing. The shallow waters of the bays 

and sounds adjacent to the refuge are or should be populated by a variety of SAV species such as 

eel grass, widgeon grass, and Sago pond weed. Numerous point and non-point source discharges 

as well as various fishing and dredging activities throughout these aquatic systems and not 

associated with the refuge have degraded water quality over time and have certainly impacted the 

quantity and quality of SAV beds in the sounds and bays. Although it is difficult for the refuge to be 

able to justify conducting off-refuge surveys, we have supported SAV survey efforts in Back Bay, 

Currituck Sound, and Pamlico Sound through ecosystem projects. 
136 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Certain species of the emergent aquatic vegetation on the refuge (growing on or from shorelines of 

creeks, lakes, or rivers) consists of nuisance, exotic species such as Phragmites or alligator weed. 

As funds become available the refuge has and will continue to survey problem areas and conduct 

control activities to the extent possible. Cattail, duckweed, arrow arum, Peltandra, Sagittaria, pickerel 

weed, blue flag, and slough grass are other wetland/aquatic plants found on the refuge along with 

other wetland plants that can grow on vegetative mats, but are not considered to be nuisance or 

exotic species and are not subjected to control measures. 

Comment 9: 

“Economic Environment – According to the CCP/EA, a recent survey in North Carolina showed that 

wildlife observers and photographers have higher average daily expenditures than both anglers and 

hunters combined. Additionally, the CCP/EA states: 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, development of wildlife-dependent recreation programs and facilities and 

improved publicity would lead to greater economic benefits from increased tourism (CCP/EA at 168). 

Revenue generated from refuge visitors is an important factor that is address in the CCP/EA, but not all 

refuge uses generate equal revenue. Since wildlife observation and photography are non-extractive uses 

that have minimal impact on the refuge and have been shown to bring significantly more money to the 

local economy, we recommend the Service dedicate more of its resources (providing programs and 

facilities, and improving publicity) targeted toward promoting these uses over others. 

Findings from a 2005 report commissioned by Defenders of Wildlife measured tourist interest in 

participating in these activities. The study, Red Wolves: Creating Economic Opportunity through 

Ecotourism in Rural North Carolina, found that more than 90 percent of surveyed Outer Banks visitors 

were willing to make one or more day-trips to the "Inner Banks" areas to take part in activities in this 

region, including wildlife and nature viewing activities (Lash and Black 2005). 

Lash, Dr. Gail Y. B. and Pamela Black, Ursa International. 2005. Red Wolves: Creating Economic 

Opportunity through Ecotourism in Rural North Carolina. Unpublished report, 97 pp.” 

Response: Comments noted. 

Comment 10: 

“Threatened and Endangered Wildlife – Although the plan provides for annual surveys of the species, 

the refuge staff would not implement a management program for the federally listed red-cockaded 

woodpecker, bald eagle or American alligator. According to the CCP/EA, the goal for wildlife and fish 

populations on the refuge is to: 

Inventory, protect, and manage healthy and viable populations of threatened and endangered 

species, other priority wildlife, and fish (CCP/EA at 66). 

Despite its vast importance to the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, the plan does not attempt to satisfy this goal. The CCP/EA states that: 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important 

responsibility delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges (CCP/EA at 58). 

We feel that implementing a management program to optimize conditions for all federally listed 

species on the refuge is a part of the basic duties the refuge staff must include in the CCP.” 
Appendices 137

Response: Comments noted. These comments reflect a level of detail that extends well beyond the 

scope of a general planning document such as the CCP. However, as a result of the CCP there will be a 

number of step-down plans written for the purpose of achieving the goals and objectives of the CCP. The 

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan discussed on page 99 of the CCP/EA states that listed species will 

be included in the refuge monitoring program. Management plans for species such as the red-cockaded 

woodpecker and bald eagle habitat will be addressed in either sub-plans or the Habitat Management 

Plan, or both. These step-down plans will include a level of detail sufficient for refuge management 

decisions consistent with law, regulation, and policy. Management decisions will incorporate best 

available science and sound professional judgment as required by regulation and policy. 

Comment 11: 

“Threatened and Endangered Plants – Due to the lack of sufficient data regarding the presence of 

federally listed plant species on the refuge, we strongly recommend that FWS include in the CCP a 

plan to conduct a comprehensive botanical survey of plant species on the refuge. The FWS will not 

be able to "inventory, protect, and manage healthy and viable populations of threatened and 

endangered species" on the refuge if the refuge staff does not have adequate knowledge of which 

species inhabit the refuge.” 

Response: Although not considered comprehensive, the PULSE vegetative community sampling 

program has several sites located on the refuge. Beyond that effort, the most comprehensive plant 

community surveys have been the survey work for the Prulean Farms Coordination Act Report habitat 

evaluation which pre-dates the refuge. The other vegetative surveys are mostly specific to plants 

growing in moist soil management units with other plant species added as they are encountered on 

the refuge. While it is not the end product of intense and exhaustive surveys, the plant species list in 

Appendix VI is a reasonable approximation of plant species occurring on the refuge. Even though 

our knowledge of plant species presence/absence is certainly not complete, it is adequate for making 

management decisions, especially in consultation with appropriate professionals. The refuge will 

continue to monitor selected plant communities in selected areas of the refuge to address specific 

management concerns, i.e., forest health issues and invasives. 

Comment 12: 

“Wildlife and Habitat Management Programs – Under the preferred alternative, the refuge staff would 

not implement management programs with inventory data on mammals (other than black bears and 

red wolves), fish, invertebrates, reptiles, or amphibians. The plan does not even provide for 

surveying and monitoring of fish populations. Additionally, the plan only calls for managing white 

cedar and mixed pine-hardwood forests, rather than managing all habitat types as directed in 

Alternative 3. We feel that gathering inventory data on all groups of species and managing for all 

habitat types are vital tasks the refuge staff must perform in order to ‘maintain and restore the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge.’ 66 Federal Register 3822.” 

Response: Comments noted. Again, this level of detail will be addressed when the Biological 

Inventory/Monitoring Plan and Habitat Management Plan step-down plans are prepared. Not all 

species will be monitored and not all habitats will be “managed” in the strictest sense of the 

terminology as this would require a very large Biological/Natural Resources Program staff and 

budget. Key species and habitat types will be identified for inventory/monitoring efforts. When 

sufficient data are collected on these species, new species may be substituted. However, it is not a 

realistic expectation to think that all species and all habitat types will be inventoried, monitored, and 

managed concurrently. 
138 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment 13: 

“Cropland Management – In relation to the clearing of bottomland hardwood forests in the South 

Atlantic Coastal Plain, the CCP/EA states: 

Much of the development has been for crop production and these areas have potential for restoration, 

as crop prices do not justify the maintenance of intensive drainage systems required to maintain 

production (CCP/EA at 15). 

The intensive drainage systems required to maintain crop production on the refuge cannot be 

justified. Although FWS suggests that the primary purpose of the agricultural program is to provide 

food and habitat for wintering waterfowl, the FWS itself acknowledges the fallacy of this argument. 

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. Often, management for one species or 

species group conflicts with the management objectives for another species or species group. The 

tendency is to pursue short-term priorities that frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and 

interests in special resources shift. Biologists must exercise caution to prevent the start-up of 

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

comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An 

example might be a tendency to totally manage Alligator River NWR in an effort to provide habitat for 

many species of waterfowl that require a managed herbaceous wetland. Such an approach may overlook 

the critical habitat needs of neotropical migratory land birds that prefer shrubby habitat (CCP/EA at 16). 

The continuation of crop production on the refuge is an example of a management action FWS 

cautions against in the discussion above. FWS should manage the refuge to address comprehensive 

ecosystem needs rather than manage for individual species or groups of species. 

In order to meet long-term management objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs, 

FWS should comply with the FWS Policy on Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which states: 

When we develop refuge goals and objectives during the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process 

we include goals and objectives for maintaining and restoring the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the refuge. 66 Federal Register 3822. 

We plan for the maintenance and restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health while considering all three in an integrated and holistic manner. The highest measure of 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining 

habitats and wildlife populations that existed during historic conditions. 66 Federal Register 3819.” 

Response: Comments noted. In order to understand why the farming program is important to refuge 

management, it is necessary to first understand how the cropland was created from the swamps of 

mainland Dare County. Prior to the land become part of the refuge, the area was logged and a 

perimeter dike was built followed by digging a canal network, using the borrow material to build the 

adjacent road system. The canal/road system divided the land into blocks that could be drained by 

pumping. Smaller v-ditches were dug to delineate individual fields within a block. These fields were 

cleared of all vegetation, raked for roots and stumps, and then graded to a crown in the middle of the 

field. Part of the grading process sloped the field from the “headland” end towards the “collector 

canal” end to facilitate the flow of water. This system was necessary since the soils do not percolate 

water as non-hydric soils would. 
Appendices 139

All of the land clearing and grading lowered the elevation of the farm fields to a point that pumping is 

necessary to keep water off of them except for the headland ends and crowns of the fields near the 

headlands. Breaching the perimeter dike would result in a very large lake unless pumping capabilities 

were somehow maintained. Consequently, restoring the cropland to the original habitat type is simply not 

possible without very intense management and a commitment to pumping in perpetuity. 

Mineral and organic soils within the perimeter dike could be restored to other forested habitat types. For 

example, oaks and other high wildlife value hardwoods could be planted on the mineral soils while 

cypress and Atlantic white cedar could be planted in the organic relict sloughs throughout the farm unit. 

This type of management would also require a commitment to pumping to maintain the habitat types. 

The refuge has opted to partially restore wetland values and function to nearly 2000 acres of cropland by 

managing the areas for moist soil vegetation. This is a management strategy that encourages growth of 

wetland plant species with some limited supplemental planting of small grains for wildlife. Water levels 

are managed to maintain appropriate soil moisture for wetland plants and maturation of the planted small 

grains. Flooding is normally done in late fall to depths averaging 6–18 inches, depending upon where you 

measure in the sloped fields. Near the V-ditches at the collector canal end water depths may be 2 feet. 

When properly managed these moist soil units provide habitat for waterfowl and marsh birds. The 

headland ends of the fields and crowns provide excellent habitat for upland birds, grassland bird species, 

rodents, rabbits, white-tail deer, black bear, and red wolf. Remaining cropland is farmed through a 

cooperative program and this provides an important food source for many wildlife species including 

migratory birds such as waterfowl, mourning dove, woodcock, snipe, and rails as well as helping to 

maintain a prey base for the red wolf and many birds of prey. 

The point of providing all of this information is to illustrate that it would be neither feasible nor prudent 

to embark on a management direction seeking to restore habitat types that would essentially reduce 

within and between habitat type diversity. The refuge is trying to use the landscape changes induced 

by mankind to optimize habitat for the broadest range of wildlife species possible. This management 

strategy maintains the biological integrity and diversity of the refuge and it contributes to enhancing 

species diversity within and between habitat types as well as regional diversity. 

Comment 14: 

“Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft CCP for Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge. We look forward to working with the FWS in strengthening the management of the refuge.” 

Response: Comment noted. 

Animal Protection Institute 

(Comments submitted by Monica Engebretson, Project Director; and Camilla Fox, Director of Wildlife 

Programs) 

Comment 1: 

“On behalf of the Animal Protection Institute (API) and our supporters nationwide, we are pleased to 

offer these comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). 
140 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Our organization is very concerned that in managing National Wildlife Refuges, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) has strayed far from its own policy, which "directs that wildlife comes first in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System" (602 FW § 1.4A; emphasis added). Many refuges allow, and 

even encourage, activities detrimental to wildlife, including hunting, fishing, trapping, motor boating, 

and jet skiing. In many instances, these recreational uses are permitted in the absence of thorough 

and accurate biological data on the species inhabiting and migrating through the refuge. 

While the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 16 U.S.C. § 668dd, et seq. 

(hereafter "the Act") establishes hunting as a priority use, the Act also requires refuges to conduct 

rigorous scientific research into the status of refuge wildlife populations and use this information to 

guide refuge planning. 

It is our hope that the Alligator River NWR management team will help to restore this public land 

system to its original purpose of providing a "refuge and breeding place" for "migratory birds, other 

wild birds, game animals, fur-bearing animals, and for the conservation of wild flowers and aquatic 

plants." (Per Public Law 268). 

Requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

The Act requires that the FWS "ensure the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of 

the [Refuge] System are maintained" (Section 7(e)(2)(B), National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act) and that refuge planning be firmly grounded in these concepts. A thorough 

discussion and investigation of the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge 

must therefore occur before planning can ensue. 

In developing each comprehensive conservation plan under this subsection for a planning unit, the 

Secretary, acting through the Director, shall identify and describe ... the distribution, migration 

patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant populations and related habitats within the 

planning unit - Section 7(e)(2)(B), National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

Furthermore, FWS regulations require that before the sanctioning of hunting, trapping, or fishing can 

occur, a determination must be made that "wildlife are surplus to a balanced conservation program on 

any wildlife refuge area" (50 C.F.R. §31.2 et seq.). To determine if there is a surplus of wildlife on a 

refuge, the "populations and requirements of wildlife species. .. shall be determined by population 

census, habitat evaluation, and other means of ecological study" (Id. at §31.1). 

The mere presence of a species on a refuge is not evidence of a surplus; rather, a surplus 

determination has to consider both the population size and requirements of the target species. If no 

surplus is determined, then, unless the species is damaging or destroying federal property within a 

refuge, the species cannot be subject to live removal or lethal control, including through official animal 

control operations. 

According to the draft CCP/EA (pg 99) a Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan does not yet exist for 

the Alligator River NWR and no expected date for a completed plan is available. 

While the draft CCP/EA (pg 34 and 35) does describe some general and historic information on black 

bear and white tailed deer in Dare County, the document admits that a reliable estimate of the black 

bear population on the refuge has yet to be completed, and no estimate of the current deer 

population was provided. Information regarding habitat use of refuge furbearers is limited to a 

decade's old (1983) study on natural and modified pocosins. Again, no population estimates or 

trends for furbearers on the refuge were provided. 
Appendices 141

Therefore, to attempt to determine compatible wildlife-dependent recreation for Alligator River NWR 

until a biological inventory has been is fully implemented and analyzed may violate these mandates. 

This is especially true for the consideration of hunting and trapping since both activities result in the 

direct and intentional removal of species and can negatively impact populations, particularly when 

such activities are geographically focused to particular regions/areas.” 

Response: Comments noted. 

Comment 2: 

“Potential Negative Impacts of Hunting and Trapping on the Refuge – The Draft CCP/EA fails to 

evaluate the impacts of consumptive use activities on refuge wildlife. As mentioned above, the FWS 

acknowledges that a biological inventory has not been fully implemented, and that there is a lack of 

accurate data on hunted and trapped species other than white-tailed deer. As a consequence, we 

assume that the biological baseline data is inadequate or nonexistent. We question how hunting and 

trapping can be deemed compatible on the refuge in absence of this essential information. 

Indeed, the Draft CCP EA notes that, "The Service had recently withdrawn permission to trap 

because the refuge did not have an approved trapping plan." Yet, trapping was deemed as a 

"compatible use" in the Compatibility Determination section of the Draft CCP/EA. 

The Draft CCP/EA also fails to provide adequate compatibility determinations for both trapping and 

hunting activities. 

The justification for deeming hunting compatible is that, "hunting is on of the public use recreational 

activities that the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act specifically identifies as a use to 

be allowed where possible on refuges," and "The refuge uses deer hunts a management tools to protect 

the diverse ecosystem." The justification for deeming trapping compatible is similarly weak, "Trapping is a 

wildlife population management tool used to regulate the population of certain wildlife species.” 

However, the FWS offers no indication that the impacts of hunting or trapping have actually been studied. 

Further there is no indication that baseline population data of unexploited wildlife has ever been collected. 

As a consequence, it would be nearly impossible to determine with accuracy any change in population 

dynamics as a result of consumptive use. The FWS cannot determine that hunting and trapping on the 

refuge have no impact simply because they have not looked. In essence FWS seems to have accepted a 

"don't look, don't see" policy with regard to consumptive use impacts on the refuge. 

It also appears that the hunting program relies heavily on state wildlife agency season limits which 

have not been independently and rigorously evaluated by the FWS. What are the current populations 

of the targeted species and what models were used to determine these data? 

Aside from the obvious detrimental effects to the individual animals killed, hunting disrupts, resting, 

foraging behavior and increases stress and caloric exertion potentially decreasing survival and 

fitness. These factors should be systematically researched before a compatibility determination 

assessed. For example, the FWS recently found foxhunting to be incompatible with the purpose of 

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois largely because unleashed dogs would cause 

"substantial disturbance to resident and migratory wildlife." It seems reasonable that hunting deer 

with dogs would have a similar impact on the wildlife of Alligator River NWR; however, the hunting 

with dogs is deemed compatible in designated areas. 
142 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

For the above reasons, the Draft CCP/EA does not allow for the adequate evaluation and 

consideration of the proposed alternatives. It is therefore premature for the FWS to issue a 

Final CCP and EA. 

API contends the FWS must fully analyze its preferred alterative in a revised Draft CCP/EA and recirculate an amended version of these documents for public comment.” 

Response: Comments noted. 

Comment 3: 

“Body-Gripping Traps Pose Serious Hazard to Non-Target Wildlife – There is widespread agreement 

among veterinarians, veterinary associations, biologists and the general public that the primary traps 

used today—legholds and Conibears—are both inhumane and indiscriminate. 

In addition, leghold traps and Conibear traps pose a serious hazard to non-target wildlife, including 

threatened and endangered species (T&E species). Records obtained from state and federal wildlife 

agencies by API show that bald eagles, lynx, wolves, and other species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act have been injured and killed in leghold and Conibear traps. Recently, when animal 

advocates provided documentation that three Bald Eagles and numerous Canada Lynx had been 

incidentally killed in traps set for coyotes in the state of Maine, the Maine Attorney General ruled that 

the state Inland Wildlife & Fisheries agency had to end its coyote trapping program until the state 

obtained an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act from the FWS. We 

contend this is just the beginning of a much larger issue regarding the significant hazards traps pose to 

threatened and endangered species and that both state and federal wildlife management agencies are 

required by law to mitigate harm and seek ITPs if there is potential harm/take of T&E species from the 

use of traps. The Draft CCP/EA for Alligator River NWR, however, fails to address this issue. 

Any assessment of trapping on refuges must include a thorough literature review of trap studies and 

of the potential impacts traps may have on non-target wildlife. We cite the following as examples of 

studies that should be incorporated into the assessment of any trapping activity on the refuge: 

A. Leghold traps 

The Animal Welfare Institute sent a questionnaire to veterinarians in Illinois, Michigan, New York, Texas, 

North Dakota, Washington, and Louisiana. Veterinarians were asked if they supported or opposed the 

use of this trap. An overwhelming percentage, 79.3 percent of the 936 veterinarians responding, opposed 

steel-jawed leg-hold traps. The Animal Welfare Institute survey also requested information relative to 

injuries to pets and wild animals. More than 4,000 injuries or deaths of domestic or non-target animal 

were reported from the 936 veterinarians in seven states (CDFG pg. 95-96). 

Atkeson (1956) reported that >24% of minks, raccoons and foxes were crippled while escaping from 

leghold traps set in on a National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama over a four year period. In contrast, 

opossums and skunks were crippled in only 2% of captures. For the purposes of this study, "all 

animals were considered crippled that pulled out of traps, escaped by wringing off or gnawing off feet, 

or escaped with traps." During a study of population dynamics in Canada, MacPherson (1969) found 

most trapped arctic foxes he observed had ingested pieces of their own hair, bone and skin. The 

struggle can also lead to a variety of bone fractures, including simple, compound and compression 

fractures. Olsen et al. (1986) observed a 91% leg fracture rate for coyotes caught in unpadded traps, 

while 3 of 4 captured kit foxes caught had nearly or completely amputated their trapped leg. Damage 

to teeth and gums can occur when a captured animal attacks the trap with its mouth in an attempt to 

escape (MacPherson 1969; England 1982; Van Ballenberghe 1984; Keuhn et al. 1986; Kern et al. 
Appendices 143

1994; Hubert et al. 1997), though this type of injury is generally ignored by most trapping studies 

(Onderka et al. 1990). Englund (1982) found severe dental injuries in 58% of adult foxes captured in 

leghold traps while Van Ballenberghe (1984) reported that injuries to teeth, lips and gums occurred in 

46% of 109 wolves captured. Other studies corroborate these findings (Berchielli and Tullar 1980; 

Novak 1981; Englund 1982; Van Ballenberghe 1984; Tullar 1984; Kuehn et al. 1986; Linhart et al. 

1988; Olsen et al. 1988; Onderka et al. 1990; Phillips et al. 1992; Kern et al. 1994; Mowat et al. 1994; 

Proulx et al.. 1994; Phillips et at. 1996; Hubert et al. 1997). 

Despite the preponderance of evidence showing that leghold traps cause severe injuries to captured 

animals, most studies have actually underestimated the extent of injuries caused by these devices. 

With very few exceptions (Onderka et al. 1990; Huber et al. 1997) injury studies have limited their 

analysis of injuries to the trapped limb (Tullar 1984; Olsen et al. 1986, 1988; Houben et al. 1993; 

Gruver et al. 1996; Phillips et al. 1996) or the leg plus the head (Van Ballenberghe 1984; Kern et al. 

1994) and thus have not considered injuries to other areas of the body. The importance of examining 

the whole body was stressed by Hubert et al. (1997), who found leg injury scores of coyotes were 

approximately 15% lower than whole body scores. Without an analysis of the entire body, critical 

injures may be missed and therefore the true extent of injury not determined. 

Aside from the injuries they cause, leghold traps are notorious for not being species-specific. 

Beasom (1974), Berchielli and Tullar (1980), and Novak (1981) found non-target animals comprised 

56%, 32% and 76% of leghold captures, respectively and Beasom (1974) noted that "more 

individuals and species of animals were caught with steel traps in this study than with any other 

control methods used." 

B. "Padded" Leghold traps 

While padded leghold traps are ostensibly more humane than unpadded traps, studies confirm that 

even padded traps can cause significant damage to trapped animals. 

"In a letter to the Department dated August 13, 1990, Dr. N. C. Buyukmihci, DVM, Associate 

Professor of Surgery, University of California, Davis, writes: 'Several Studies have been done 

comparing the effects of padded verses unpadded traps on various animals. These have shown that 

both could and did cause the same degree of damage to a limb, including laceration of skin and 

fracture of bones'" (CDFG pg. 98). 

"Padded leghold traps show injury reduction for some species, but not for others. They have failed to 

consistently reduce injuries to raccoons, (Bishop 1990 ... The No.11⁄2 size padded traps cause fewer 

injuries to foxes than standard traps, but there was no difference of bobcats. Considering research 

findings to date, Soft Catch traps achieve injury reduction for some species, but not for others (Bishop 

1990, from CDFG)." 

While padded leghold traps have been shown to reduce the occurrence and severity of injuries in a 

number target species by 48–85% (Saunders and Roswell 1984; Olsen et al. 1986; Onderka et al. 

1990), injuries have not been eliminated and injuries to smaller non-target species may be especially 

severe. Even if captured animals are alive when released, any injury or disfigurement will invariably 

reduce an animal's ability to survive. Van Ballenberghe (1984) noted that "Reduced fitness and 

shortened life span ultimately resulting from capture caused injuries may be as important to consider 

as proximate mortality." 
144 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

New devices have the potential to reduce the incidence of non-target captures. Pan tension devices 

(PTD) have been shown to exclude up to 98% of non-target animals in studies (Turkowski et al. 1984; 

Phillips and Gruverd 1996). However, since PTDs also reduce target capture rates it is unlikely that they 

will be widely used by commercial and recreational trappers. If the refuges insist that leghold traps are 

needed for research then padded traps equipped with pan tension devices should be required. 

C. Conibear Traps 

As a trap designed to kill animals instantly, the Conibear poses a serious hazard to T&E species and 

other non-target wildlife. While studies suggest that the ability of kill-type traps to produce rapid death 

have been greatly improved, for a number of species (Proulx et al. 1989; Barrett et al. 1989; Proulx et al. 

1990; Proulx and Barrett 1993; Proulx et al. 1995) there have been no significant advances in reducing 

non-target captures. Research has shown that for every target animal captured at least 2 other nontarget animals are caught (Novak 1987; Barret et al. 1989; Proulx and Barrett 1993). 

The California Department of Fish and Game reported that, "Several factors keep this trap from killing 

consistently and quickly, including the size of the animal, the species involved, the position of the 

animal at trap closure, and the impact and clamping levels of the trap. The most significant flaw is the 

trigger system that performs erratically, preventing a fatal blow to the animal's body (CDFG pg. 94)." 

Response: Comments noted. This level of detail is not appropriate for a general planning document 

such as the CCP. However, as a result of the CCP there will be a number of step-down plans written 

for the purpose of achieving the goals and objectives of the CCP. These step-down plans will include 

a level of detail sufficient for refuge management decisions consistent with law, regulation, and policy. 

Management decisions will incorporate best available science and sound professional judgment as 

required by regulation and policy. 

Comment 4: 

“Alternatives to Lethal Control – It is well known that killing wildlife as a means to resolve 

human/wildlife conflicts is ineffective in the long run, an important argument that the Draft CCP/EA 

fails to adequately address. When animals are killed, they leave behind a habitat vacancy that new 

animals eventually fill - particularly if the attracting features or resources have not been eliminated. 

Moreover animals are commonly viewed as "overpopulated" or "overabundant" when the animals (a) 

threaten human life or livelihood; (b) depress the densities of species favored by humans; or (c) are 

"too numerous for their own good" i.e. when some animals are periodically in poor condition and 

undergo natural mortality, as through natural selection (Macnab 1985). None of these situations, 

however, represent an actual "overpopulation" of animals in a biological sense. 

Research indicates that killing predators to protect ground-nesting birds does not reliably increase 

breeding populations of ground-nesting birds; where such increases have been documented, they 

tend to be temporary at best (Cote and Sutherland 1997). Lethal predator control raises ethical 

questions and may be no more effective, especially over the long-term, than innovative non-lethal 

solutions (Goodrich and Buskirk1995). 
Appendices 145

Whether there is an actual or perceived need to control wildlife there are many humane, non lethal, 

methods available to resource and refuge managers to alleviate conflicts. For example, with regard 

to beaver conflicts, the construction of water-level control devices could be used to prevent flooding 

and could serve as a humane substitute for trapping and killing beavers. Such devices have been 

successfully implemented by municipalities and state wildlife agencies in a number of states, 

including Maine and Connecticut, and should be used more frequently by federal wildlife 

management agencies. 

In addition, the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) has developed a product called GonaCon 

TM—a new gonadotropin-releasing hormone immunocontraceptive vaccine. A single shot can 

successful keep female deer infertile for up to 4 years. Preliminary data from ongoing field studies 

near Silver Spring MD, on white-tailed deer shows the vaccine to be 85% - 90% effective. NWRC 

scientists hope GonaCon will receive its FDA approval and be available for non-regulatory use with in 

the next 2-3 years. 

The Draft CCP/EA also identified resident Canada Geese as a potential nuisance animal on the 

refuge that may require "removal or control." Innolytics, LLC has developed a product called 

OvoControl which has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and has been proven 

to be successful in reducing resident geese populations. 

The core technology for OvoControl centers on the proven ability to significantly decrease the 

hatchability of eggs by feeding medicated bait to birds during the reproductive season. The effect is 

fully reversible and care has been taken to develop a feeding system, which will limit exposure to 

non-target species. 

Where legitimate conflicts exist and population reduction is deemed necessary as a last resort, or as 

the most humane solution, non-lethal reproductive control may offer refuge managers a more 

scientifically-based and exacting control over deer and geese populations than hunting. 

With the above issues in mind, we request that the FWS provide the following information in a revised 

Draft CCP/EA: 

Current and historic (last 20 years) population status of species targeted in refuge trapping and or 

lethal control programs. 

Number of target and non-target animals trapped each year under the past trapping program(s) and 

projected data on number of animals trapped under any proposed action. 

Impacts of species-specific "overpopulations" on ecosystem and / or other species. 

Description, and degree, of damage to facilities/habitat as a result of perceived "overpopulations" of 

targeted species, if any, and effects of trapping or lethal control in past years on perceived damage 

and on targeted species populations. 

Wounding and retrieval rates of hunting on the refuge. 

We also ask that the FWS discuss and evaluate the following: 

The population demography of the species in question. 

Have any alternative methods of habitat protection/facilities management been explored? 

What efforts have been taken to reduce trap-related injuries to captured animals? 

What are the real and potential impacts of trapping and lethal control to non-target species, including 

threatened and endangered species? 
146 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

What efforts have, will, or are being taken to ensure that non-target species will not be injured or 

killed by the current control programs? 

Feasibility of implementing non-lethal water-level control devices for controlling beaver damage 

(including, but not limited to, Beaver Deceiver devices, Clemson Levelers, Beaver Bafflers, diversion 

dams, pipe systems). 

Feasibility of implementing other non-lethal beaver control methods including, but not limited to, 

different types of fencing (including wire mesh and electrical systems), tree wrapping and textural 

and taste repellents.” 

Response: This level of detail is not appropriate for a general planning document such as the CCP. 

However, as a result of the CCP there will be a number of step-down plans written for the purpose of 

achieving the goals and objectives of the CCP. These step-down plans will include a level of detail 

sufficient for refuge management decisions consistent with law, regulation, and policy. Management 

decisions will incorporate best available science and sound professional judgment as required by 

regulation and policy. Professional wildlife biologists are involved with resource management decisions. 

Comment 5: 

“Public Opposition to Recreational Killing of Wildlife on National Wildlife Refuges – Theodore 

Roosevelt established Pelican Island as the first refuge in 1903 as an "inviolate sanctuary" for the 

protection of the brown pelican. The original intent and purpose of subsequent refuges were clear: 

the protection of wildlife from exploitation and deliberate harm. Most Americans still view wildlife 

refuges as places where wild animals are protected from human interference. That is in fact the 

common definition of the word "refuge." 

The majority of Americans oppose the recreational and commercial killing of wildlife on National Wildlife 

Refuges. The results of a 1999 national Decision Research public opinion poll support this assertion. 

78% of those polled opposed allowing refuge officials to kill wildlife by trapping, hunting, or poisoning. 

71% agree that as long as refuge officials can remove dangerous animals, there is no reason to allow 

any other killing of animals on refuge property. 88% agreed that wildlife and habitat preservation 

should be the highest priority of the refuge system. 83% disagreed that the rights of hunters and 

trappers are more important than the need to protect wildlife on refuges. 

Given the overwhelming public opposition to the allowance of consumptive use activities on National 

Wildlife Refuges any proposal to expend limited resources maintaining and establishing new hunting 

programs at the refuge would be fiscally irresponsible. Moreover, efforts to manage and regulate 

hunting can quickly detract from efforts aimed at more important refuge purposes including migratory 

bird and endangered species protection. 

In addition, it is clear that the vast majority of Americans would support the use of humane, non-lethal 

approaches to resolving conflicts with beaver and other wildlife.” 

Response: Comments noted. 

Comment 6: 

“Conclusion – We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue, which is of great importance 

to our members and supporters nationwide. 
Appendices 147

We contend the FWS must implement a rigorous biological inventory and analysis of the fish and 

wildlife populations as required by law (16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(4)(N)) before making any compatibility 

determinations. Moreover, the FWS must fully analyze the site-specific and cumulative impacts of all 

proposed activities affecting the environment and wildlife inhabiting the refuge, which this Draft CCP 

and EA have failed to do. 

We request that that the feasibility of non-lethal alternatives be evaluated and presented. 

We look forward to reviewing a revised Draft CCP/EA when these documents become available and 

request to be informed of their availability for further comment.” 

Response: Comments noted. Best available science and sound professional judgment will be the 

primary basis for natural resource management decisions. In some cases there will be an adequate 

data base or research will be ongoing to provide data. Some management decisions will be made 

based upon the expertise of competent, professional wildlife biologists and refuge management 

professionals integrating the principles of wildlife management, the mission of the NWRS, and the 

purpose of the refuge. 

Dare County Bombing Range 

(Comments submitted by Bryan Henderson, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base) 

Comment 1: 

“General Comments: Draft CCP should note any cooperative NR planning with SJAFB /DCBR natural 

resources and range management staff and specific areas of planning [T/E (RCW) species 

population and habitat management, wetland management, migratory bird management to minimize 

BASH risks and issues, invasive species control, cooperative smoke management, cooperative 

wildland fire management and prescribed burning strategies].” 

Response: Comments noted. The refuge agrees that it is imperative that the SJAFB/DCBR staff and 

refuge staff coordinate planning to the maximum extent practical. 

Comment 2: 

“CouId note FWS-AF Cooperative Plan Development in the following sections: 

Page 1, Section A, I. Background – Beneficial to note and summarize the relationship to FWS - 

SJAFB/DCBR "Partners" and the cooperative development referring to cooperative INRMP and CCP 

species and habitat management, suggested language/paragraph on Sikes Act, and the cooperative 

development of the INRMP for SJAFB/DCBR with USFWS field office, ANWR and NC WRC. 

As the Dare County Bomb Range sits entirely within the boundaries of the Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuge, it is important that both the ARNWR CCP and the DCBR's Integrated Natural 

Resource Management Plan and the DCBR Comprehensive Range Plan be in general agreement for 

the management of natural resources on the Dare County peninsula. This is required under the 

Sikes Act (Title 16 USC 670a-670o, 74 Stat 1052) to carry out a program to provide for the 

conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations. 

Each installation is required to prepare an INRMP in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the Director of the US FWS, and the head of each appropriate state fish and wildlife 

agency; and prepare and implement the INRMP to reflect the mutual agreement of the parties 

concerning conservation, protection, and management of fish and wildlife resources. Because of the 

geographical relationship of the DCBR to the ARNWR, these plans should be in agreement.” 
148 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Response: Comments noted. The reference to the Sikes Act has been added to the CCP in the 

appropriate sections. 

Comment 3: 

“Page 57, Section III, Plan Development. Note SAJAFB/DCBR natural resources staff support to the 

Planning Team. Due to DCBR lying within the ANWR, we would request the opportunity for a DCBR 

natural resources staffer to actively participate on the CCP Planning Team. (We also will solicit the 

active participation by the ARNWR in the DCBR INRMP planning process and INRMP development). 

It would be good to identify common goals for RCW & red wolf management, invasive 

species/Phragmites control, pest and health surveillance (West Nile Virus), wildland fire management 

planning, prescribed burning, cooperative law enforcement to protect DCBR wildlife resources and 

DCBR assets, smoke management.” 

Response: Just as the refuge extended invitations for others to participate in development of the 

CCP, we welcome the opportunity to work the DCBR staff in finalizing the CCP. The refuge agrees 

that it is imperative that the SJAFB/DCBR staff and refuge staff coordinate planning to the 

maximum extent practical. 

Comment 4: 

“Recommend that CCP note that Prescribed Burning for fuel load reduction and RCW habitat 

maintenance and related smoke management be coordinated closely with DCBR Range 

management and NR management staff. Recommend providing Range and NR management staff 

Contact Info (name/phone/address/e-mail/fax number) along with SJAFB/DCBR’s comments to 

USFWS for inclusion in the Final CCP.” 

Response: This level of detail is not appropriate for a general planning document such as the CCP. 

However, as a result of the CCP there will be a number of step-down plans written for the purpose of 

achieving the goals and objectives of the CCP. These step-down plans will include the level of detail 

referenced in this comment. 

Comment 5: 

“Page 45, Outdoor Recreation in the Area. While the last sentence in the bottom of the page refers to 

NCWRC manages hunting activities at DCBR, suggest elaborating on the current recreation program 

activities on DCBR and restrictions related to training mission requirements, limitations, - Note who is 

responsible for conservation law enforcement (NC WRC, others?).” 

Response: Due to the general nature of the discussion in this paragraph, we do not believe it is 

warranted to deliver a detailed explanation of outdoor recreation at this time. Upon preparation of a 

step-down plan concerning outdoor recreation, it would be more appropriate to provide detailed 

explanations on the full extent of recreational opportunities and limitations thereof. It would also be 

more appropriate to deal with training mission requirements by the agencies in a step-down plan. 

With regard to conservation law enforcement on the range, your agreement with the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission to manage the area as a game land provides full authority to the 

state wildlife enforcement officers on conservation and some other matters. Refuge law enforcement 

officers, other federal law enforcement officers, and special agents would have authority to enforce 

certain conservation law and regulation, depending upon the circumstances. 

Comment 6: 

“Suggest FWS add Sikes Act to Appendix III, Relevant Legal Mandates, pages 200–201.” 

Response: A discussion on the Sikes Act has been added to Appendix III. 
Appendices 149

Comment 7: 

“Plan wants to increase Visitors by 25%, Outdoor Photo by 20% and Student visits by 100%. Will this 

impact DCBR and accidental trespass into unsafe areas?” 

Response: Although an increase in visitation rates does increase the probability of an increase in 

associated problems, the refuge does not anticipate any significant problems in the number of 

problems such as federal trespass into unsafe areas. Continuing education by the refuge and DCBR 

will be necessary with or without an increase in the visitation rate. The refuge anticipates continued 

increases in public use whether planned for or not as the local population grows. Therefore, the CCP 

acknowledges the increase and expresses a general management approach that will deal with the 

anticipated increase in a beneficial manner. 

Comment 8: 

“Communication Towers – USAF supports management to limit number and size of towers 

constructed on refuge, specifically in areas adjacent to DCBR.” 

Response: Because of known impacts to migratory birds, the refuge would attempt to limit the 

number and size of communication towers proposed to be placed on refuge land and we would likely 

be opposed to locating such a structure adjacent to the refuge. However, we have little authority to 

comment on projects occurring off the refuge. 

Comment 9: 

“Interagency Coordination – USAF continues to support coordination and cooperation between 

USFWS and USAF and will attend FWS hosted local meetings.” 

Response: See the response to Comment 3. 

Comment 10: 

“Significant Natural Heritage Areas – USAF supports ecosystem designation of NHP areas and 

encourages prescribed burning especially joint jurisdictional burns.” 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 11: 

“Step-down Plans – USAF requests planning involvement with step down plans that would benefit 

from ecosystem strategies and would allow USFWS plans and DCBR's INRMP to be mutually 

beneficial to resources.” 

Response: See the response to Comment 3. 

Comment 12: 

“Plan needs to identify/recognize bear hunting season on DCBR.” 

Response: The bear hunting season at the DCBR was being planned at the same time the draft CCP 

was being prepared. A detailed discussion on hunting seasons and species to be hunted will be 

more suited for the step-down plan that deals with hunting. The DCBR recreational opportunities will 

be detailed in the appropriate step-down plan. 

Comment 13: 

“Plan needs to identify access restrictions to DCBR (gates, weapons footprints, etc.).” 
150 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Response: See the response to Comment 5. 

Comment 14: 

“Alternative 2 states that the USFWS will mange water levels to create optimum habitat. Does this 

include the management of water levels within the ditch network on the peninsula? How will this 

water management impact ground and surface waters on the DCBR? Will water management result 

in impoundment of surface water on DCBR and will impoundment impact existing vegetation 

communities and DCBR Operations?” 

Response: For the most part, active water management will occur primarily within and adjacent to the 

farm unit. The remainder of the refuge will be subjected to “passive” water management which will 

consist of installing/replacing culverts or water control structures, or other management actions such as 

removing beaver dams where necessary. The primary objective for the refuge outside of the farm unit will 

be to restore or mimic natural hydrologic conditions to the extent possible to protect the ecological integrity 

of the unique wetlands that led to one of the primary purposes for establishing the refuge. 

Comment 15: 

“The prescribed fire program on the ARNWR should include a review of historical wildfire regimes on 

the refuge, identification of prescribed fire regimes to recover or maintain fire dependent ecosystems, 

and the documentation of ecological end points for the prescribed fire program.” 

Response: This has been done to a limited extent in the current Fire Management Plan. Identifying 

appropriate fire regimes for maintaining (which includes regeneration) the fire dependent/fire tolerant 

ecosystems on the refuge is certainly an area in need of considerably more research. These types of 

data needs can be better addressed through a revised Fire Management Plan as we gain new insight 

into the dynamics of fire ecology in these wetland systems. A general planning document such as 

the CCP is not the most appropriate document for addressing these topics. 

Comment 16: 

“The CCP does not identify all federal, state, and local government, and NGO partners. The NC 

Wildlife Resources Commission is the only identified partner. The US Air Force, US Navy, NC 

DENR, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, NC Heritage Program, and the NC Coastal Federation 

are just a few of the existing partners that should be included in the CCP.” 

Response: Assuming this comment is directed towards the paragraphs on page 99 under the 

heading “Partnership Opportunities,” we have added the suggested state and federal agencies as 

well as additional NGOs to the section. 

Comment 17: 

“Although the NC Natural Heritage Program has proposed Heritage Areas within the refuge, no 

Heritage Areas currently exist on the ARNWR. The three Heritage Areas that currently exist on the 

DCBR comprise vegetation types found on the ARNWR.” 

Response: The NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program (NHP) 

staff contacted the refuge on several occasions in the past with regards to establishing Natural Area 

designations within the refuge. Each time the refuge response has been that of willingness to work with 

the program, but we are not aware of any designations to date. The refuge has assumed that the NHP 

staff is continuing to pursue designations on the refuge through the appropriate processes. 
Appendices 151

Comment 18: 

“The Figure 3 soils map should include soil series delineation for the peninsula. The characterization 

of soils by water table and flooding ignores the seasonal and annual variability in precipitation and 

storm events affect the depth of the water table and flooding.” 

Response: The soils map in Figure 3 has been changed to reflect soil series delineation. Due to a 

scale factor, the map is useful only for very general analyses. It is only through information provided 

in the text and in Table 3 that a reader can gain insight into the nature of the soil types on the 

peninsula and through additional knowledge of the annual meteorological variations some insight into 

events such as flooding or seasonal changes in the water table. 

Comment 19: 

“Figure 4 and the community descriptions that follow list vegetation habitat types that do not conform to 

the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) as required by the Federal Geographic Data Committee.” 

Response: The Federal Geographic Data Committee National Vegetation Classification list was 

neither finalized nor readily available when Biological Reviews were conducted prior to beginning 

planning and preparation of the CCP. Furthermore the NVC community descriptions are not readily 

adaptable to certain habitat types found on the refuge. It is our understanding that the overall 

objective of the such standards is to support the use of a consistent national vegetation classification 

system (NVCS) to produce uniform statistics from vegetation cover data at the national level for the 

purpose of facilitating compilation of regional and national summaries that may be used to eventually 

support a detailed, quantitative, geo-referenced basis for vegetation cover modeling, mapping, and 

analysis. The CCP is a general planning document to be used as guidance for refuge management 

over a 15-year window in time. It is not intended as a document for geographical data analysis for 

the purpose of disseminating spatial geographic data. For these reasons, a decision was made to 

use the habitat types that most accurately reflected the vegetative communities and that had already 

been incorporated into the planning process. Upon preparation of the Habitat Management StepDown Plan it will be appropriate to cross-reference the NVCS nomenclature at that time. 

Comment 20: 

“The description of existing vegetation communities ignores the impacts of commercial logging 

operations on the peninsula that began in the early 1800s. There is no discussion of the historical 

distribution of dominant species such as Atlantic white cedar or the role of Buffalo City timber 

companies in the clear cutting of cedar, cypress, and pine into the 1930s.” 

Response: Comments noted. While this information would contribute to the historical perspective, it can 

be presented more appropriately in the Habitat Management Step-Down Plan when it is prepared. 

Comment 21: 

“Information on plant and animal species surveys conducted by the NC Natural Heritage Program 

should be included in the discussion of fauna and flora surveys.” 

Response: Considerable information on flora and fauna discussed in the CCP document was either 

derived from or was substantiated by various publications done through the Natural Heritage Program 

and the North Carolina Biological Survey. Both sources of information are cited in Appendix II. 

Comment 22: 

“The CCP does not include any information on RCW population surveys, active and inactive colony 

trees and forage areas, or restoration goals. This information should be coordinated with RCW 

restoration activities on DCBR.” 
152 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Response: Comment noted. While this level of detailed information is essential for management 

plan development, it can be presented more appropriately in the Biological Inventory/Monitoring Stepdown Plan when it is prepared. It is anticipated that RCW management will be a significant 

component of the step-down plan. Upon completing the RCW Management Plan and upon receiving 

funding, there is an expectation that RCW management on the refuge will intensify. The refuge staff 

welcomes the opportunity to coordinate with the DCBR natural resources staff on wildlife 

management matters. 

Comment 23: 

“The Habitat Management strategies for forest types state that USFWS will "monitor," "inventory" 

and "manage" these areas. There is no additional information on these activities. For example, 

how will Atlantic white cedar, a species dependent on catastrophic wildfire to regenerate, be 

managed on the refuge? Does the management of this species include restoration efforts to 

achieve historical land cover area?” 

Response: Comments noted. While this information would contribute to the CCP, it can be 

presented more appropriately in the Habitat Management Step-down Plan when it is prepared. 

However, habitat management strategies will include a thorough analysis of Atlantic white cedar, 

including the historical extent of this habitat type and regeneration. The refuge will be considering all 

habitat types from a historical extent perspective and wildlife habitat requirements. 

Comment 24: 

“The CCP should address future effects of global climate change-driven sea level rise on the refuge. 

Immediate attention should include the impacts of salt water intrusion into the ditch network and 

surface water, identification of historical coastal land areas loss and mitigation strategies, and an 

assessment of impacts of USFWS mitigation strategies on private lands. A one-foot elevation 

contour map should be added to CCP. Areas at risk over time should be identified based on best 

available science.” 

Response: The CCP has a 15-year planning horizon and, for this reason, it is doubtful that there will be 

little change in the landscape that can be linked directly with global climate change. Predicting effects 

from global climate change on the future refuge landscape will be possible only in a most general way. 

The most recent models suggest that, if sea level continues to rise at current rates, most of the refuge we 

know today will be either marsh or under water within the next 100 years. At best, the CCP can recognize 

that there are impacts on refuge and other lands as a result of climate change and commit to pro-actively 

accepting the responsibility of supporting research to provide data for adaptively managing landscape 

changes brought about by increased hydrologic regimes and salinity. 

Comment 25: 

“The CCP should include a map of private lands within and surrounding the refuge. How will private 

lands impact implementation of the CCP?” 

Response: Color coding on the maps shown in Figure 1, Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 illustrate 

the extent of refuge lands. Areas that are not colored (white on white paper) are non-refuge lands 

and may be either private or, in the case of the Dare County Bombing Range, owned by another 

federal, state, or local agency. Implementation of the CCP’s Preferred Alternative should have no 

effect on these lands, and the adjacency of private lands is not expected to affect the refuge’s ability 

to implement the Preferred Alternative. 
Appendices 153

Comment 26: 

“There is no discussion of the impacts of 50+ years of wildland fire exclusion on vegetation or 

ecological endpoint of the ARNWR prescribed fire program. The CCP should also include a 

discussion of joint jurisdictional prescribed fire management with the US Air Force and Navy to 

reduce wildland fire risk and protect lives and private property at the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 

The CCP should include important details on the refuge’s Prescribed Fire Program.” 

Response: Comments noted. This has been done to a limited extent in the current Fire Management 

Plan. A general planning document such as the CCP is not the most appropriate document for 

addressing these topics. However, we are in complete agreement with regards to coordination for joint 

jurisdictional prescribed fire management to reduce wildland fire risks. The most appropriate forum for 

such discussions and planning is through periodic coordination meetings, Fire Management Plan 

revisions, and annual planning agreements or fire prescriptions. We welcome the opportunity to work 

with the DCBR and adjacent communities to protect lives and property at the wildland/urban interface. 

The Nature Conservancy 

(Comments submitted by Jeff DeBlieu, The Nature Conservancy) 

Comment 1: 

“I am writing to provide The Nature Conservancy’s comments on the most recent (May 2006) Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuge. We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this draft of the CCP. We 

hope these comments are useful to the refuge staff, and we look forward to working with you to 

further improve the plan and to support its implementation. 

Our comments will touch on a number of elements in the plan. However, we are most concerned 

about the impacts that sea-level rise—and other climate-related forces— can be expected to have on 

the refuge. In one way or another, these are likely to be the most significant issues facing Alligator 

River and other conservation lands in eastern North Carolina. 

Although the CCP acknowledges that sea level along the North Carolina coast will increase by two to 

three feet in the next 100 years, it does not adequately address the potential consequences of sealevel rise on the refuge or propose strategies to mitigate them. This may be because the plan is 

intended to cover only the next 15 years. Nevertheless, sea-level rise and other climate changerelated phenomena have the potential to trigger such radical ecosystem changes on the entire 

Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula that planning for how to deal with them should not be postponed. 

In a brief discussion of sea-level rise on page 58, the CCP foresees apparently gradual changes in 

habitat types as water levels rise and species shift “upslope.” For instance, it predicts that freshwater 

marshes will expand into pocosins and hardwoods and that bald cypress and swamp tupelo forests 

will expand into hardwood. However, sea-level rise models based on high-resolution elevation data 

of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula show that much of the refuge actually will be inundated by even 

a one-foot increase in sea level. A two to three feet increase will transform vast areas of what are 

now terrestrial ecosystems into open water. For all practical purposes, this will eliminate the refuge 

as a management entity. 

The rate of sea-level rise in eastern North Carolina was about two inches per decade during the latter 

half of the 20th century. The rate will in all probability increase within the next 15 years. (All models 

and scenarios considered in the International Panel on Climate Change Report of 2001 projected that 

the rate of local sea level rise in the 21st century will be significantly more than in the 20th century at 

the great majority of coastal locations.) 
154 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Other factors that could exacerbate the effects of sea-level rise and lead to even more rapid 

ecosystem transformation include: (a) organic soils not being able to accrete fast enough to keep up 

with an increasing rate of sea-level rise; (b) increased salinity in creeks, canals and ditches 

penetrating into the interior of the refuge, causing sulphate reduction of organic soils and soil 

subsidence; (c) increased flooding, greater storm surges and increased shoreline erosion from more 

frequent and potentially more powerful hurricanes; and (d) increased tidal ranges and wave energy in 

Pamlico Sound, especially if sea-level rise and larger storms cause the Outer Banks to be 

substantially breached. 

The CCP does not appear to take these issues into consideration. Nor does it consider whether 

historic alterations to refuge lands or current management practices (i.e., fire, cropland and moist soil 

management) could interact negatively with any of these factors. 

In discussing the refuge’s conservation priorities, the Comprehensive Conservation Plan points out 

that: 

“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. Often, management for 

one species or species group conflicts with the management objectives for another species or 

species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term priorities that frequently change as scientific 

knowledge expands and interests in special resources shift. Biologists must exercise caution to 

prevent the start-up of management and restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to 

meet the long-term, comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within 

the ecosystem.” 

In addition, the plan says the most important challenges facing the refuge are “securing adequate funding 

and personnel and then successfully addressing historical habitat alterations and hydrological functions.” 

We agree completely with the necessity of a long-term ecosystem approach. We also agree that 

repairing the damage of past habitat and hydrological alterations are critical needs, especially since 

we suspect that many past practices have made the landscape more susceptible to climate-related 

stresses and increased the likelihood that sea-level rise will have deleterious effects on the ecological 

integrity of the system. (In addition, there is a consensus that these practices, coupled with similar 

practices on many other parts of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, have had a negative effect on the 

quality of surrounding estuarine waters.) 

Yet as now written, the CCP does not include sea-level rise in the matrix of “comprehensive 

ecosystem needs.” Nor do any of the proposed goals and objectives in the chapter on Management 

Direction explicitly say how you plan to deal with habitat and hydrological alterations. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (NWRSIA) states that Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans “shall identify and describe . . . significant problems that may adversely affect the 

populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants within the planning unit and the actions necessary 

to correct or mitigate such problems.” 

This planning process provides the perfect opportunity to begin preparing for how the refuge will reckon 

with these other issues, which the planning team has identified as the refuge’s major challenges.” 
Appendices 155

Response: Comments noted and the refuge concurs with the information presented in these comments. 

The refuge has a history of working towards a better understanding of impacts to refuge lands resulting 

from global climate change and especially the effects of rising sea level. However, the CCP has a 15-

year planning horizon and, for this reason, it is difficult to recognize, plan for, and implement management 

actions to soften the consequences of global climate change within such a relatively short planning 

period. Predicting effects from global climate change on the future refuge landscape would be possible 

only in a most general way. The most recent models suggest that, if sea level continues to rise at current 

rates, most of the refuge we know today will be either marsh or under water within the next 100 years. 

The CCP may have been rewritten 6–7 times during that period. At best, the current CCP can recognize 

that there are impacts on refuge and other lands as a result of climate change. Beyond that recognition 

there is a standing commitment to proactively accept the responsibility of working with the research 

community to provide data for adaptively managing habitat to accommodate landscape changes brought 

about by increased hydrologic regimes and salinity. 

Comment 2: 

“It may be that you intend to address them more specifically while writing detailed step-down plans for 

habitat management, biological inventories and monitoring, moist soil/water management and fire 

management. This is not explicitly stated in the CCP, and the brief descriptions of what each stepdown plan will entail do not appear to include these larger issues. 

We believe it is essential that the Alligator River CCP include specific, measurable, science-based 

objectives for restoring and maintaining refuge integrity within the context of sea-level rise and a 

changing climate. We recognize that this is a major undertaking and that there are limited resources 

available to the refuge system at this time. However, these issues are paramount to Alligator River’s 

future. Not to deal with them in the CCP would be a major shortcoming.” 

Response: Comments noted. While the level of information requested would certainly contribute to 

the CCP, it can be presented more appropriately in the Habitat Management Step-down Plan or other 

step-down plans when they are prepared. We have modified descriptions of the Habitat Management 

Plan and Marsh Management Plan on page 99 to include mention of the effects of global climate 

change and rising sea level. 

Comment 3: 

“The Nature Conservancy has begun working with several other conservation organizations to 

develop strategies for how we can help maintain the integrity of eastern North Carolina’s significant 

conservation lands. As you know from the climate change workshop you helped us with earlier this 

year, many scientists and other government agencies are also interested in and concerned about 

how climate change will affect this region. I know The Nature Conservancy would be willing to work 

with you to help address these issues at Alligator River—and believe others would as well. 

I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss our comments further and 

volunteer to assist in the continued development and implementation of the plan.” 

Response: Comments noted. The refuge continues to look forward to a healthy working relationship 

with conservation organizations and others on the issue of global climate change. In 2006 the refuge 

was identified as one of the 10 most endangered national wildlife refuges as a direct result of global 

warming by the Defenders of Wildlife. This recognition emphasizes the need to develop adaptive 

management strategies to continue to provide the highest quality wildlife habitat possible, even with 

the advent of habitat type shifts from forested to emergent wetlands. 
156 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

County of Dare 

(Comments submitted by Stan White, Chairman, Dare County Board of Commissioners) 

Comment 1: 

“Thank you for providing a copy of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and the opportunity to comment on this 

draft plan. On behalf of the Dare County Board of Commissioners, I offer the following comments: 

1. I am glad to see that Alternative 2 selected for implementation proposes the expansion of visitor 

services especially hunting and fishing opportunities on the refuge property. This issue is of 

particular significance to the residents and visitors to Dare County and efforts to increase visitor 

services on the refuge is appropriate. Especially important to the residents of the Mainland villages is 

shoreline access, including boat ramps and parking areas. Although the draft plan discusses 

maintenance of existing boat facilities, it is the opinion of the County that expansion of the number of 

shoreline access points should be a goal of the management plan.” 

Response: Comments noted. Although most access is primitive at best, water access is currently 

available through the existing road system and at access areas owned and maintained by the North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). It is the refuge’s intent to continue to provide the 

access points under the control of the refuge. As far as is known at this time, the NCWRC will 

continue to provide boating access in at least as many areas as they currently maintain. It is not 

likely that new access roads will be constructed on the refuge due to law, regulation, and policy. 

Whether or not the refuge would receive funding to upgrade primitive access areas at the end of 

existing roads would depend upon funding levels over the next 15 years. Based upon the current 

budget situation, it is not likely that such funding will become available. Although the refuge is 

committed to maintaining existing access points, it cannot commit to adding new locations or make 

significant improvements to existing locations. 

Comment 2: 

“2. The draft plan states that USFWS currently owns land on Roanoke Island near the National Park 

Service offices on which a visitor center is planned for construction. Elsewhere in the draft plan, the 

strategies call for additional acquisition of land from the Bombing Range and private land owners if 

opportunities occur. I strongly encourage the USFWS to consider purchase of land on the Mainland for 

the construction of the visitor center versus the construction of a visitor center on Roanoke Island. I am 

aware that much of the refuge land is not suitable for construction but the location of a visitor center on the 

refuge would be more conducive for visitor services than from a site on Roanoke Island.” 

Response: Comments noted. 

Comment 3: 

“3. The draft plan discusses interagency coordination and cooperative agreements with local, state, 

and federal agencies and specifically lists some agencies. The County of Dare is not named in the 

list although the plan mentions the three small communities that are located within the refuge. These 

three small communities are within the unincorporated portions of Dare County and I would like to 

request that the County of Dare be added to the list of local agencies on page 83 of the draft plan.” 

Response: Comments noted. The refuge welcomes the opportunity to coordinate refuge 

management activities with the County of Dare. The CCP has been modified to include Dare County 

on pages 83 and 99 as well as in other sections. 
Appendices 157

Comment 4: 

“4. The Highway 64 corridor is located within the refuge land and long-term transportation plans call 

for the widening of this corridor and replacement of the Alligator River Bridge. The widening of 

Highway 64 and the bridge replacement are essential transportation infrastructure improvements for 

Dare County. I sincerely hope that these improvements will not be delayed or detrimentally impacted 

by management plans of the USFWS. Language should be added to the section on utility line and 

highway corridors to specifically list these planned improvements and state the position of the 

USFWS on to these planned improvements.” 

Response: Comments noted. The refuge is aware of the upcoming plans to build a new high-rise bridge 

over Alligator River and to upgrade the present US 64 to a 4-lane transportation system. Other than a 

willingness to work with the N.C. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does 

not currently have a position on this transportation project as there is no proposed alternative. 

Consequently, there is no meaningful way to assess how the project may affect the refuge. As 

alternatives are presented and to meet our responsibility for maintaining the ecological integrity of the 

refuge, we will review and evaluate the effects of this highway project on various components of the 

ecosystem, including, but not limited to, wildlife populations; plant community composition (including 

induced changes in vegetative composition and habitat structure); hydrology; and aquatic ecology. These 

considerations are mandated by law, regulation, and policy. Those uses that do not compromise the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purpose for which the refuge was established may 

be allowable. Any proposed use cannot compromise the ecological integrity of refuge lands. In the 

absence of adequate information, the proposed use cannot be found compatible and a right-of-way permit 

cannot be issued. Provided that all agencies, organizations, and individuals acknowledge the refuge’s 

Congressionally established mandate, agree to work within the legal framework governing use of refuge 

lands, and include refuge recommendations in the early phases of planning, there should be no project 

delays. The extent to which others take various actions because they may not like what they hear or it is 

not what they want to see is beyond the control of the refuge. 

B. S. Achau 

(Comment submitted by B. S. Achau, concerned citizen) 

Comment 1: 

“This refuge has been bought and paid for by national taxpayers, yet this group and the group of 

future children who will grow up to try to have this refuge as part of their world are also ignored.” 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 2: 

“Park Mgt [sic] lets local profiteers call the shots. Those shots include hunting, the brutal 

encouragement of human gun wackos to pick up a weapon to kill. This kind of encouragement has in 

fact brought about situations like Columbine, Jonesboro, Red Lake, where children get the idea it’s 

OK to solve situations with guns and it’s OK to kill God’s creatures. They start with that brutalization 

of killing. I very much oppose letting these brutes into a place called a sanctuary. 

I think all hunting should be banned. It takes a lot of staff time to try to monitor and they do not 

‘monitor’ it very well so that poaching and illegal hunting goes on once it is let in the door. I think any 

trapping should also be banned.” 

Response: Comments noted. 
158 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment 3: 

“Prescribed burning is done by idiots. Anyone who will load up our air with fine particulate matter so 

that this matter can travel thousands of miles and cause lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes, allergies, 

pneumonia and asthma is surely an idiot because he has not bothered to inform himself of air 

pollution and the health effects of that air pollution. I think you should let the senior citizens groups in 

on what you are doing to kill them.” 

Response: Comments noted. 

Comment 4: 

“Wildlife watchers are peaceful folk who outspend hunters twenty to one and don’t bother to muck up 

the place with lead shot which deteriorates in air/water and soil and which can grow up in plants, 

causing them to be lead soaked. Lead affects children’s brains and red blood cells, so to allow any 

use of lead at all is extremely dangerous for having healthy children.” 

Response: Comments noted. 

Comment 5: 

“Remember, that the refuge should be there for our children and grandchildren. All of the destructive 

uses you propose have a toll. 

I also think it is time that God’s creatures—the animals and birds—have a peaceful way to lay their 

heads. It is time to get the dangerous human gun wackos out of this place.” 

 

Response: Comments noted. 
Appendices 159

Appendix V. Decisions and Approvals 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

Originating Person: Mike Bryant

Telephone Number: 252-473-1131

E-Mail: mike_bryant@fws.gov

Date: 10/07/05 

Project Name: Alligator River 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: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): Implementation of 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge by adopting 

the proposed alternative that provides guidance, management direction, and operation plans 

for the next 15 years.

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

B. Complete the following table: 

 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS 

Bald Eagle Threatened 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered 

Red Wolf Endangered 

American Alligator Threatened 

VI. Location (attach map):

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear No. 34 
160 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

B. County and State: Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 5 miles west of Manteo, North 

Carolina across the Croatan Sound 

E. Species/habitat occurrence:

Bald Eagle - Record of occurrence in counties within 20 years. Occasionally observed 

on refuge; nesting has occurred on the refuge. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker - Record of occurrence in counties within 20 years. 

Observed on the refuge and property adjacent to the refuge; there are approximately 

1–3 clusters on the refuge. 

Red Wolf - Record of in counties occurrence within 20 years. 

Experimental population established and monitored on the refuge. 

American Alligator - Record of occurrence in counties within 20 years. 

Observed on the refuge and property adjacent to the refuge; nesting occurs on the refuge. 

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 

Bald Eagle 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. Saturation of habitat by 

hydrology restoration. 

American Alligator Disturbance by boaters and anglers. Water quality 

degradation and lack of marsh habitat. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects. 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

Bald Eagle 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 Restrict access to den sites when wolves are in the area. 

Monitor the effect of hydrology restoration. 

American Alligator Restrict access when alligators are in the area. Cooperate 

with state agencies to monitor and improve water quality. 

Monitor the status of marsh habitat. 
Appendices 161

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested:

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT DETERMINATION RESPONSE 

REQUESTED1

NE NA AA 

Bald Eagle X 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker X 

Red Wolf X 

American Alligator X 

1

DETERMINATION/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. 
162 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determination 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, interpretation, and trapping of selected 

furbearers for population management. A description and anticipated biological impacts for each use 

are addressed separately in this Compatibility Determination. Additional compatibility determinations 

for non-priority uses and refuge management economic activities are on file at the refuge office. 

Refuge Name: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: 1984 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956), 16 U.S.C., Sec. 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1952), 16 U.S.C., Sec. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966), and 16 U.S.C., 

Sec. 3901 (b) 100 Stat. 1583 (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986). 

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, as reflected in the 

refuge’s authorizing legislation, is to protect and conserve migratory birds, and other wildlife 

resources through the protection of wetlands, in accordance with the following laws: 

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

wildlife resources... 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)4 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956); 

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

services... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f(b)1 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

...suitable for (1) incidental take of fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species... 16 U.S.C., Sec. 

460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1952); 

...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...16 

U.S.C., Sec. 460k-2; 16 U.S.C., Sec. 460k-460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1952); 

...conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans...16 U.S.C., Sec. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966). 

...for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird 

treaties and conventions...16 U.S.C., Sec. 3901 (b) 100 Stat. 1583 (Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act of 1986). 
Appendices 163

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

Act of 1997, is: 

... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.

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) 

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 plan, they are part of each descriptive use and become part of that 

compatibility determination if considered outside of the comprehensive conservation plan. 
164 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Hunting 

The refuge is a mixture of pocosins (shrub wetlands), forest blocks of pine and hardwoods, marshes, 

managed wetlands (moist-soil areas), agricultural areas, and interconnected streams, ditches. The 

pocosins have bay species (red bay, sweetbay, loblolly bay), gallberry, sweet gallberry, sweet 

pepperbush, fetterbush, river cane, and pond pine. Other forest types have a great variety of tree 

species that includes bald cypress, oaks, black gum, hickory, elm, green ash, red maple, and 

sweetgum. This rich forested wetland provides habitat for a number of wildlife species including 

white-tailed deer, black bear, squirrel, raccoon, land birds, marsh birds, and waterfowl. 

Many of the local residents enjoy an informal, rural lifestyle that includes frequent recreational use of 

the area’s natural resources. Hunting and fishing have been, and continue to be, popular uses of 

refuge lands. It is estimated that 3,500 visits per year are attributed to hunting activities. The refuge 

has permitted hunting since 1984. The administration, as well as special regulations for hunting, has 

changed over time but the majority of the program has remained unchanged. 

The draft comprehensive conservation plan calls for the continued hunting of deer and other wildlife 

as allowed by state and federal laws and regulations. All hunts fall within the framework of the state’s 

open seasons and follow state regulations. There are additional refuge-specific regulations to 

supplement state regulations. The staff reviews refuge-specific regulations annually and incorporates 

them into the refuge hunting brochure. The draft comprehensive conservation plan would increase 

law enforcement presence during hunting seasons; would evaluate the hunt program annually; and 

modify seasons, hunt areas, or regulations if necessary. The refuge could add hunting areas as the 

refuge expands through an active land acquisition program. Implementation of the proposed 

alternative, as described in the draft comprehensive conservation plan, would ensure that 

opportunities for various types of wildlife-dependent recreation would continue for future generations. 

Availability of Resources: There is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer this 

use at its current level. The existing permanent, full-time law enforcement officer and public use 

specialist are needed to assist with hunting program administration and visitor services.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Current literature suggests that hunting mortality is compensatory. 

Factors, such as reproduction, emigration, immigration, and habitat quality and quality, influence 

population size more than regulated hunting. The Service does not anticipate adverse impacts to 

huntable wildlife populations as a result of regulated hunting. 

Disturbance to non-game migratory birds would be minimal. It is anticipated that the current levels 

and expected future levels of hunting would not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact any listed, 

proposed, or candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. The incidental take of other 

wildlife species, either illegally or unintentionally, may occur. 

At current and anticipated public use levels, incidental take will be very small and would not directly or 

cumulatively impact current or future populations of wildlife, either on this refuge or in the surrounding areas. 

Implementation of an effective law enforcement program and development of site-specific refuge 

regulations and special conditions will eliminate most incidental take problems. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases which were published as follows: June 7 in the Virginia Pilot/Ledger Star and the 
Appendices 165

Raleigh News and Observer, June 8 in the Coastland Times, and June 11 in the Outer Banks 

Sentinel. In addition, local radio stations broadcast the announcement intermittently during the 

comment period. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30687) and made available for public 

comment for 45 days until July 14, 2006. Appendix D. summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The refuge permits hunting in accordance with refuge 

regulations as well as State of North Carolina regulations and licensing requirements. An Environmental 

Assessment is on file at the refuge headquarters as part of the Hunting Plan. Following completion of the 

comprehensive conservation plan, the staff will revise the Hunting Plan. The following stipulations will 

help ensure the refuge hunting program is compatible with refuge purposes. 

Refuge hunting permits are required. 

Vehicles are restricted to designated refuge roads and parking lots. 

Use of firearms, bows, and other weapons are prohibited except during designated hunting 

seasons. 

Hunting deer with dogs is allowed on the refuge in designated areas only. 

All hunts are designed to provide quality user opportunities based upon wildlife population 

demographics and biological parameters. Hunt season dates and bag limits will be adjusted as 

needed to achieve balanced wildlife population levels within carrying capacities, regardless of 

impacts to user opportunities. 

As the staff collects and analyzes data, it could implement additional refuge-specific regulations. 

These regulations could include, but may not be limited to, season dates that differ from those in 

surrounding state zones, refuge permit requirements, and closed areas on a permanent or seasonal 

basis. The objectives of the regulations may be to reduce disturbance to specific wildlife species or 

habitats, such as bird rookeries, wintering waterfowl or threatened and endangered species, to allow 

hunting when staff is available to administer it, or to provide for public safety). 

An effective law enforcement program is implemented and site-specific refuge regulations and 

special conditions are developed. 

Justification: Hunting is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It is one of the public use recreational activities that 

the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act specifically identifies as a use to be 

allowed where possible on refuges. The refuge uses deer hunts as management tools to protect the 

diverse ecosystem. 
166 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: __6/8/2022__

Description of Use: Fishing 

Sport fishing is a common public use on the state waters of the creeks, rivers, bays, and sounds 

from the shorelines located on the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and the banks of 

ditches and moist-soil units on the refuge. It is estimated that 3,400 visits per year are attributed 

to fishing and related activities. Fish creel limits, boating safety and license requirements are in 

accordance with State of North Carolina regulations. The Service maintains a canoe and kayak 

launch area on Milltail Creek. The state maintains public boat ramps for small boats on waters 

adjacent to the refuge. Development of more public access to the water on the refuge would allow 

the public to utilize these fishery resources. 

Availability of Resources: There is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer 

the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Recreational fishing should not adversely affect the fisheries 

resource, wildlife resource, endangered species, or any other natural resource of the refuge. 

There may be some limited disturbance to certain species of wildlife and some trampling of 

vegetation; however, this should be short-lived and relatively minor and would not negatively 

impact wetland values of the refuge. 

Improvement of access would create some disturbance to the natural environment during 

construction and lead to increased public use on the state and refuge waters. If the refuge staff 

identifies wildlife disturbance at these sites as a problem in future years, they will close the areas 

during sensitive seasons to eliminate this concern. The staff will carry out all construction activities in 

compliance will all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. 

Public use of the waters will increase as a result of improved access, but the level of use is not 

expected to cause detrimental wildlife disturbance. 

Law enforcement activities will control the problems associated with littering and illegal take of fish. 

Providing information to refuge visitors about rules and regulations, along with increased law 

enforcement patrol, will keep these negative impacts to a minimum. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases which were published as follows: June 7 in the Virginia Pilot/Ledger Star and the 
Appendices 167

Raleigh News and Observer, June 8 in the Coastland Times, and June 11 in the Outer Banks 

Sentinel. In addition, local radio stations broadcast the announcement intermittently during the 

comment period. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30687) and made available for public 

comment for 45 days until July 14, 2006. Appendix D. summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Conflicts between fishermen and others using 

the refuge have not been a problem in the past and are not expected to be a problem in the future. A 

continued law enforcement presence can minimize associated violations, such as taking under size 

fish, open fires, and littering. The following stipulations will help ensure the refuge fishing program is 

compatible with refuge purposes. 

• All fishing tackle must be attended at all times. 

• Leaving boats on the refuge overnight is prohibited. 

• Fishing allowed during daylight hours only. 

• An effective law enforcement program is implemented and site-specific refuge regulations and 

special conditions are developed. 

• Information is provided to refuge visitors about rules and regulations. 

Justification: Refuge regulations permit fishing of state and refuge waters under state regulations. 

The goal of recreational fishing is to provide a quality fishing experience on a sustainable basis. The 

1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act lists fishing as a priority public use activity 

that the Service should provide and expand where possible. Improved access facilities will reduce 

bank erosion and habitat disturbance, while providing additional quality fishing opportunities. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: __6/8/2022__
168 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation uses such as bird watching, hiking, and nature photography are popular. It is 

estimated that 60,000 visits per year are attributed to wildlife observation and related activities. 

The refuge staff anticipates that an increase in wildlife-dependent uses will occur over the next few 

years as facilities and access are improved and especially as the public and conservation groups 

become more aware of the excellent birding and wildlife viewing opportunities on the refuge. 

There are 100 miles of refuge roads maintained for public vehicle travel. The refuge maintains the 

paved Creef Cut Trail accessible to disabled visitors along U.S. Highway 64. An observation platform 

and the Sandy Ridge Trail are at the southern end of Buffalo City Road. Proposed road and trail 

upgrades are shown in draft comprehensive conservation plan (Figure 7). 

Availability of Resources: There is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the 

use at its current level.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography activities will result in some 

disturbance to wildlife. Some minimal trampling of vegetation also may occur. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and upgrading refuge roads will alter 

small portions of the natural environment. Visitors cause other potential negative impacts violating 

refuge regulations, such as littering or illegally taking plants or wildlife. Use of refuge roads by the 

public does incur added maintenance costs. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases which were published as follows: June 7 in the Virginia Pilot/Ledger Star and the 

Raleigh News and Observer, June 8 in the Coastland Times, and June 11 in the Outer Banks 

Sentinel. In addition, local radio stations broadcast the announcement intermittently during the 

comment period. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30687) and made available for public 

comment for 45 days until July 14, 2006. Appendix D. summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Prior to construction, the refuge staff will obtain 

permits from local, state, and federal regulatory agencies to reduce the possibility of negatively 

impacting wetlands, cultural resources, or protected species. Law enforcement patrol of public use 

areas will continue to minimize violations of refuge regulations. The staff will close refuge roads to 

the public during nesting seasons and migratory waterfowl seasons to minimize wildlife disturbance. 

The staff will monitor public use for wildlife observation and photography to document any negative 

impacts. If any negative impacts become noticeable, the Service will take corrective action to reduce 

or eliminate the effects on wildlife. 
Appendices 169

The staff will prohibit visitors from traveling in areas around nests, rookeries, and managed wetlands. 

The refuge will locate refuge road systems, foot trails, boardwalks, and wildlife observation platforms 

opened to pedestrian use by the public to minimize disturbance that could occur in these sensitive 

areas. If the staff identifies unacceptable levels of disturbance at any time, they will close sensitive 

sites to public entry. 

Proper planning prior to construction, sediment retention, and grade stabilization features will reduce 

negative impacts to wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern. 

Impacts, such as trampling vegetation and wildlife disturbance by refuge visitors, do occur, but are 

presently not significant. Upgrading refuge roads will reduce soil erosion associated with the current 

dirt roads and trails. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are important public uses on Alligator River 

National Wildlife Refuge and are allowed under refuge regulations. The 1997 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act identified wildlife observation as a priority pubic recreational use. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: __6/8/2022__

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Environmental education and interpretation are those activities that seek to increase the public’s 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife, national wildlife refuges, ecology, and land management, as 

well as contribute to the conservation of natural resources. The refuge environmental education and 

interpretation activities conducted by refuge staff or trained volunteers have served 40,000 users 

annually. Refuge staff will develop and provide curriculum and support materials to area teachers for 

use both on and off the refuge. They will also maintain informational kiosks and interpretive panels at 

key refuge entrance points, and wildlife observation platforms as part of the environmental education 

and interpretation program. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for these activities, 

funding is adequate to ensure compatibility and to administer these uses at current levels. The 

current programs are dependent on volunteers. The management of the volunteer program will be 

essential to successfully implement the education and visitor use program. 
170 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Construction of facilities, such as boardwalks, kiosks and 

observation platforms, will alter small portions of the natural environment on the refuge. The refuge 

staff will obtain proper permits through the county, state, and federal regulatory agencies prior to 

construction to ensure resource protection. The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities to 

accomplish environmental education and interpretive tours may impose a low-level impact on the 

sites used for these activities. These low-level impacts may include trampling of vegetation and 

temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the immediate area. Educational activities held off of the 

refuge will not create any biological impacts on the resource. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases which were published as follows: June 7 in the Virginia Pilot/Ledger Star and the 

Raleigh News and Observer, June 8 in the Coastland Times, and June 11 in the Outer Banks 

Sentinel. In addition, local radio stations broadcast the announcement intermittently during the 

comment period. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30687) and made available for public 

comment for 45 days until July 14, 2006. Appendix D. summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Zoning of visitor activities by time and space, 

clustering public use facilities, proper monitoring, educating visitors, and enforcement will ensure 

compatibility with the purposes of the refuge and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Through periodic evaluation of trails and visitor contact points, the visitor services program will assess 

resource impacts. If the refuge staff determines that human impacts are detrimental to important 

natural resources, the staff will take actions to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Major portions of 

the refuge will remain undeveloped, without public interpretive facilities. 

Proper planning and placement of facilities will ensure that wetlands, threatened or endangered 

species, or species of special concern are not negatively impacted. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified environmental 

education and interpretation as activities that refuges should provide and expand. Educating and 

informing the public through structured environmental education courses, interpretive materials, and 

guided tours about migratory birds, endangered species, wildlife management, and ecosystems will 

lead to improved support of the Service’s mission to protect our natural resources. 
Appendices 171

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: __6/8/2022__

Description of Use: Trapping of Furbearers

The staff may direct management of furbearer populations through trapping. Some species are at a 

sufficiently high level on the refuge to adversely affect ecosystem functions and values. For example, 

beavers can flood and convert large acreages of forested habitat to marsh. Nutria are exotic animals 

that consume great quantities of marsh grass and burrow into dikes of managed wetlands (moist-soil 

units) and raccoons can have negative effects on the reproduction of forest breeding birds and wood 

ducks. Protection and management of habitat are central components of the plan. To this end, 

trapping and/or hunting remain the only viable methods to manage furbearer population levels. 

Trapping a harvestable surplus for population restoration purposes would be administered through a 

special use permit issued by the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: The refuge has adequate resources to conduct this use at current levels. 

The existing staff administers the permits and monitors this use as part of routine management 

duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Targeted removal of raccoon and nutria from portions of the refuge 

will reduce the negative impacts these species are having on ecosystem functions. Regulated trapping of 

raccoon populations will reduce the nest predation this species causes to neotropical birds and wood 

ducks. Nutria management will protect marsh grass and dikes of managed wetlands (moist-soil units). 

However, no trapping program, regardless of how well it is designed, can prevent the possible take of 

other species. The refuge staff will require trappers to report the incidental take of other species. There 

will be a negligible impact on other wildlife species in both the short and long term. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases which were published as follows: June 7 in the Virginia Pilot/Ledger Star and the 

Raleigh News and Observer, June 8 in the Coastland Times, and June 11 in the Outer Banks 

Sentinel. In addition, local radio stations broadcast the announcement intermittently during the 

comment period. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30687) and made available for public 

comment for 45 days until July 14, 2006. Appendix D. summarizes the public comments. 
172 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: As the refuge staff implements a trapping 

program on the refuge, it will monitor the program closely to assess the potential adverse effects on 

other wildlife as well as the benefits to game and nongame species and their habitats. The staff will 

modify the program as needed to ensure healthy populations. Trappers will carry out all trapping 

activities under a refuge special use permit. The staff will limit trappers by number, area, and season 

in order to target problem areas and minimize any impacts. The Service will require special 

conditions for all trapping activities to minimize incidental take of the red wolf. The staff will require 

each trapper to report the number and location of trapping activity and all wildlife taken. 

Justification: Trapping is a wildlife population management tool used to regulate the population of 

certain wildlife species. Wildlife managers may need a regulated trapping program to maintain furbearer 

populations at acceptable levels, conduct research, or relocate animals for population restoration. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: __6/8/2017__

 
Appendices 173
174 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 175

Appendix VI. Refuge Biota 

ANIMALS

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 

Bittern, American Botaurus lentiginosus 

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, Painted Passerina ciris 

Bunting, Snow Plectrophenax nivalis 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Catbird, Gray* Dumetella carolinensis 

Cardinal, Northern* Cardinalis cardinalis 

Chat, Yellow-breasted* Icteria virens 

Chickadee, Carolina* Poecile carolinensis 

Chuck-will’s Widow* Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Cormorant, Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus 

Coot, American Fulica americana 

Cowbird, Brown-headed* Molothrus ater 

Cowbird, Shiny Molothrus bonariensis 

Creeper, Brown Certhia americana 

Crow, American* Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Crow, Fish* Corvus ossifragus 

Cuckoo, Black-billed* Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed* Coccyzus americanus 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Dove, Mourning* Zenaida macroura 
176 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Dove, Rock* Columba livia 

Dowitcher, Long-billed Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Dowitcher, Short-billed Limnodromus griseus 

Duck, American Black* Anas rubripes 

Duck, Ring-necked Aythya ferina 

Duck, Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis 

Duck, Wood* Aix sponsa 

Eagle, Bald (Threatened)* Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Eagle, Golden Aquila chrysaetos 

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, Ash-throated Myiarchus cinerascens 

Flycatcher, Great Crested* Myiarchus crinitus 

Flycatcher, Scissor-tailed Tyrannus forficatus 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Gallinule, Purple Porphyrio martinica 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-Gray* Polioptila caerulea 

Goldeneye, Common Bucephala clangula 

Goldfinch, American* Carduelis tristis 

Goose, Canada Branta canadensis 

Goose, Snow Chen caerulescens 

Goshawk, Northern Accipiter gentilis 

Grackle, Boat-tailed Quiscalus major 

Grackle, Common* Quiscalus quiscula 

Grebe, Horned Podiceps auritus 

Grebe, Pied-billed Podilymbus podiceps 

Grosbeak, Blue* Passerina caerulea 

Grosbeak, Evening Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Grosbeak, Rose-breasted Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Gull, Bonaparte’s Larus philadelphia 
Appendices 177

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

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, Great Blue* Ardea herodias 

Heron, Green* Butorides virescens 

Heron, Little Blue Egretta caerulea 

Heron, Black-crowned Night Nycticorax nycticorax 

Heron, Tri-colored Egretta tricolor 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night Nyctanassa violacea 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated* Archilochus colubris 

Ibis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellus 

Ibis, White Eudocimus albus 

Jaeger, Long-tailed Stercorarius longicaudus 

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 

Kite, Mississippi Ictinia mississippiensis 

Kite, Swallow-tailed Elanoides forficatus 

Lark, Horned Eremophila alpestris 

Longspur, Lapland Calcarius lapponicus 

Loon, Common Gavia immer 

Loon, Red-throated Gavia stellata 
178 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos 

Martin, Purple* Progne subis 

Meadowlark, Eastern* Stumella magna 

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, Long-eared Asio otus 

Owl, Northern Saw Whet Aegolius acadicus 

Owl, Short-eared Asio flammeus 

Parula, Northern* Parula americana 

Pelican, Brown Pelecanus occidentalis 

Phoebe, Eastern Sayomis phoebe 

Pintail, Northern Anus acuta 

Pipit, American Anthus rubescens 

Plover, Black-bellied Pluvialis squatarola 

Plover, Semipalmated Charadrius semipalmatus 

Rail, Black* Laterallus jamaicensis 

Rail, Clapper* Rallus longirostris 

Rail, King* Rallus elegans 

Rail, Virginia* Rallus limicola 

Rail, Yellow Coturnicops noveboracensis 

Redpoll, Common Carduelis flammea 
Appendices 179

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Redstart, American Setophaga ruticilla 

Robin, American* Turdus migratorius 

Sandpiper, Least Calidris minutilla 

Sandpiper, Semipalmated Calidris pusilla 

Sandpiper, Solitary Tringa solitaria 

Sandpiper, Spotted Actits macularius 

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 

Shoveler, Northern Anas clypeata 

Shrike, Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus 

Siskin, Pine Carduelis pinus 

Skimmer, Black Rynchops niger 

Sora Porzana carolina 

Snipe, Common Gallinago gallinago 

Sparrow, American Tree Spizella arborea 

Sparrow, Chipping Spizella passerina 

Sparrow, Clay-colored Spizella pallida 

Sparrow, Field* Spizella pusilla 

Sparrow, Fox Passerella iliaca 

Sparrow, Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum 

Sparrow, Henslow’s Ammodramus henslowii 

Sparrow, House* Passer domesticus 

Sparrow, Lark Chondestes grammacus 

Sparrow, Le Conte’s Ammodramus leconteii 

Sparrow, Lincoln’s Melospiza lincolnii 

Sparrow, Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Ammodramus nelsoni 

Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Ammodramus caudacutus 

Sparrow, Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis 

Sparrow, Seaside* Ammodramus maritimus 

Sparrow, Song Melospiza melodia 

Sparrow, Swamp Melospiza georgiana 
180 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Sparrow, Vesper Pooecetes gramineus 

Sparrow, White-crowned Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Sparrow, White-throated Zonotrichia albicollis 

Starling, European* Stumus vulgaris 

Storm-Petrel, Wilson’s Oceanites oceanicus 

Swallow, Bank Riparia riparia 

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, Bridled Stema anaethetus 

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 

Tern, Sooty Stema fuscata 

Thrasher, Brown* Toxostoma rufum 

Thrush, Gray-cheeked Catharus minimus 

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 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 

Vireo, Blue-headed Vireo solitarius 

Vireo, Philadelphia Vireo philadelphicus 

Vireo, Red-eyed* Vireo olivaceus 
Appendices 181

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Vireo, Warbling Vireo gilvus 

Vireo, White-eyed* Vireo griseus 

Vireo, Yellow-throated Vireo flavifrons 

Vulture, Black Coragyps atratus 

Vulture, Turkey* Cathartes aura 

Warbler, Bay-breasted Dendroica castanea 

Warbler, Black-and-white* Mniotilta varia 

Warbler, Blackpoll Dendroica striata 

Warbler, Blackburnian Dendroica fusca 

Warbler, Black-throated Blue* Dendroica caerulescens 

Warbler, Black-throated Green* Dendroica virens 

Warbler, Blue-winged Vermivora pinus 

Warbler, Canada Wilsonia canadensis 

Warbler, Cape May Dendroica tigrina 

Warbler, Chestnut-sided Dendroica pensylvanica 

Warbler, Connecticut Oporomis agilis 

Warbler, Golden-winged Vermivora chrysoptera 

Warbler, Hooded* Wilsonia citrina 

Warbler, Kentucky Oporomis formosus 

Warbler, Magnolia Dendroica magnolia 

Warbler, Mourning Oporomis philadelphia 

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, Tennessee Vermivora peregrina 

Warbler, Wilson’s Wilsonia pusilla 

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 
182 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Wigeon, American Anas americana 

Whip-poor-will* Caprimulgus vociferus 

Woodcock, American Scolopax minor 

Woodpecker, Downy* Picoides pubescens 

Woodpecker, Hairy* Picoides villosus 

Woodpecker, Pileated* Dryocopus pileatus 

Woodpecker, Red-bellied* Melanerpes carolinus 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded* Picoides borealis 

Woodpecker, Red-headed Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Wood Pewee, Eastern* Contopus virens 

Wren, Carolina* Thryothorus ludovicianus 

Wren, House* Throglodytes aedon 

Wren, Marsh* Cistothorus palustris 

Wren, Sedge Cistothorus platensis 

Wren, Winter Troglodytes troglodytes 

Yellow-throat, Common* Geothlypis trichas 

Yellowlegs, Greater Tringa melanoleuca 

Yellowlegs, Lesser Tringa flavipes 
Appendices 183

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

MAMMALS 

Bat, Big Brown Eptesicus fuscus 

Bat, Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus* 

Bat, Evening Nycticeius humeralis* 

Bat, Hoary Lasiurus cinereus* 

Bat, Little Brown Myotis lucifugus 

Bat, Rafinesque’s Big-eared Plecotus rafinesquii 

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 

Fox, Gray Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

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* 

Mouse, Cotton Peromyscus gossypinus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Nutria (Exotic) Myocastor coypus 

Opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Otter, Northern River Lontra canadensis 

Rabbit, Marsh Sylvilagus palustris 

Raccoon, Northern Procyon lotor 

Rat, Brown (Exotic) Rattus norvegicus 

Rat, Hispid Cotton Sigmodon hispidus* 

Rat, House (Exotic) Rattus rattus 
184 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

MAMMALS 

Rat, Marsh Rice Oryzomys palustris 

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 

Vole, Woodland Microtus pinetorum 

Weasel, Long-tailed Mustela frenata 

Wolf, Red (Endangered) Canis rufus 

* Denotes species that have not been documented on the refuge but are expected to occur. 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Alligator, American (Threatened) Alligator mississippiensis 

Amphiuma, Two-toed Amphiuma means 

Anole, Green (Carolina Anole) Anolis carolinensis* 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix 

Cottonmouth, Eastern Agkistrodon piscivorus 

Frog, Brimley’s Chorus Pseudacris brimleyi 

Frog, Carpenter Rana virgatipes 

Frog, Green Rana clamitans 

Frog, Little Grass Pseudacris ocularis 

Frog, Pickerel Rana palustris 

Frog, Southern Cricket Acris gryllus 

Frog, Southern Leopard Rana utricularia (Rana sphenocephala) 

Lizard, Eastern Fence Sceloporus undulatus 

Lizard, Slender Glass Ophisaures attenuatus 

Mudturtle, Eastern Kinosternon subrubrum 

Peeper, Spring Pseudacris crucifer 

Racer, Black Coluber constrictor 

Racerunner, Six-lined Cnemidophorus sexlineatus* 

Rattlesnake, Canebrake (Timber) Crotalus horridus 
Appendices 185

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Salamander, Atlantic Coast Slimy Plethodon chlorobryonis 

Salamander, Many-lined Stereochilus marginatus 

Salamander, Marbled Ambystoma opacum 

Skink, Broad-headed Eumeces laticeps 

Skink, Ground Scincella lateralis 

Skink, Southeastern Five-lined Eumeces inexpectatus 

Slider, Yellow-bellied Trachemys scripta scripta 

Snake, Banded Water Nerodia fasciata fasciata 

Snake, Black Rat Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta 

Snake, Black Swamp Seminatrix pygaea 

Snake, Brown Storeria dekayi 

Snake, Brown Water Nerodia taxispilota 

Snake, Carolina Salt Marsh Nerodia sipedon williamengelsi 

Snake, Coastal Plain Milk Lampropeltis triangulum triangulumXelapsoides 

Snake, Corn (Red Rat Snake) Elaphe guttata 

Snake, Eastern Garter Thamnophis sirtalis 

Snake, Eastern Hognose Heterodon platirhinos* 

Snake, Eastern King Lampropeltis getula 

Snake, Eastern Mud Farancia abacura abacura 

Snake, Eastern Ribbon Thamnophis sauritus 

Snake, Eastern Worm Carphophis amoenus 

Snake, Glossy Crayfish Regina rigida 

Snake, Rainbow Farancia erytrogramma 

Snake, Redbelly Storeria occipitomaculata 

Snake, Redbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster erythrogaster 

Snake, Ringneck Diadophis punctatus 

Snake, Rough Green Opheodrys aestivus 

Terrapin, Diamondback Malaclemys terrapin 

Toad, Eastern Narrow-mouthed Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Toad, Fowler's Bufo fowleri 

Toad, Southern Bufo terrestris 

Treefrog, Cope’s Gray Hyla chrysoscelis 

Treefrog, Green Hyla cinerea 

Treefrog, Pine Woods Hyla femoralis 
186 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Treefrog, Squirrel Hyla squirella 

Turtle, Common Musk Sternotherus odoratus 

Turtle, Common Snapping Chelydra serpentina 

Turtle, Eastern Box Terrapene carolina 

Turtle, Painted Chrysemys picta 

Turtle, Redbelly Chrysemys rubiventris 

Turtle, Spotted Clemmys guttata 

* Denotes species that have not been documented on the refuge but are expected to occur based 

upon distribution maps. 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FISH 

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 

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, Naked Gobiosoma bosci 
Appendices 187

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FISH 

Herring, Blueback Alosa aestivalis 

Hogchoaker Trinectes maculatus 

Killifish, Banded Fundulus diaphanus 

Madtom, Tadpole Noturus gyrinus 

Menhaden, Atlantic Brevoortia tyrannus 

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Mudminnow, Eastern Umbra pygmaea 

Mullet, Striped Mugil cephalus 

Mullet, Yellow Mugil curema 

Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina 

Perch, Pirate Aphredoderus sayanus 

Perch, Silver Bairdiella chrysoura 

Perch, White Morone americana 

Perch, Yellow Perca flavescens 

Pickerel, Chain Esox niger 

Pickerel, Redfin Esox americanus 

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 

Swampfish Chologaster cornuta 

Tonguefish, Blackcheek Symphurus plagiusa 

Trout, Spotted Sea Cynoscion nebulosus 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

Crab, Blue Callinectes sapidus 
188 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

OTHER AQUATIC SPECIES 

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 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - TREES

Ash, Carolina Fraxinus caroliniana 

Ash, Green Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 

Pondcypress Taxodium ascendens 

Bay, Loblolly Gordonia lasianthus 

Beech, American Fagus grandifolia 

Cedar, Atlantic White Chamaecyparis thyoides 

Cedar, Eastern Red Juniperus virginiana 

Cheery, Black Prunus serotina 

Chinaberry (Exotic) Melia azedarach 

Chokeberry, Red Aronia arbutifolia/ Sorbus arbutifolia 

Cottonwood, Eastern Populus deltoides 

Cottonwood, Swamp Populus heterophylla 

Dogwood, Flowering Cornus florida 

Elm, American Ulmus americana 

Gum, Swamp Black Nyssa sylvatica biflora 

Hickory, Shagbark Carya ovata 

Hickory, Sweet Pignut Carya ovalis 

Holly, American Ilex opaca 

Magnolia, Llarge-flower Magnolia grandiflora 

Magnolia, Sweet Bay Magnolia virginiana 
Appendices 189

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - TREES

Maple, Red Acer rubrum 

Mimosa Albizia julibrissin 

Mulberry, Red Morus rubra 

Oak, Cherrybark Quercus pagoda 

Oak, Laurel Quercus laurifolia 

Oak, Live Quercus virginiana 

Oak, Overcup Quercus lyrata 

Oak, Shumard Quercus shumardii 

Oak, Southern Red Quercus falcata 

Oak, Swamp Chestnut Quercus michauxii 

Oak, Water Quercus nigra 

Oak, White Quercus alba 

Oak, Willow Quercus phellos 

Pecan Carya illinoensis 

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 

Pine, Loblolly Pinus taeda 

Pine, Pond Pinus serotina 

Pine, Slash Pinus elliottii 

Pondcypress Taxodium ascendens 

Poplar, Yellow (Tulip tree) Liriodendron tulipifera 

Sassafras Sassafras albidum 

Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum 

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 

Willow, Black Salix nigra 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - SHRUBS

Alder, Smooth Alnus serrulata 

Azalea, Dwarf Rhododendron atlanticum 

Azalea, Swamp Rhododendron viscosum 
190 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - SHRUBS

Alder, Smooth Alnus serrulata 

Bay, Red Persea borbonia 

Bayberry Morella heterophylla 

Beautyberry, French Mulberry Callicarpa americana 

Blackberry Rubus argutus 

Blueberry, Black Highbush Vaccinium atrococcum 

Blueberry, Highbush Vaccinium corymbosum 

Buckthorn Bully Sideroxylon lycioides 

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 

Chinquapin, Eastern Castanea pumila 

Crabapple, Southern Malus angustifolia 

Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon 

Dangleberry Gaylussacia frondosa 

Deerberry, Gooseberry Vaccinium stamineum 

Dewberry, Bristly Rubus hispidus 

Dogwood, Swamp Cornus stricta 

Elder, Marsh Iva frutescens 

Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 

Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 

Fetterbush, Doghobble Leucothoe axillaris 

Fetterbush Leucothoe racemosa 

Gallberry, Bitter (Inkberry) Ilex glabra 

Gallberry, Sweet Ilex coriacea 

Hercules’ Club Aralia spinosa 

Hercules’ Club Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 

Holly, Deciduous Ilex decidua 

Holly, Yaupon Ilex vomitoria 

Hophornbeam, Eastern Ostrya virginiana 

Huckleberry, Dwarf Gaylussacia dumosa 

Indigobush Amorpha fruticosa 

Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 
Appendices 191

Laurel, Sheep Kalmia angustifolia 

Leatherleaf Cassandra calyculata 

Maleberry, Male-Blueberry Lyonia ligustrina 

Mallow, Seashore Kosteletzkya virginica 

Mallow, Swamp Rose Hisbiscus moscheutos 

Olive, Wild Osmanthus americanus 

Pepperbush, Sweet Clethra alnifolia 

Possumhaw Viburnum nudum 

Privet, Chinese (Exotic) Ligustrum sinense 

Rose, Swamp Rosa palustris 

Sea-myrtle, Salt meadow bush Baccharis halimifolia 

Serviceberry Amelanchier obovalis 

Shadbush Amelanchier canadensis 

Sparkleberry, Tree Vaccinium arboreum 

Staggerbush Lyonia mariana 

Strawberrybush, American Euonymus americanus 

Sumac, Poison Toxicodendron vernix 

Sumac, Winged Rhus copallina 

Sweetspire, Virginia Itea virginica 

Titi, leatherwood Cyrilla racemiflora 

Waxmyrtle Morella cerifera 

Winterberry (Black holly) Ilex verticillata 

Witchhazel Hamamelis virginiana 

Willow, Coastal Plain Salix caroliniana 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - WOODY VINES

Crossvine Anisostichus capreolata/Bignonia capreolata 

Creeper, Trumpet Campsis radicans 

Creeper, Virginia Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Summer grape Vitis aestivalis 

Grape, Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Grape, Summer Vitis aestivalis 
192 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - WOODY VINES

Crossvine Anisostichus capreolata/Bignonia capreolata 

Creeper, Trumpet Campsis radicans 

Greenbrier Smilax smallii 

Greenbrier, Cat Smilax glauca 

Greenbrier, Common Smilax rotundifolia 

Greenbrier, Coral Smilax walteri 

Greenbrier, Earleaf Smilax auriculata 

Greenbrier, Laurel Smilax laurifolia 

Greenbrier, Saw Smilax bona-nox 

Honeysuckle, Coral Lonicera sempervirens 

Honeysuckle, Japanese Lonicera japonica 

Ivy, Eastern Poison Toxicodendron radicans 

Jessamine, Yellow Gelsemium sempervirens 

Peppervine Ampelopsis arborea 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - GRASSES

Bentgrasses Agrostis spp. 

Bermudagrass (Exotic) Cynodon dactylon 

Bluegrass, Annual Poa annua 

Bluestem, Bushybeard Andropogon glomeratus 

Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus 

Cane, River Arundinaria gigantea 

Cordgrass, Big Spartina cynosuroides 

Cordgrass, Saltmeadow Spartina patens 

Cordgrass, Smooth Spartina alterniflora 

Corn Zea mays 

Crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis 

Cutgrass, Giant Zizaniopsis miliacea 

Cutgrass, Rice Leersia oryzoides 

Dropseed Sporobolus spp. 
Appendices 193

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - GRASSES

Fescue, Tall Lolium arundicaneum 

Foxtail Alopecurus carolinianus 

Foxtail, Giant Setaria magna 

Foxtail, Bristlegrass Setaria spp. 

Gamagrass, Eastern Tripsacum dactyloides 

Goosegrass, India (Exotic) Eleusine indica 

Grass, Rabbitfoot (Exotic) Polypogon monspeliensis 

Knotgrass, Joint paspalum Paspalum distichum 

Millet, Wild (Barnyardgrass) Echinochloa crusgalli 

Millet, Walter's Echinochloa walteri 

Milo (Exotic) Sorghum bicolor 

Mulegrass, Muhly Muhlenbergia spp. 

Orchardgrass (Exotic) Dactylis glomerata 

Panicum, Fall Panicum dichotomiflorum 

Paspalum species Paspalum spp. 

Plumegrass, Sugarcane Saccharum giganteum 

Purpletop Tridens flavus 

Reed, Common Phragmites australis 

Reedgrass Calamagrostis cinnoides 

Rice, Wild Zizania aquatica 

Saltgrass, Seashore Distichlis spicata 

Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense 

Sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne 

Sprangletop Leptochloa filiformis 

Switchcane Arundinaria tecta 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 

Watergrass, Southern Hydrochloa caroliniensis 

Wheat, Winter (Exotic) Triticum spp. 
194 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - GRASSLIKE PLANTS 

Arrowgrass, Threerib Triglochin striatum 

Beaksedge, Fascicled Rhynchospora fascicularis 

Beaksedge, Millet Rhyncospora miliacea 

Beaksedge, White Rhynchospora alba 

Bulrush, Algal Scirpus confervoides 

Bulrush, AmericanThree-square Schoenoplectus pungens 

Bulrush, Softstem Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 

Cottongrass, Tawny Eriophorum virginicum 

Flatsedge, Redroot Cyperus erythrorhizos 

Nutgrass Cyperus esculentus 

Rush, Nut Scirpus oligantha 

Rush, Giant Schoenoplectus robustus 

Sedge Carex leptalea 

Sedge Carex lurida 

Sedge, Hairy Umbrella Fuirena squarrosa 

Sedge, Dwarf Uumbrella Fuirena pumila 

Spikerush, Bald Fimbristylis spadicea 

Spikerush, Blunt Eleocharis obtusa 

Spikerush, Common Eleocharis palustris 

Spikerush, Dwarf Eleocharis parvula 

Spikerush, Foursquare Eleocharis quadrangulata 

Spikerush, Slender Eleocharis acicularis 

Spikerush, Path Eleocharis tenuis 

Rush, Black Needle Juncus roemerianus 

Rush, Canada Juncus canadensis 

Rush, Creeping Juncus repens 

Rush, Sharp-fruit Juncus acuminatus 

Rush, Soft Juncus effuses 

Umbrella-sedge Cyperus polystachyos 

Umbrella-sedge Cyperus spp. 
Appendices 195

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - GRASSLIKE PLANTS 

Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Alligatorweed (Exotic) Alternanthera philoxeroides 

Ammannia Ammannia teres 

Ammannia coccinea 

Arrow Arum Peltandra virginica 

Arrowhead, Duck Potato Sagittaria spp. 

Aster Aster spp. 

Atriplex, Pigweed Atriplex patula 

Bacopa spp. Bacopa monnieri 

Beggarticks Bidens spp. 

Beggarticks, Nodding Bidens cernua 

Bishopweed, Mock Ptilimnium capillaceum 

Bladderwort Utricularia spp. 

Buckwheat Fagopyrum sagittatum 

Buttercup Ranunculus spp. 

Buttonweed Diodia virginiana 

Camphorweed, marsh fleabane Pluchea purpurascens 

Cattail Typha spp. 

Chickweed Stellaria spp. 

Clematis, Yam-leaved Clematis ternifolia 

Clover, Rabbit-foot Trifolium arvense 

Clover Trifolium spp. 

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 

Cudweed Gnaphalium purpureum 

Cupscale, American Sacciolepis striata 

Dayflower, Asiatic Commelina communis 

Daylilly, Orange Hemerocallis fulva 

Dock Rumex spp. 
196 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Dock, Swamp Rumex verticillatus 

Dogfennel Eupatorium compositifolium 

Duckweed Lemna spp. 

Duckweed, Great Spirodela spp. 

Eclipta Eclipta alba 

Eelgrass, Water Celery Vallisneria americana 

Eryngo Eryngium spp. 

Fireweed Erechtites hieracifolia 

Frogfruit Phyla lanceolata 

False Foxglove, Purple Agalinis purpurea 

False Foxglove Agalinis spp. 

Goldenrod Solidago spp. 

Goldenrod, Canada Solidago canadensis 

Ground-cherry, Cutleaf Physalis angulata 

Ground-cherry, Virginia Physalis virginiana 

Hatpins Eriocaulon compressum 

Hemlock, Water Cicuta maculata 

Hemp, Water Amaranthus cannabinus 

Hempweed, Climbing Mikania scandens 

Honeycup Zenobia pulverulenta 

Horsenettle Solanum carolinense 

Horsetail, Scouring Rush Equisetum spp. 

Horseweed Erigeron spp. 

Hydrangea, Climbing Decumaria barbara 

Iris, Blue Flag Iris virginica 

Leather-flower Clematis viorna 

Lespedeza, Creeping Lespedeza repens 

Lespedeza, Sericea (Exotic) Lespedeza cuneata 

Lizard's Tail Saururus cernuus 

Loosestrife, Narrow Lythrum lineare 

Loosestrife, Purple (Exotic) Lythrum salicaria 
Appendices 197

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Loosestrife, Swamp Lysimachia terrestris 

Marigold, Bur Bidens laevis 

Meadowbeauty Rhexia spp. 

Mermaidweed, Marsh Proserpinaca palustris 

Milfoil, Water Myriophyllum spp. 

Milkweed Asclepias spp. 

Mint Mentha spp. 

Mistflower (Blue Boneset) Eupatorium coelestinium 

Mistletoe Phoradendron serotinum 

Morningglory Ipomoea purpurea 

Muskgrass Chara spp. 

Mullien, Pink Lychnis spp. 

Naiad, Southern Najas guadalupensis 

Naiad Najas spp. 

Nitella, Stonewart Nitella spp. 

Onion, Wild Allium spp. 

Orchid, White-fringed Habenaria blephariglottis 

Orchid, Yellow-fringed Habenaria ciliaris 

Partridgeberry Mitchella repens 

Pea, Butterfly Clitoria mariana 

Pea, Partridge Cassia fasciculata 

Pennywort, Marsh Hydrocotyle umbellata 

Pennywort, Virginia Obolaria virginica 

Pepperweed, Field (Exotic) Lepidium campestre 

Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata 

Pigweed, Green Amaranth Amaranthus hybridus 

Pigweed, Mexican tea Chenopodium ambrosioidea 

Pink, Marsh, Rose of Plymouth Sabatia stellaris 

Pitcher Plant, Purple Sarracenia purpurea 

Pitcher Plant, Yellow Sarracenia flava 

Plantain Plantago spp. 
198 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Pokeweed, Common Phytolacca americana 

Pondlily, Yellow Nuphar lutea 

Poinsettia, Annual Euphorbia cyathophora 

Pondweed, Claspingleaf Potamogeton perfoliatus 

Pondweed, Sago Stuckenia pectinatus 

Pondweed Potamogeton spp. 

Primrose, Common Evening Oenothera biennis 

Purslane, Common Portulaca oleracea 

Pussy-toes Antennaria plantaginifolia 

Ragweed Ambrosia spp. 

Rattlebox Ludwigia spp. 

Rattlebox (Exotic) Sesbania punicea 

Rattlessnake Master Eryngium yuccifolium 

Redroot, Carolina Lachnanthes caroliniana 

Rotala, Lowland Rotala ramosior 

Sesbania Sesbania herbacea 

Sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia 

Smartweed Polygonum spp. 

Sneezeweed Helenium spp. 

Sorrel, Heartwing Rumex hastatulus 

Sorrel, Wood Oxalis dillenii 

Sourgrass Oxalis grandis 

Soybean (Exotic) Glycine max 

Spadeleaf (Exotic) Centella asiatica 

Sphagnum Sphagnum spp. 

Spleenwort, Ebony Asplenium platyneuron 

Spuge, Spotted Chamaesyce maculata 

St. John's-wort Hypericum spp. 

St. John's-wort Hypericum virginicum 

Supplejack, Alabama Berchemia scandens 

Sundew, Spoon-leaved Drosera intermedia 
Appendices 199

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Sweetflag Acorus calamus 

Sweetleaf, Horse Sugar Symplocos tinctoria 

Thistle, Virginia Cirsium virginianum 

Tobacco, Rabbit, Mullein, Woolly Verbascum thapsus 

Trefoil, Birdsfoot (Exotic) Lotus corniculatus 

Vervain, White Verbena urticifolia 

Vetch Vicia spp. 

Violet Viola spp. 

Waterlily, White or American Nymphaea odorata (or tuberosa) 

Watermeal Wolffia spp. 

Waterweed Elodea spp. 

Waterwort Elatine spp. 

Waxweed Cuphea carthagenensis 

Widgeongrass Ruppia maritima 

Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris spp. 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - MOSSES AND FERNS 

Chainfern, Netted Woodwardia areolata 

Chainfern, Virginia Woodwardia virginica 

Fern, Bracken Pteridium aquilinum 

Fern, Cinnamon Osmunda cinnamomea 

Fern, Interrupted Osmunda claytoniana 

Fern, Royal Osmunda regalis 

Moss Mayaca aubletii 
200 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 201

Appendix VII. Priority Bird Species and their 

Habitats 

Species Status Habitat 

Brackish 

Marsh 

and 

Sounds

Managed 

Wetlands 

Maritime 

Shrub, 

Pocosin, 

and Swamp 

Forest

Pine 

Forests 

and 

Savannas

(FL=Federally-listed, SL=State-listed, SC=Species of Management Concern)

Red-cockaded Woodpecker FL X 

Sharp-tailed Saltmarsh 

Sparrow SC X X 

Seaside Sparrow SC X X 

Black Rail SC X X 

Yellow Rail SC X X 

King Rail SC X X 

American Bittern SC X X 

Least Bittern SC X X 

Sedge Wren SC X X 

Marsh Wren SC X X X 

Snow Goose SC X X X 

Tundra Swan SC X X 

Canada Goose SC X X 

American Black Duck SC X X 

Northern Pintail SC X X 

American Green-winged Teal SC X X 

Mallard SC X X 

Peregrine Falcon SC X X 

Northern Parula SC X 

Prairie Warbler SC X 

Eastern Painted Bunting SC X 

Black-throated Green Warbler SC X 

Pine Warbler SC X 

Prairie Warbler SC X 

Prothonotary Warbler SC X 

Worm-eating Warbler SC X 

Yellow-throated Warbler SC X 

Wood Duck SC X 

Brown-headed Nuthatch SC X X 

Chuck-Will’s-Widow X X 
202 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 203

Appendix VIII. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATION NEEDS (RONS) PROJECTS 

Projects are ordered by the project number the first two digits of which stand for fiscal year 

the project was developed. The numbers are listed in the management alternatives. 

Projects are listed as tier 1 projects that support approved critical mission or approved 

minimum staff or tier 2 projects that do not. 

Project 97005 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $162,500; Recurring Request $182,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 18 

This project will provide the funding to hire three full-time permanent employees (one GS-9 forester, 

one GS-7 forestry technician, and one WG-8 equipment operator) to restore Atlantic white cedar 

stands on the refuge. Past logging and poor post-harvest management has resulted in over 5,000 

acres of Atlantic white cedar clear-cuts on the refuge. These clear-cuts should be restored. 

Inventories have revealed an adequate stocking of “naturally regenerated” cedar in several of the 

clear-cuts. However, the cedars are being suppressed by an extremely dense growth of hardwood 

shrubs. The project involves “releasing” the cedars from hardwood competition by aerial application 

of an environmentally safe and approved herbicide. This will allow the cedar stands to grow free of 

competition for a few years. Plans also include planting some stands with seedlings. 

Project 97007 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $60,000; Recurring Request $5,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 15 

This project will provide the funding to purchase 500,000 acres of recent infrared aerial photography 

in an electronically digitized format. The Alligator River Refuge (a forested wetland) and Pea Island 

Refuge (a coastal barrier island) have many unique and varied plant and animal communities. Good 

planning is needed to properly manage these resources and up-to-date photography is needed for 

good planning. This imagery will be used on the refuge’s geographic information system computer to 

assist in all phases of refuge management. It will also be used to document land use changes in the 

red wolf reintroduction area. 

Project 97010 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $40,000; Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 16 

This project will provide the funding to install water quality monitoring stations and conduct 

monitoring. About 70,000 acres of the refuge are comprised of a variety of wetland habitats. A 

minimum of twelve water quality monitoring stations will be installed, with at least one each in all 

refuge moist soil units, lakes, streams, selected canals, and adjacent sound and river waters. Data 

collected will include water level, dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, and temperature. This data is 

critically needed to document current water quality conditions and to identify problem areas so that 

possible solutions can be developed and implemented. A water quality enhancement plan will also 

be developed, approved, and implemented. 
204 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 97011 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 29 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time biological technician to develop and 

implement a Marsh and Water Management Plan. Two new pump sites will be installed to more 

effectively manage water levels in about 3,000 acres of the 5,400-acre moist soil and farm unit area. 

The project will provide more efficient management of water levels in the area for waterfowl food 

production. At critical times during high rainfall events, it will protect roads from flooding and erosion, 

thereby preventing unnecessary road closures to the public. Pump sites will be installed at the 

intersections of Milltail and North Perimeter roads and at Buffalo City and Sawyer Lake roads. 

Project 97018 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $49,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 30 

This project will provide the funding to purchase a large farm tractor and hire a permanent full-time 

WG-5 equipment operator. Within the refuge’s 4,500-acre farm unit, about 2,000 acres are diked and 

managed as moist soil units for the production of waterfowl food plants. To improve the foodproducing potential of these units, increased soil manipulation practices (e.g., disking, plowing, and 

mowing) must be conducted. However, a farm tractor of sufficient size is not currently available to the 

refuge to do this type of work. The purchase of a new rubber-tired, four-wheel drive farm tractor with 

more than 100-horsepower will meet this need. As stated earlier, the full management potential of 

the refuge’s moist soil units cannot be realized until this piece of equipment is available to the refuge. 

Project 97021 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $100,000; Recurring Request $138,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 6 

This project will provide the funding to add 20 new water control structures and hire a GS-9 resource 

specialist and a WG-8 equipment operator to manage them. The refuge has an ongoing project restoring 

the natural hydrology of 50,000 acres. However, this project needs to be expanded by adding 20 new 

water control structures and subsequently manipulating water levels. This will result in the restoration of 

20,000 additional wetland acres over 5 years. The refuge contains about 70,000 acres of forested 

wetlands, most of which were ditched and channelized by prior owners. This resulted in an unnatural 

hydrology (water flow) in the area. It has caused some areas to be “too wet” and other areas to be “too 

dry” for extended periods of time; thereby resulting in a loss or degradation of wildlife habitat. 

Project 97022 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $85,000; Recurring Request $15,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 1 

This project will provide the funding to control common reed (Phragmites australis) on 600 acres 

of the refuge. The Phragmites will be treated with an environmentally safe and approved 

herbicide by a variety of application methods. Failure to aggressively pursue control will result in 

the replacement of desirable vegetation by Phragmites and reduce the refuge’s ability to provide 

suitable habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife species. Phragmites is an invasive wetland plant 

species that has little wildlife value. Once established, it chokes out more desirable plants and 

degrades the habitat for a variety of wildlife species. On the refuge, the invasion rate of 

Phragmites has increased over the past ten years due to management activities. 
Appendices 205

Project 97025 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $38,000; Recurring Request $5,200 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 11 

This project will provide the funding to purchase and maintain a globally positioning system (GPS) base 

station. The base station is needed for the collection of a variety of resource and facility data points (e.g., 

red wolf locations, red-cockaded woodpecker colony sites, rare plant or habitat types, roads, canals, 

pump sites, private land holdings). However, the collection of “accurate and precise data” is essential for 

successful resource and maintenance management. Accurate and precise GPS data depends on access 

to a community base station so that post-processing of field data can be efficiently done. Without the 

base station, reliable management decisions cannot be made on a landscape-scale data. 

Project 97039 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 6 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 assistant manager for the Pea 

island Refuge to coordinate and administer a growing permit issuance system. The barrier island 

location of the refuge results in requests for a significant number of permits on an annual basis. Most 

of the requests are received from: (1) North Carolina Department of Transportation on maintenance 

issues for North Carolina Highway 12, which bisects the refuge for 12 miles; (2) the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers on Oregon Inlet maintenance dredging and material disposal on refuge beaches; (3) 

U.S. Navy for maintenance of communication towers; (4) Dare County for storm damage disposal and 

public use facilities; and (5) University research permits. These requests must be processed through 

proper environmental agencies. 

Project 97040 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $56,000; Recurring Request $84,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 3 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 resource specialist to improve 

coordination with other agencies. The refuge needs better coordination with: (1) National Park 

Service on public use management, maintenance, visitor comfort station, and law enforcement via a 

memorandum of understanding; (2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on beach nourishment, 

maintenance dredging, and Oregon Inlet Jetty; (3) North Carolina Department of Transportation on 

North Carolina Highway 12 issues, terminal groin, and Oregon Inlet Bridge; and (4) North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission on waterfowl management and law enforcement. All of these 

activities affect the day-to-day operation of the refuge and inability to conduct these activities will 

negatively affect trust resources and the public safety. 

Project 97041 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $82,000; Recurring Request $49,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 2 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-5 biological technician to 

conduct biweekly aerial waterfowl surveys from September through March and add or increase other 

wildlife surveys. The other surveys (e.g., shorebird, piping plover, raptor, sea turtle, colonial 

waterbird, neotropical songbird) will use standard census techniques. The project is the only way to 

gauge the effects of high public use and other refuge management programs on the refuge’s wildlife 

resources. The project will improve management of these resources. The Wildlife Census Plan will 
206 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

be updated and implemented. Pea Island Refuge is a 5,800-acre refuge located on a coastal barrier 

island that has high public use (two million visitors annually). 

Project 97043 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $32,500; Recurring Request $44,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 4 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-5 biological technician to 

conduct basic nesting and production surveys on black ducks and gadwalls. The surveys will be 

conducted to document the effects of management on the two species. Based on the survey results, 

appropriate management activities will be initiated to improve habitat conditions. Black duck and 

gadwalls have traditionally nested in low, grassy habitat provided on the Pea Island Refuge. 

However, these habitats have started to succeed to more woody and brushy plant communities. 

Project 97045 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $195,000; Recurring Request $213,000; Total: $408,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 1 

This project will provide the funding to buy equipment and hire two permanent full-time GS-7 park 

rangers and two WG-6 maintenance workers to serve visitors to and maintain facilities and grounds at 

Pea Island Refuge. Two interactive computer stations will be installed at the visitor center to help 

meet visitors’ requests for basic information. The stations will display multimedia information on all 

eastern North Carolina refuges, the National Wildlife Refuge System, wildlife resources, and local 

destinations. A weather and vandal-proof station will be located on the outside of the visitor center in 

order to serve visitor needs during times when the visitor center is closed. Approximately two million 

visitors use the refuge annually. Some are just passing through; however, a large number stop at the 

visitor center for a variety of reasons. 

Project 97047 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $39,000; Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 5 

This project will provide the funding to improve and upgrade the refuge’s information resource 

management (IRM) capabilities by connecting all office computers and related equipment (e.g., printers, 

plotters, file servers, and copiers) into a modern, high-capacity local area network (LAN). The project will 

upgrade the existing computers, add file servers, and improve cable and router systems. The project will 

improve staff efficiency, productivity, and decision-making by using the many advantages of modern 

technology to get the latest biological reports, transmit information, respond to inquiries, and expand 

relationships with internal (Ecological Services Office, Migratory Bird Field Office) and external partners 

(National Park Service, local and state agencies). The LAN will also link all refuge computers to the 

office’s geographic information system (GIS) computer, which will give staff immediate access to current 

GIS layers, and to high-speed internet access. It will also help eliminate the need for duplicate office 

equipment (color printers, modems) at each employee’s workstation. 

Project 97048 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $210,000; Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 13 

This project will provide the funding to buy a truck-tractor and lowboy trailer for use in all aspects of 

the refuge’s management and maintenance programs. The refuge at present has an insufficient 

number of hauling units to meet the daily needs of the management, maintenance, and fire programs. 
Appendices 207

An additional hauling unit will allow the refuge to conduct public use, fire management, endangered 

species management, and biological management activities in a more efficient manner. The lack of 

ability to transport essential equipment will continue to hinder refuge operations and accomplishment 

of station objectives. 

Project 98003 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

One Time Request $432,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 4 

This project will provide the funding to conduct a comprehensive cultural resources survey on both the 

152,000-acre Alligator River Refuge and the 5,800-acre Pea Island Refuge to identify significant cultural 

resources. No comprehensive cultural resource evaluations have been conducted on either refuge. 

Both refuges are located in an area rich in significant prehistoric, Native American, and early colonial 

history. The outer Banks of North Carolina, where Pea Island is located, is called the “Graveyard of the 

Atlantic” for all the shipwrecks along the barrier islands starting in the 16th century. Roanoke Island and 

the adjoining mainland, where Alligator River Refuge is located, are the site of the first English colony in 

America and the site of the famous “Lost Colony.” This project is essential to ensure the identification 

and protection of any potentially significant cultural resources on these two refuges. The survey will be 

conducted by either contract archaeologists or through agreements with local universities. 

Project 98004 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $80,000; Recurring Request $80,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 32 

This project will provide the funding to rent 3,000 square feet of new office space as recommended 

by a recent office review. The General Services Administration is negotiating a five-year contract to 

include new office space, but an increase in funding is needed to pay for the new office space. 

Refuge staff has increased to more than 35 full-time employees (both permanent and seasonal) and 

increase seasonally with summer interns and researchers. The current office space and parking is 

inadequate. Increased office space will enhance safety, staff efficiency, and morale. 

Project 98005 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $85,000; Recurring Request $84,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 7 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time biological technician to monitor the 

U.S. Army corps of Engineers dredging operations and their effects on beach-dependent wildlife 

(e.g., shorebirds and sea turtles). Oregon Inlet is located at the north end of the refuge, which is a 

coastal barrier island. This inlet is the only passage through the barrier islands from the Pamlico 

Sound to the Atlantic Ocean and is used heavily by recreational and commercial fishing boats. The 

Corps of Engineers conducts intensive dredging operations to maintain the inlet’s opening. This has 

disrupted natural coastal processes, resulting in beach erosion on the refuge. Changes in dredging 

operations will be recommended, as needed, to protect wildlife resources. 

Project 98006 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $40,000; Recurring Request $5,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 12 

This project will provide the funding to conduct a comprehensive fisheries survey of refuge lakes, streams, 

and other water bodies (e.g., canals, ditches, and ponds) to help develop a Fishery Management Plan. The 

survey will include an evaluation of each aquatic habitat and its ability to support fish populations. Service 
208 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

fisheries biologists will conduct the survey and plan. Very little is known about the freshwater fishery 

resources on the refuge. The highly acidic waters associated with organic soils, and the periodic inflow of 

brackish waters from surrounding sounds, make for a unique combination of aquatic conditions. 

Project 98008 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $235,000; Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) – Not Ranked 

This project will provide the funding to purchase a long-reach tracked excavator for use in all aspects of 

the refuge’s management and maintenance programs. At present, the refuge does not have an 

excavator that is capable of cleaning out the large canals associated with eighty to ninety miles of 

primary refuge roads. The new excavator will allow the refuge to conduct public use, fire management, 

endangered species management, and biological activities in a more efficient manner. The lack of this 

essential equipment will continue to hinder refuge operations and accomplishment of station objectives. 

Project 98010 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $200,000, Recurring Request $3,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) – Not Ranked 

This project will provide the funding to purchase six new vehicles to meet the needs of new staff 

members. The refuge’s vehicle fleet has been sorely neglected in terms of additions to the fleet. 

New staff members (both permanent and seasonal) have been added in recent years; however, no 

additional vehicles have been purchased due to a lack of funds. At least six new vehicles are needed 

to properly support all aspects of the refuge’s management and maintenance programs. These 

vehicles will allow the refuge’s public use, fire management, endangered species management, and 

biological program activities to be conducted in a more efficient manner. 

Project 98011 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 10 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 park ranger to manage the 

refuge volunteer program. The current refuge volunteer program documents more than 25,000 

volunteer hours annually, supporting the biological, maintenance, management, and administrative 

programs. The current staff is not sufficient to adequately recruit, train, supervise, supply, and 

administer a program with a larger number of volunteers. Adding a volunteer coordinator will meet 

both the current need and assist in securing additional volunteer services on the refuge. Volunteers 

perform tasks such as sea turtle patrol, visitor contact duties, environmental talks at schools, 

boundary signing, and clerical duties. 

Project 99001 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $130,000; Recurring Request $118,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 27 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 refuge operations specialist and 

a GS-5 administrative assistant to meet the administrative needs of increased activities. Expanded 

refuge operations and activities in program areas such as endangered species management, fire 

management, biological, public use, visitor services, etc., along with increased administrative tasks, has 

caused a decrease in overall efficiency in completing administrative functions in a timely manner. To 

improve refuge operations, these administrative positions are needed. The increased emphasis on 
Appendices 209

ecosystem management and the associated workload makes it necessary to have a multi-disciplined 

staff. This increase also necessitates the need for expanded administrative functions. 

Project 99002 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

One Time Request $30,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 3 

This project will provide the funding to restore a minimum of 250,000 acres (over a 20-year period) in 

eight types of forested habitats found on five national wildlife refuges in the coastal plain of eastern 

North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. In this area, forest types, such as pine pocosins, maritime 

forests, Atlantic white cedar, bottomland hardwoods, and cypress-gum swamps, are greatly reduced 

and degraded from exploitive timbering, land clearing, drainage of wetlands, and commercial 

development. Water quality will improve as the forest types are restored. Endangered red wolves 

and red-cockaded woodpeckers, wood ducks, American woodcock, migratory land birds, and the 

largest remaining black bear population on the mid-Atlantic coast will greatly benefit from the restored 

forests. Local ecotourism and timber product businesses will also benefit. We will partner with the 

Department of Defense (45,000-acre U.S. Air Force/Navy bombing range), U.S. Geological Survey, 

U.S. Forest Service (Croatan National Forest), and the North Carolina Forest Service to accomplish 

the restoration of these biologically and economically important forest resources. 

Project 99003 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $82,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 22 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 park ranger to provide 

additional educational opportunities to visitors. The geographic area surrounding the refuge has the 

North Carolina Aquarium on Roanoke Island, the sailing ship Queen Elizabeth II State Historic Site, 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Wright Brothers National 

Memorial, Nags Head Woods Nature Preserve, and many other natural and cultural history sites. 

Hundreds of school groups from a two to four state radius travel here for school field trips in the 

spring and fall. During the summer months, more than seven million people visit the Outer Banks. 

Families seek and attend educational programs that will entertain and educate their children. There 

are many opportunities for the Fish and Wildlife Service to be involved with these activities, and get 

the Service’s message to the public. 

Project 99004 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

One Time Request $48,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 14 

This project will provide the funding to implement an environmental contaminants study of the Dare 

County Landfill. 

Project 00003 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 2 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 forester to develop, 

coordinate, and implement a forest management program on the heavily forested 152,000-acre 

refuge. A 1999 Forest Management Review recommended a variety of needed forest habitat 

improvements to include restoration of hardwoods and Atlantic white cedar (a globally imperiled 

species), control of forest pest species, and effective management of fire-dependent pine stands. A 
210 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

forester is essential for preparing and implementing site-specific forest management plans that will 

improve habitat for endangered species (red-cockaded woodpecker), migratory birds (waterfowl and 

land birds), and important resident wildlife (black bear and white-tailed deer) on the refuge. The 

forester will also prepare and administer numerous contracts that will be used to accomplish forest 

habitat improvements, especially in the area of Atlantic white cedar regeneration, southern pine 

beetle control, and the establishment of permanent fire lanes (needed for prescribed fire and wildfire 

protection). The forester will work with the Department of Defense resource managers on the 46,000-

acre Dare County Bombing Range, which is surrounded by the refuge, to help implement a 

coordinated forest management program. 

Project 00007 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $53,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 1 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-7 biological technician to 

improve water management, wildlife monitoring, and interagency coordination on both the 152,000-

acre Alligator River Refuge and the 5,800-acre Pea Island Refuge. Effective water management is 

essential to restoring the natural hydrology on the Alligator River Refuge, which is heavily dissected 

by roads, drainage canals, and ditches. It is also essential to the proper management of wetland 

vegetation in three artificial moist soil units on Pea Island Refuge, which benefit thousands of 

migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. An improved hydrology regime on Alligator River Refuge will 

benefit a variety of important wildlife species (e.g., endangered red wolf, black bear, waterfowl, and 

white-tailed deer) through an overall improvement of habitat quality and diversity. On both refuges, 

the biological technician will monitor water quality and quantity, water gauges, and pumps. The 

technician will also survey and monitor endangered red-cockaded woodpecker colonies, conduct fish 

population surveys, band migratory birds, control invasive plant species (Phragmites), and monitor 

endangered sea turtle nesting activities and marine mammal strandings. The effects of Army Corps 

of Engineers dredging and disposal activities on Pea Island Refuge would be monitored to compile 

biological information needed for management decisions concerning controversial issues associated 

with beach nourishment and shorebird feeding and nesting habitat. 

Project 00012 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $15,800; Recurring Request $7,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 25 

This project will provide the funding to conduct an internal outreach program. This internal outreach 

program is very successful in the regions within the Service. Staff members are trained in customer 

service, public relations, and media relations. Public service announcements are produced using 

various staff members. The announcements portray the positive attributes of staff and refuge 

programs. The team approach in training produces a quality product. 

Project 00092 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $54,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 1 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time WG-8 maintenance worker to help 

operate and maintain four refuge pump stations, numerous water control structures, and other 

facilities on the 5,800-acre Pea Island Refuge and the nearby 152,000- acre Alligator River Refuge. 

The pumps and water control structures are used to regulate the flooding and draining of three 

artificial impoundments on Pea Island Refuge and extensive farm management and moist soil units 

on the Alligator River Refuge. Effective water management is essential to restoring natural hydrology 
Appendices 211

(which has been degraded by an extensive system of roads, drainage canals, and ditches) on the 

Alligator River Refuge. It is also essential to the proper management of wetland vegetation in the 

intensively managed artificial impoundments on the Pea Island Refuge, which benefit thousands of 

migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. This maintenance worker is essential to the proper operation, 

maintenance, and repair of refuge pumps, water control structures, and other facilities (e.g., buildings, 

grounds, trails, vehicles, and equipment) associated with water management and other refuge 

operations (e.g., public use, biological, and prescribed fire). The harsh climatic and environmental 

conditions (e.g., corrosive salt air, hurricanes) associated with northeastern North Carolina make it 

necessary to have a quality preventive and cyclic maintenance program. Refuge facilities are in need 

of constant maintenance to increase the lifespan and efficiency of all refuge operations. 

Project 00094 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 6 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 computer specialist to 

improve automated data processing and geographic information system operations on two refuges: 

Alligator River and Pea Island. Refuge operations and maintenance decisions must be based on the 

most reliable, up-to-date information available. The use of modern automated data processing and 

geographic information system technology will allow the two refuges’ staff (about 30 employees at 

present) to obtain the latest biological information, analyze data, transmit information, respond to 

inquiries, and communicate with partners. A computer specialist would administer and maintain the 

program. As fast as computer technology is advancing, the ability to efficiently gather, analyze, and 

disseminate information and data increases staff efficiency and fosters professional operations. 

Project 00095 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 3 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 wildlife biologist to expand 

and enhance the biological monitoring program on the 5,800-acre Pea Island Refuge and the 

152,000-acre Alligator River Refuge. The field biologist will assist the senior refuge biologist and one 

biological technician in coordinating and conducting all wildlife and habitat surveys on the two 

refuges. Having a field biologist to oversee biological operations will allow the senior wildlife biologist 

to develop various wildlife and habitat management plans, which would then be implemented by the 

field biologist. These plans are essential to the proper management of a diverse number of 

endangered species (e.g., red wolf, red-cockaded woodpecker, piping plover, and loggerhead sea 

turtle) and other important wildlife species (e.g., bald eagle, American alligator, waterfowl, shorebirds, 

wading birds, land birds, black bear, and white-tailed deer) that use these two refuges. Habitat and 

fisheries surveys, based on approved plans, would also be conducted or coordinated by the wildlife 

biologist in consultation with Service fishery biologists, foresters, and fire management specialists. 

Project 00096 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $60,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 4 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time WG-10 heavy equipment mechanic 

to maintain and repair bulldozers, road graders, draglines, farm equipment, over-the-road truck 

tractors, fire equipment, front-end loaders, and fixed pump stations on two refuges: the 5,800-acre 

Pea Island Refuge and 152,000-acre Alligator River Refuge. Currently, the refuges have no staff 

person qualified to maintain and repair heavy equipment (mostly diesel engines). A qualified diesel 
212 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

mechanic would improve the overall refuge maintenance operations by reducing equipment downtime 

and by reducing transportation costs to commercial repair facilities. Also, the life of heavy equipment 

would be extended through an effective preventative and cyclic maintenance program conducted by 

this position. A large assortment of construction type heavy equipment is used to maintain the two 

refuges’ infrastructure such as roads (more than 150 miles), dikes, water control structures, trails, and 

firebreaks. These refuge facilities are heavily used by the visiting public and are necessary for 

completing many management activities. Having a heavy equipment mechanic to properly maintain a 

viable fleet of equipment is necessary to support all areas of refuge management. 

Project 00098 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $58,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 2 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-7 park ranger (law enforcement) to 

ensure a proactive law enforcement program on this 5,800-acre refuge. At present, four dual-purpose 

officers provide reactive visitor safety and resource protection on this refuge and the nearby 152,000-

acre Alligator River Refuge. These two refuges host more than two million annual visitors; most of them 

visit Pea Island Refuge. However, visitation and crime is increasing annually on both refuges. 

Therefore, a full-time refuge officer is needed to provide information to the visiting public (while striving 

for voluntary compliance) and to protect the refuge’s numerous visitors from a more sophisticated 

criminal element. The officer is needed to protect the two refuges’ significant wildlife resources such as 

black bear (the largest concentration of black bears on the mid-Atlantic coast) and endangered red wolf 

on Alligator River Refuge, and endangered sea turtles and piping plovers that nest on Pea Island 

Refuge. The poaching of other important wildlife (e.g., diamond-backed turtle, white-tailed deer, timber 

rattlesnake, and yellow-spotted turtle), illegal collecting of cultural and historic resources, and 

vandalizing of refuge facilities, equipment, and signs would be reduced. The refuge officer will work 

closely with various local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies (Department of Defense) to 

improve the coordination and efficiency of law enforcement operations in the vicinity of both refuges. 

Project 00099 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 5 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 park ranger (wildlife 

interpretive specialist) to plan, design, and coordinate wildlife exhibits, trails, and special events. 

Over two million visitors use Pea Island Refuge and the nearby Alligator River Refuge annually, and 

the number of visitors is increasing every year. A wildlife interpretive specialist is needed to meet the 

increasing demand for quality environmental education and wildlife interpretation facilities, programs, 

and events on the two refuges. Day-to-day public use operations and activities need to be directed at 

a professional level, which this position will accomplish. The wildlife interpretive specialist will also 

coordinate the operation of the refuge visitor center, environmental education and interpretation 

programs, and large volunteer program (regular volunteers from the community, college interns, work 

campers). This position will provide the proper oversight and coordination of these programs and an 

active friends group (Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society). 

Project 02001 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000; Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 2 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 refuge operations specialist to 

serve as a safety/environmental compliance coordinator and asset manager. The position would 
Appendices 213

meet ever-increasing demands for environmental protection and assurance of a safe visitor 

experience and employee work environment. This position will serve as the station’s safety officer 

and be responsible for conducting periodic safety inspections, identifying safety issues, managing all 

safety documentation, and conducting safety meetings. Refuge environmental audits and 

compliance implementation will be coordinated through this position. The individual will be 

responsible for managing real property inventory and personal property databases and managing the 

stations’ Service Asset and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) computerized maintenance 

management software application to track maintenance expenditures, capture maintenance needs, 

quantify maintenance activities, and report maintenance accomplishments. The position will serve 

both the Alligator River and Pea Island Refuges. 

Project 04001 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $330,000; Recurring Request $41,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 24 

This project will provide the funding to construct new refuge residences, a “duplex” (in one structure) 

that has two units (sides), each with 1,500–1,600 square feet. The estimated total cost is $250,000. 

The justification is the lack of affordable housing in the area for permanent full-time entry-level 

employees. The high cost of housing negatively affects the refuge’s ability to attract the “best and 

brightest” to the Service in this area. The project includes costs for initial construction and long-term 

maintenance (including a staff position). 
214 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Tier 1 Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects (Projects that address critical mission 

criteria) (Both refuges’ projects are listed because most projects are shared and benefit both 

refuges) 

Refuge Number Rank 

Cost 

First Year, FTE Description 

Recurring, 

Total First Year

ARNWR 00007 1 65K, 53K,118K 1.0 Improve biological data collection and 

water management (biological 

technician). 

ARNWR 00003 2 65K,74K,139K 1.0 Implement a comprehensive forest 

management program (forester). 

ARNWR 99002 3 30K,0K,30K 0.0 Restore the ecosystem’s coastal plain 

forests. 

ARNWR 98003 4 432K,0K,432K 0.0 Identify and protect cultural 

resources. 

ARNWR 97047 5 39K,10K,49K 0.0 Improve information resource 

management. 

PINWR 00092 1 65K,54K,119K 1.0 Restore and manage important 

wetlands (maintenance worker). 

PINWR 00098 2 65K,58K,123K 1.0 Improve resource and visitor 

protection (park ranger-enforcement). 

PINWR 00095 3 65K,74K,139K 1.0 Expand biological monitoring 

programs (wildlife biologist). 

PINWR 00096 4 65K,60K,125K 1.0 Improve equipment maintenance and 

repair (heavy equipment mechanic). 

PINWR 00099 5 65K,74K,139K 1.0 Enhance public education and 

outreach programs (park rangerinterpretation). 

PINWR 00094 6 65K,74K,139K 1.0 Provide improved computer support 

(computer specialist). 

ARNWR 97022 1 85K,15K,100K 0.0 Reduce or eradicate invasive 

‘Phragmites’ pest plant 

ARNWR 02001 2 65K,69K,134K 1.0 Improve safety, environmental 

compliance, and asset management 

(assistant manager-facilities) 

ARNWR 97021 6 100K,138K,238

K 

2.0 Restore hydrology on forested 

wetlands 

ARNWR 98011 10 65K,69K,134K 1.0 Improve volunteer coordination (park 

ranger). 

ARNWR 97025 11 38K,5.2K,43.2K 0.0 Improve resource management data 

collection 
Appendices 215

Refuge Number Rank 

Cost 

First Year, FTE Description 

Recurring, 

Total First Year

ARNWR 98006 12 40K,5K,45K 0.0 Improve fisheries management 

capabilities. 

ARNWR 97048 13 210K,10K,220K 0.0 Improve resource management and 

maintenance operations. 

ARNWR 99004 14 48K,0K,48K 0.0 Environmental contaminants study – 

Dare County Landfill 

ARNWR 97007 15 60K,5K,65K 0.0 Improve resource management 

planning 

ARNWR 97010 16 40K,10K,50K 0.0 Improve water quality monitoring 

capabilities 

ARNWR 97005 18 162.5K,182K, 

344.5K 

3.0 Enhance natural regeneration of 

Atlantic white cedar (forester, forestry 

technician, engineering equipment 

operator) 

ARNWR 99003 22 65K,82K,147K 1.0 Improve public outreach and 

education activities (park ranger). 

ARNWR 04001 24 330K,41K,371K 0.0 Provide entry level employee 

housing. 

ARNWR 00012 25 15.8K,7K,22.8K 0.0 Implement Ambassador Program. 

ARNWR 99001 27 130K,118K,248

K 

2.0 Improve administrative support 

(refuge operations specialist), 

administrative assistant). 

ARNWR 97011 29 65K,59K,124K 1.0 Improve water level management in 

moist soil/farm units (biological 

technician). 

ARNWR 97018 30 65K,49K,114K 1.0 Improve management of moist soil 

units (maintenance worker). 

ARNWR 98004 32 80K,80K,160K 0.0 Increase refuge office space. 

ARNWR 98008 99 235K,10K,245K 0.0 Improve resource management and 

maintenance operations (excavator). 

ARNWR 98010 99 200K,3K,203K 0.0 Improve resource management and 

maintenance operations (vehicle fleet). 

PINWR 97045 1 195K,213K,408

K 

4.0 Enhance visitor services and 

education (park rangers, maintenance 

workers). 

PINWR 97041 2 82K,49K,131K 1.0 Expand wildlife monitoring surveys 

(biological technician). 
216 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Number Rank 

Cost 

First Year, FTE Description 

Recurring, 

Total First Year

PINWR 97040 3 56K,84K,140K 1.0 Improve coordination with other 

resource and public use agencies 

(resource specialist). 

PINWR 97043 4 32.5K,44K,76.5

K 

1.0 Improve waterfowl nesting and 

production surveys (biological 

technician). 

PINWR 97039 6 65K,69K,134K 1.0 Improve administration and 

coordination of special uses (refuge 

operations specialist). 

PINWR 98005 7 85K,84K,169K 1.0 Monitor Oregon inlet dredging 

operations (biological technician). 

PINWR = Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ARNWR = Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project numbers have the fiscal year the project was developed as the first two numbers. 
Appendices 217

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MMS) PROJECTS 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

Alligator River Projects 

90041 Rehabilitate and Gravel 

Milltail Road 

$0 Alligator River 

95001 Replace Laurel Bay and 

Creef Pump Stations 

2011 $1,879,000 Alligator River 

97008 Construct Visitor Center 

and Administrative Office 

Complex 

2011 $3,724,000 9(7) Alligator River 

97009 Construct an 

Informational Trail Area 

 $54,000 Alligator River 

97049 Rehabilitate Equipment 

Repair Facility 

2010 $522,000 Alligator River 

98007 Replace Worn Shaft 

Bearings on Laurel Bay 

Waterfowl Pumps 

2008 $50,000 60(52) Alligator River 

98009 Rehabilitate and Gravel 

Milltail Road 

$0 Alligator River 

98010 Replace Military Truck 

Tractor 

 $104,000 Alligator River 

98011 Replace Ford 545 

Mowing Tractor 

$55,000 41(34) Alligator River 

98013 Replace Timer Equipment 

Trailer 

 $53,000 36(30) Alligator River 

98017 Rehabilitate Creef Cut 

Walking Trail 

$38,000 Alligator River 

98025 Rehabilitate Primary 

Refuge Road System 

2009 $283,000 33(28) Alligator River 

98029 Replace Mowers $274,000 50(42) Alligator River 

98030 Rehabilitate Primary 

Canal System 

2007 $60,000 30(25) Alligator River 

98032 Replace 1978 D3 Crawler 

Tractor 

$136,000 49(41) Alligator River 

98037 Replace Ford 6610 

Mowing Tractor 

 $88,000 43(36) Alligator River 

98039 Replace 15-Ton Crane 

and 10-Ton Forklift 

$120,000 14(11) Alligator River 
218 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

98041 Replace Workhorse 

Equipment Transport 

Trailer 

 $71,000 57(49) Alligator River 

98042 Replace John Deere 

644G Front-end Loader 

$186,000 Alligator River 

98044 Replace Caterpillar D6H 

Crawler Tractor 

 $235,000 Alligator River 

98045 Replace Caterpillar 

EL200B Excavator 

$238,000 29(24) Alligator River 

98046 Replace John Deere 

770B Road Grader 

 $230,000 Alligator River 

98047 Replace Boat, Motor and 

Trailer 

$55,000 Alligator River 

98048 Replace Refuge Road 

Gates 

2007 $31,000 37(31) Alligator River 

98052 Replace Water Control 

Structures 

2011 $53,000 Alligator River 

98065 Replace Worn Shaft 

Bearings on Creek 

Waterfowl Moist Soil Unit 

Pumps 

2008 $32,000 59(51) Alligator River 

99001 Replace Nodwell Flex 

Tracked Vehicle 

$82,000 44(37) Alligator River 

99005 Replace Allis Chalmers 

Front End Loader 

 $164,000 24(20) Alligator River 

99006 Replace ford L9000 

Dump Truck 

$120,000 47(40) Alligator River 

99007 Repair Parking Area 

Surface 

2008 $43,000 21(40) Alligator River 

99009 Replace Air Boat $39,000 38(32) Alligator River 

99011 Replace Spryte Thiokol 

Marsh Buggy 

 $110,000 45(38) Alligator River 

01001 Remove Military Facility 

Structures 

2008 $32,000 42(35) Alligator River 

01007 Replace 1994 Ford Truck 

Tractor 

 $105,000 46(39) Alligator River 

01009 Replace 1994 Chevy 

Wildland Fire Pumper 

Unit 

$64,000 Alligator River 
Appendices 219

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

01010 Replace 1996 Ford L9000 

Truck Tractor Hauling 

Unit 

$105,000 Alligator River 

01017 Replace 1997 Ford F150 

Pickup (Wolf) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

01018 Replace 1997 Ford F150 

Pickup (Wolf) 

$31,000 Alligator River 

01020 Replace 1997 Dodge 

Ram 1500 Pickup (Wolf) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

01021 Replace 1998 Ford 

Explorer (Wolf) 

$31,000 Alligator River 

01023 Replace 1997 Dodge 

Ram 1500 Pickup (Wolf) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

01024 Replace 1997 Ford F350 

Crewcab Pickup (Fire) 

$38,000 Alligator River 

01025 Replace 1996 Ford Van $38,000 5(5) Alligator River 

01028 Replace Worn 1988 IHC 

Truck Tractor 

$105,000 16(13) Alligator River 

01029 Replace 1979 Osh Kosh 

Truck Tractor and Trailer 

 $169,000 15(12) Alligator River 

01030 Replace 1997 Ford 

Explorer 

$31,000 Alligator River 

01031 Replace Flex Tracked 

Fire Fighting Tractor 

(AX4) 

 $185,000 51(43) Alligator River 

01032 Replace Flex Tracked 

Fire Fighting Tractor 

(AX2) 

$233,000 32(27) Alligator River 

01033 Replace Full Tracked Fire 

Fighting Tractor (AX6) 

 $233,000 53(45) Alligator River 

01034 Replace Trailer Mounted 

Pump Unit Engine (Gator 

1) 

$21,000 10(8) Alligator River 

01035 Replace Trailer Mounted 

Pump Unit Engine (Gator 

2) 

 $21,000 13(10) Alligator River 

01036 Replace Trailer Mounted 

16” Water Pump (Pump 

1) 

$10,000 12(9) Alligator River 
220 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

01037 Replace Trailer Mounted 

16” Water Pump (Pump 

2) 

 $10,000 17(14) Alligator River 

01038 Replace Heavy 

Equipment Transport 

Trailer (Witzco) 

$53000 54(46) Alligator River 

01039 Replace Heavy 

Equipment Transport 

Trailer (Boaz) 

 $53,000 55(47) Alligator River 

01040 Replace Ford 8260 

Agricultural Tractor 

$58,000 Alligator River 

01041 Replace Military Excess 

Bucyrus Erie Dragline 

 $287,000 19(16) Alligator River 

01042 Replace Worn Ford 6640 

Boomaxe Agricultural 

Tractor 

$79,000 58(50) Alligator River 

01043 Replace Fully Tracked 

Firefighting (Tractor) 

Equipment (AX5) 

 $233,000 52(44) Alligator River 

01048 Replace Military 

Pettibone Forklift 

$169,000 31(26) Alligator River 

02001 Replace 1998 Ford 

Taurus 

 $27,000 Alligator River 

02002 Replace 1999 Ford F-250 

(Wolf) 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02003 Replace 1999 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02004 Replace 1999 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02005 Replace 1999 Chevy C7500 Dump Truck  $42,000 Alligator River 

02006 Replace 2001 Dodge 

2500 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02007 Replace 2001 Dodge 

2500 

 $29,000 Alligator River 

02008 Replace 2001 Dodge 

2500 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02009 Replace 2000 Chevy 

Tahoe 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

02010 Replace 2000 Ford 

Expedition (Planners) 

$31,000 Alligator River 
Appendices 221

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

02011 Replace 2000 Chevy 

Astro (Planners) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

02012 Replace 2001 Dodge 

Ram 2500 (Wolf) 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02013 Replace 2001 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02014 Replace 2001 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02015 Replace 2002 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02016 Replace 2002 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02017 Replace 2002 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02018 Replace 2002 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02019 Replace 2002 Sterling L9500  $99,000 Alligator River 

02020 Replace 2002 LE Dodge 

LE 1500 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02021 Replace 2002 Ford 

Expedition 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

02022 Replace 2002 Ford F-250 

(Wolf) 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02023 Replace 2002 Ford F-250 

(Wolf) 

 $29,000 Alligator River 

02024 Replace 2002 Ford F-450 $47,000 Alligator River 

02025 Replace Allis Chalmers 

Forklift 

 $42,000 40(33) Alligator River 

02026 Replace Caterpillar D3C 

LGP 

$73,000 Alligator River 

02027 Replace Case 4X4 Front 

End Loader 

 $167,000 Alligator River 

02029 Replace Dresser TD12 

LGP Dozer 

$188,000 Alligator River 

02030 Replace Trail King Dump 

Trailer 

 $42,000 Alligator River 

02031 Replace Ford 8160 

Agricultural Tractor 

$84,000 Alligator River 

02032 Replace Ford 8830 

Agricultural Tractor 

 $94,000 Alligator River 

02034 Replace Fontaine Low 

Boy Trailer 

$63,000 Alligator River 
222 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

02035 Replace John Deere 

4100 Mowing Tractor 

 $16,000 Alligator River 

02036 Replace John Deere 

5400 Mowing Tractor 

$31,000 Alligator River 

02037 Replace Terez D7F 

Dozer 

 $261,000 Alligator River 

02038 Replace 45’ Bridge Trailer $31,000 Alligator River 

02039 Replace Refuge 

Operations Facility 

2011 $1,670,000 Alligator River 

02040 Construct Red Wolf 

Processing Facility 

$131,000 2(2) Alligator River 

02043 Construct Two HAZMAT 

Storage Buildings 

 $60,000 1(1) Alligator River 

02044 Construct Biological 

Program Storage Building 

$40,000 3(3) Alligator River 

02128 Replace champion 710A 

Road grader 

 $136,000 25(21) Alligator River 

03001 Replace Hyster Forklift $26,000 23(19) Alligator River 

03002 Replace Worn 2002 Ford 

Explorer 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

03003 Replace Worn 2002 Ford 

Explorer 

$31,000 Alligator River 

03004 Replace Worn 2003 Ford 

F-250 (Wolf) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

03005 Replace Worn 2003 F150 $31,000 Alligator River 

03006 Replace 1995 Ford F-150 $31,000 4(4) Alligator River 

03007 Replace Worn Chevy 

Silverado (Fire) 

$37,000 Alligator River 

03008 Replace 21’ Boston 

Whaler 

 $63,000 Alligator River 

03009 Replace Water Tender 

Truck (Tanker) 

$73,000 Alligator River 

03011 Replace 2 Worn Creef 

Pump Engines 

 $94,000 27(22) Alligator River 

03012 Replace 2 Worn Laurel 

Bay Pump Engines 

$94,000 28(23) Alligator River 
Appendices 223

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

03013 Replace Stockpile of 

Aggregate Road 

Maintenance Material 

2006 $84,000 6(6) Alligator River 

03014 Rehabilitate Station 

Heliport 

 $29,000 56(48) Alligator River 

03015 Replace Laurel Bay pump 

Vehicular Crossing 

$235,000 18(15) Alligator River 

03017 Replace Worn Caterpillar 

420D Backhoe/Loader 

 $84,000 Alligator River 

04 Rehabilitate Pump Road $189,000 Alligator River 

04001 Resurface Milltail Road 

(2.2 miles) 

2004 $400,000 Alligator River 

04002 Replace 2004 Ford F150 $30,000 Alligator River 

04003 Replace 2004 Ford F650 

Service Truck 

 $62,000 Alligator River 

04004 Replace 2004 Ford F650 

Service Truck (Fire) 

$62,000 Alligator River 

04005 Replace 2004 Ford F150 

Crew Cab 

 $30,000 Alligator River 

04006 Replace 2004 Ford F150 

Crew Cab 

$30,000 Alligator River 

04007 Replace 2004 Ford 

Expedition (Fire) 

 $36,000 Alligator River 

04008 Replace 2003 Ford F150 $30,000 Alligator River 

04009 Replace 2004 Ford 

Expedition 

 $36,000 Alligator River 

04010 Repave Creef Cut Trail $35,000 Alligator River 

04011 Replace Worn CAT 320 

Long Reach Excavator 

 $180,000 Alligator River 

04012 Rehabilitate Koehring 

Road 

$696,000 Alligator River 

04013 Rehabilitate Bear Road $293,000 Alligator River 

04014 Rehabilitate Blueberry 

Road 

$285,000 Alligator River 

04015 Rehabilitate Borrow Pit 

Road 

 $122,000 Alligator River 

04016 Rehabilitate Brier Hall 

Road 

$364,000 Alligator River 
224 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

04017 Rehabilitate Deep Bay 

Road 

 $129,000 Alligator River 

04018 Rehabilitate Grouse Road $115,000 Alligator River 

04019 Rehabilitate Long Curve 

Road 

 $933,000 Alligator River 

04020 Rehabilitate Milltail Road $975,000 Alligator River 

04021 Rehabilitate Pamlico 

Road 

 $212,000 Alligator River 

04022 Rehabilitate Point Peter 

Road 

$169,000 Alligator River 

04024 Rehabilitate Whipping 

Creek Road 

 $429,000 Alligator River 

04025 Rehabilitate Dry Ridge 

Road 

$717,000 Alligator River 

04026 Rehabilitate Possum 

Road 

 $274,000 Alligator River 

04027 Rehabilitate Twiford Road $363,000 Alligator River 

04028 Rehabilitate Buffalo City 

Road 

 $243,000 Alligator River 

04029 Rehabilitate Lake 

Neighborhood Road 

$175,000 Alligator River 

04030 Rehabilitate Sandy Ridge 

Road 

 $92,000 Alligator River 

04031 Rehabilitate Bay Road $158,000 Alligator River 

04032 Rehabilitate Cypress 

Road 

 $57,000 Alligator River 

04033 Rehabilitate Cedar Road $180,000 Alligator River 

04034 Rehabilitate Jake Road $80,000 Alligator River 

04035 Rehabilitate West 

Widgeon Road 

$138,000 Alligator River 

04036 Rehabilitate Pollock Road $236,000 Alligator River 

04037 Rehabilitate Wigeon 

Road 

$134,000 Alligator River 

04038 Rehabilitate Canvasback 

Road 

 $173,000 Alligator River 

04039 Rehabilitate Little Field 

Road 

$115,000 Alligator River 

04040 Rehabilitate Eagle Road $113,000 Alligator River 
Appendices 225

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

04041 Rehabilitate Storm Road $111,000 Alligator River 

04042 Rehabilitate Reuben 

Road 

$79,000 Alligator River 

04043 Rehabilitate Sassafras 

Road 

 $59,000 Alligator River 

04044 Rehabilitate Alligator 

Road 

$323,000 Alligator River 

04046 Rehabilitate H&B Road $386,000 Alligator River 

04047 Rehabilitate Richmond 

Road 

$159,000 Alligator River 

04048 Rehabilitate Chip Road $143,000 Alligator River 

04049 Rehabilitate Lake Worth 

Road 

$107,000 Alligator River 

04050 Rehabilitate Beaver Road $165,000 Alligator River 

04051 Rehabilitate River Road $151,000 Alligator River 

04052 Rehabilitate Hickory Road $125,000 Alligator River 

04053 Rehabilitate Wynne Road $148,000 Alligator River 

04054 Rehabilitate Osprey Road $98,000 Alligator River 

04055 Rehabilitate Hook Road $151,000 Alligator River 

04056 Rehabilitate North 

Perimeter Road 

 $573,000 Alligator River 

04057 Rehabilitate Peterson 

Road 

$203,000 Alligator River 

04058 Rehabilitate Sawyer Lake 

Road 

 $405,000 Alligator River 

04059 Rehabilitate Creef Road $223,000 Alligator River 

04060 Rehabilitate Bobcat Road $258,000 Alligator River 

04061 Rehabilitate Gadwall 

Road 

$177,000 Alligator River 

04062 Rehabilitate Link Road $97,000 Alligator River 

04063 Rehabilitate Butler Road $290,000 Alligator River 

04064 Rehabilitate Laurel Bay 

Road 

 $442,000 Alligator River 

04067 Rehabilitate Blueberry 

Road Parking Area 

$30,000 Alligator River 
226 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

04068 Repair/Rehabilitate 

(Koehring) Wildlife 

Parking Area 

$36,000 Alligator River 

04069 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Pollock/Koehring Wildlife 

Parking Area 

 $26,000 Alligator River 

04070 Repair/Rehabilitate Cedar 

Road Parking Lot 

$62,000 Alligator River 

04071 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Koehring Road Parking 

Lot 

 $25,000 Alligator River 

04072 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Borrow Pit Parking Lot 

$47,000 Alligator River 

04073 Repair/Rehabilitate Peter 

Point Road Parking Area 

 $30,000 Alligator River 

04077 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Sawyer Lake (Buffalo 

Ramp) Parking Area 

$26,000 Alligator River 

04078 Repair/ Rehabilitate Deep 

Bay Boat Launch Area 

 $51,000 Alligator River 

04079 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Dipper Road Parking 

Area 

$28,000 Alligator River 

04080 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Widgeon Road Parking 

 $65,000 Alligator River 

04080 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Twiford Road Parking #1 

$122,000 Alligator River 

04083 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Pamlico Road Heliport 

Parking Area 

 $34,000 Alligator River 

04087 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Twiford Road Parking #2 

$39,000 Alligator River 

04097 Replace 2004 Ford F150 

Pickup 

 $30,000 Alligator River 

04098 Replace 2004 Ford F150 

Pickup 

$30,000 Alligator River 

98014 Replace John Deere 

4240 Tractor 

 $157,000 8(2) Pea Island 

98021 Replace South Pond 

Pumping Station 

2008 $388,000 39(7) Pea Island 
Appendices 227

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

98055 Replace Pump Station 

Bulkhead 

2006 $27,000 35(6) Pea Island 

98057 Replace 1960 Office, 

Shop, Garage, and 

Residence 

2010 $800,000 20(4) Pea Island 

98063 Replace Bulkhead Pea Island 

98064 Replace North Pond 

Bulkhead 

Pea Island 

00007 Replace Storm Damaged 

Water Control Structure 

2009 $301,000 Pea Island 

01044 Replace Gasoline Fuel 

Tank 

2006 $25,000 7(1) Pea Island 

01045 Replace Aboveground 

Diesel Fuel Storage Tank 

2006 $46,000 11(3) Pea Island 

01046 Replace North Pond 

Pump Station 

2008 $474,000 Pea Island 

01047 Replace New Field Pump 

Station 

2008 $479,000 53(8) Pea Island 

03001 Transportation Planning 

for CCPs 

2007 $261,000 Pea Island 

04001 Replace Damaged 

Bulkhead That Protects 

the North Pond Moist Soil 

Units (West Side) 

2009 $61,000 26(5) Pea Island 

04089 Repair/Rehabilitate New 

Inlet Parking Area 

$39,000 Pea Island 

04090 Repair/Rehabilitate (New 

Inlet) Kiosk Parking Area 

 $27,000 Pea Island 

04091 Repair/Rehabilitate Visitor 

Center – Wildlife Trail 

Parking Area 

$0 Pea Island 

04092 Repair/Rehabilitate Pea 

Island Parking #2 

 $0 Pea Island 

04093 Repair/Rehabilitate Pea 

Island (Salt Flats) Parking 

#5 

$0 Pea Island 
228 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

04094 Repair/Rehabilitate Pea 

Island Parking #6, #5, #4, 

North Kiosk, and Visitor 

Center/Wildlife trail 

Parking Areas 

 $62,000 Pea Island 

04095 Repair/Rehabilitate North 

Kiosk Parking 

$0 Pea Island 

04096 Repair/Rehabilitate Pea 

Island Parking #8 

(Oregon Inlet) 

 $57,000 Pea Island 
Appendices 229

Appendix IX. Wilderness Review 

BACKGROUND 

Wilderness reviews are a required component of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s comprehensive 

conservation planning process. The primary purpose of a wilderness review is to inventory the areas 

on refuges that might have wilderness character and identify each area as wilderness study area. A 

wilderness study area must be roadless and meet one of the following size criteria: 

• greater than 5,000 acres; 

• a roadless island of any size; or 

• less than 5,000 acres but of sufficient size to be practicably managed as wilderness. 

A wilderness study area must also be natural and provide opportunities for solitude or primitive 

recreation. During the inventory phase of the wilderness review, the emphasis is on an assessment 

of wilderness character within the inventory unit. Sights and sounds originating from outside the unit, 

for example, those associated with military aircraft, cannot be used as justification to conclude that an 

area lacks wilderness character. Special values (e.g., ecological, geological, scenic, and historical) 

should be identified, but are not required. The determination to recommend (or not recommend) a 

wilderness study area to Congress for wilderness designation will be made through the 

comprehensive conservation plan decision-making process. 

On March 26 to 28, 2001, Service managers and refuge staff met at Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge to gather information and conduct field exams for the refuge’s wilderness review. The review 

team from that meeting is listed in the following table. 

Wilderness Review Team 

Team Member Title/Affiliation Address Phone

Mike Bryant Manager 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

John Wallace Deputy Manager 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

Dennis Stewart Wildlife Biologist 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

Bonnie Strawser Wildlife Interpretative Specialist 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

Tom Crews Fire Management Officer 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

Jerry Fringeli Assistant Manager 

Mattamuskeet NWR 

Route 1, Box N-2 

Swan Quarter, NC 27885 252/926-4021 

Wendy Stanton Wildlife Biologist 

Pocosin Lakes NWR 

P.O. Box 329 

Columbia, NC 27925 252-796-3004 

Bob Glennon Natural Resource Planner 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

1106 West Queen Street 

Edenton, NC 27932 252/482-2364 

D.A. Brown Habitat Protection Biologist 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

1106 West Queen Street 

Edenton, NC 27932 252/482-2364 

Donita Cotter Wilderness Program Analyst 

National Office, Division of Refuges 

4401 N. Fairfax Drive 

Arlington, VA 22203 703/358-2383 
230 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Prior to the review, using GIS database analysis of land status, transportation system, and 

hydrographic information, ecosystem planning staff prepared a map of wilderness inventory units 

potentially meeting the wilderness study area criteria (see table below and following figure). These 

15 wilderness inventory units were evaluated over the course of the three-day field exercise. 

Wilderness Inventory Units – Alligator River NWR (62,522 acres) 

Unit Acreage Unit Acreage Unit Acreage 

7 5,139 12 2,200 17 4,710 

8 7,302 13 2,823 18 6,679 

9 4,424 14 1,231 19 1,689 

10 4,541 15 3,112 20 3,478 

11 9,804 16 2,247 21 3,144 

The wilderness management policy and regulations allow motorized access and use of mechanized 

equipment for administrative purposes, provided such uses are the minimum necessary to accomplish 

wilderness objectives. For the purposes of analysis in the draft comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment, managers should assume that authorization of such uses would be 

temporary and rare in a wilderness area. If such restrictions would significantly limit the Service’s ability to 

accomplish other resource management objectives, these impacts should be fully described in the 

environmental consequences sections of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental 

assessment and would obviously be a factor for consideration in selecting a preferred alternative. 

DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 

Photo documentation is required for each inventory unit to record existing wilderness character; any 

man-made features or “imprints of man’s work” that affect the unit’s naturalness; and condition of 

boundary roads. Photographs were taken during the field review; additional photographs were later 

taken from sounds and streams to give a complete impression of the inventory units. These photos 

will be keyed to text in the wilderness inventory evaluation reports and to maps. 

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT 

The wilderness management policy and regulations allow motorized access and use of mechanized 

equipment for administrative purposes, provided such uses are the minimum necessary to 

accomplish wilderness objectives. For the purposes of analysis in the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment, managers should assume that authorization of 

such uses would be temporary and rare in a wilderness area. If such restrictions would significantly 

limit the Service’s ability to accomplish other resource management objectives, these impacts should 

be fully described in the environmental consequences sections of the draft plan and environmental 

assessment and would obviously be a factor for consideration in selecting a preferred alternative. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

Fire Management. A major concern is the need for controlled burning in areas where accumulated 

fuels could contribute to catastrophic wildfires, threatening the urban interface. The current smoke 

management guidelines have limited prescribed burns to 1,000 acres so a burn on an entire 5,000-

acre tract without firebreaks is not possible. 
Appendices 231

Wilderness Inventory Units – Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
232 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Navigable Waters. Navigable waters (e.g., sounds, lakes, rivers, and creeks) bound most of the 

inventory units on Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. These waters are under the jurisdiction of 

the State of North Carolina. The Service has limited authority to restrict activities, such as motorized 

boating, on navigable bodies of water. 

Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. The federally listed red-cockaded woodpecker inhabits mature pond 

pine forests and requires relatively open old growth pine stands for nesting and feeding. The 

aggregate of nesting cavity trees is called a cluster and may include one to twenty or more cavity 

trees on three to sixty acres. There are three known clusters on the Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge with a possibility for six or seven clusters. The Dare County Bombing Range has five or six 

clusters. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan designated the Alligator River clusters as a 

support population rather than a recovery population. Development of a Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Management Plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge was due by July 1, 2001. Current 

management activities on the refuge consist of clearing trails to the cavity trees using machetes and 

a brush saw, paint marking and numbering trees, notation of geographic positioning system (GPS) 

locations, and monitoring of nesting activity. 

Southern Pine Beetle. The Southern pine beetle attacks all species of pines, including the pond pine 

found on Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The infestations are of concern because of the 

potential for killing red-cockaded woodpecker nest trees. On Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, 

control measures have typically consisted of felling a buffer strip of green, un-infested trees at the 

spreading edge or front of the active infestation using a tracked feller-buncher. The width of the 

buffer strip is as wide as the average height of the trees. Active infestations are located in wilderness 

inventory units 9, 10, and 11. Infestations have been treated in units 10 and 18. 

MANAGEMENT SITUATIONS SUMMARY 

A management situation summary will be prepared for each identified wilderness study area. The 

summary includes information regarding other important resource values and uses which do not 

relate specifically to the key wilderness inventory criteria. It will be used primarily in evaluating 

alternatives and making management decisions during the study phase and in responding to 

questions from the public. Much of this information is required for the comprehensive conservation 

plan and can be summarized and the planning record referenced for more detail. 

Maps of the area will be prepared showing roads, ditches, and special values such as anadromous 

fish spawning areas, primary and secondary nurseries, outstanding resource waters, state natural 

heritage areas, and location of federal and state listed threatened and endangered species. Surface 

disturbances would also be documented. The refuge staff indicated that some roads and ditches 

might be abandoned at some point in the future, following a road review. 

The following types of information should be included in a management situation summary: 

• refuge purposes 

• historic and existing public uses 

• historic and existing refuge management activities 

• status of current step-down management plans (e.g., provisions of the fire management plan that 

• relate to a specific wilderness study area) 

• existing or proposed management practices requiring motorized access or equipment and/or 

• mechanized transport 

• compatibility determinations 

• special use permits 
Appendices 233

• military uses and memorandums of understanding 

• research uses 

• commercial uses 

SUMMARY OF WILDERNESS REVIEW FINDINGS 

The review team identified five potential wilderness study areas at Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge (table below and following figure). The staff combined inventory units 17 and 18 to create the 

East Lake Wilderness Study Area; they combined inventory units 15 and 16 to create the Callahan 

Creek Wilderness Study Area. The boundaries of two wilderness study areas were also expanded. 

The staff expanded the boundary of Alice Nichols Wilderness Study Area (inventory unit 8) to include 

additional roadless lands on the north. They expanded the Quaking Bog Wilderness Study Area 

(inventory unit 11) on the northeast. The staff named wilderness inventory unit 7 the Atlantic White 

Cedar Wilderness Study Area Unit. 

Wilderness Study Areas – Alligator River NWR 

Unit Number Suggested Name of Potential Wilderness Study Area Acreage 

7 Atlantic White Cedar Wilderness Study Area 5,139 

8 Alice Nichols Wilderness Study Area 11,005 

11 Quaking Bog Wilderness Study Area 10,695 

15/16 Callahan Creek Wilderness Study Area 14,517 

17/18 East Lake Wilderness Study Area 14,517 

Total Acres 46,715 

The findings for each of the inventory units identified in the above table, including the potential 

wilderness study areas, are summarized below. 

Unit 7 (5,139 acres) meets the criteria for a wilderness study area. The unit is larger than 5,000 acres, 

apparently natural, and provides outstanding opportunities for solitude. Vegetation in the unit includes 

pond pine pocosin on the east end, bottomland hardwood in the middle part of the unit, and cypress/gum 

on the west end along the Intracoastal Waterway. Atlantic white cedar was also noted in the unit. The 

unit provided potential for restoration to the historically prevalent Atlantic white cedar habitat or other 

forested wetland types. “Atlantic White Wilderness Study Area” is the suggested name for the wilderness 

study area. It was noted that, since the refuge was acquired, this particular area has essentially been 

managed as wilderness due to its remote location, which is difficult to access. 

Unit 8 (initially 7,302 acres) meets the criteria for a wilderness study area. The unit is larger than 

5,000 acres, apparently natural, and provides outstanding opportunity for solitude. Vegetation is 

pond pine pocosin and bottomland hardwood. The north boundary of the inventory unit as initially 

identified is not located along a road or other man-made feature. The actual northern boundary of the 

roadless areas lies along Alligator Road. The eastern boundary of the roadless area is located along 

the boundary with Dare County Bombing range and “cherry-stems” Gator Roads 1, 2, 3 and 5. The 

four Gator Roads, two of which are owned and maintained by the U.S. Air Force, might potentially be 

abandoned and restored. South of the Dare County Bombing Range, the eastern acreage of the 

roadless area was recalculated and now totals 11,005 acres. It was acquired due to its location 
234 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Potential Wilderness Study Areas – Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 235

and inaccessibility. This area, in which dog hunting for bear is currently prohibited, was identified by 

local hunters during the comprehensive conservation plan public scooping meetings as one of the 

best potential bear hunting areas on the refuge. However, if this area becomes a wilderness study 

area, the use of dogs would almost certainly be prohibited, due to the expected increase in motorboat 

use for that activity. The largest boundary included the abandonment of Nichols Road, which was 

named in memory of Alice Nichols. Any of the alternative sizes would have distinct boundaries on all 

sides. “Alice Nichols Wilderness Study Area” is the suggested name for this wilderness study area. 

Units 9 (4,423 acres) and 10 (4,540 acres) are less than 5,000 acres in size and could not be 

practicably managed as wilderness. U.S. Highway 264 bounds the units on the north and east. Units 

9 and 10 are both bisected into smaller parcels by waterways, Long Shoal River and Pains Bay, 

respectively. These waterways are used for both recreational and commercial boating purposes. 

Due to the units’ small size, boundary configuration, and existing uses, they would be difficult to 

manage in a way to ensure outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. These areas 

do not meet the criteria for wilderness study areas. Southern pine beetle infestations and control 

buffer cuts heavily impacted the naturalness for both units. Both areas have high commercial use 

that would affect opportunities for solitude. Both units have considerable ditching in the areas 

adjacent to the units that would restrict their enlargement to more acreage. Therefore, these areas 

were eliminated from further consideration as wilderness study areas. 

Unit 11 (initially 9,803 acres) meets the criteria for a wilderness study area. The unit is larger than 

5,000 acres, apparently natural, and provides outstanding opportunities for solitude. The unit 

encompasses an area of deep organic soils that limit potential for surface disturbing activities thereby 

preserving the area’s natural features. It includes the unique land feature of a quaking bog, which 

was considered to be a supplemental value for the area. Vegetation in the unit varies from bog to low 

pocosin to tall pocosin to pond pine pocosin. The unit also has viable red-cockaded woodpecker 

habitat on the western edge. The roadless area actually includes a “finger” of land northeast of the 

initially identified inventory unit bound on the north by Lake Worth Road, U.S. Highway 264 on the 

east, and the Dare County Bombing Range on the west. Inclusion of this finger increases the unit’s 

expanded boundary acreage by 892 acres to a total of 10,695 acres, which includes all of the 

roadless area in the bombing range. At some point, an alternative may be written to modify the 

boundary to exclude red-cockaded woodpecker habitat for management purposes. The area has a 

distinct boundary on three sides and the Dare County Bombing Range on the north boundary. The 

area was recommended as a potential wilderness study area and “Quaking Bog Wilderness Study 

Area” was one suggested name. It is commonly referred to as the “264 Low Pocosin Area” and that 

was also suggested as an alternate name. 

Unit 12 (2,199 acres), Unit 13 (2,823 acres) and Unit 14 (1,230 acres) are less than 5,000 acres in size 

and could not practicably be managed as wilderness. The units are all bound on the east by Croatan 

Sound, which is a commercial fishery. The units are bordered on the west by refuge lands where natural 

values have been impacted by an extensive system of excavated drains that limit the possibility of 

enlarging the units’ boundaries. These units do not meet the criteria for wilderness study areas. 

Units 15 (3,112 acres) and 16 (2,247 acres) are separated by Callahan Creek, a natural feature that 

was originally drawn as a boundary dividing the two units. Both units are apparently natural and offer 

opportunities for solitude. The units are bound on the south, west, and east by drains and 

constructed firebreaks. Manns Harbor and Spencer’s Creek border Unit 16 on the north. The review 

team recommended combining the two units and making the combined area (5,359 acres) a 

wilderness study area. The boundary may be modified to include firebreaks on the eastern boundary 

to protect Manns Harbor. The combined units meet the criteria for a wilderness study area, and 

“Callahan Creek Wilderness Study Area” was a suggested name for the site. 
236 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Adjacent Units 17 and 18, initially 4,710 acres and 6,679 acres respectively, were identified as two 

distinct inventory units for analysis. Significant man-made features, such as a road or drainage ditch, 

do not separate the units. Based on this finding, the two units were combined (11,389 acres) into one 

roadless area. In addition, the boundary of the combined roadless unit was extended on the east 

side to include additional roadless refuge lands. Drains and private lands now form the east 

boundary. Surface disturbances include old abandoned logging roads, sporadically situated in a 

north/south orientation along U.S. Highway 64. Southern pine beetle control buffer cuts also occur 

along the southern boundary adjacent to U.S. Highway 64. However, these disturbances are limited 

in size and do not affect the overall apparent naturalness of the combined unit. The densely 

vegetated unit is expansive for the area (14,517 acres) and provides outstanding opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation. Unit 17/18 has distinct boundaries on three sides and Manns 

Harbor on the east. Trapping and hunting occur in the area; these activities are allowed in wilderness 

study areas and designated wilderness. Most of Unit 17/18 is suitable for red-cockaded woodpecker 

recruitment or foraging habitat although no red-cockaded woodpeckers presently nest or forage in the 

area. The area killed by the southern pine beetle has tall pocosin vegetation without pines on it and 

would need restoration to be suitable as red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. A modified boundary 

could be evaluated to allow construction of firebreaks on the eastern boundary to protect Manns 

Harbor. Unit 17/18 meets the criteria for a wilderness study area. “East Lake Wilderness Study 

Area” is the suggested name for the potential wilderness study area. 

Unit 19 (1,689 acres) does not meet the criteria for a wilderness study area. The unit is less than 

5,000 acres. Unit 19 could not be practicably managed as wilderness because of fire protection 

requirements to protect residential property in the adjacent community of Mashoes. 

Units 20 (3,478 acres) and 21 (3,144 acres) do not meet the criteria for a wilderness study area. The 

units encompass less than 5,000 acres and could not be practicably managed as wilderness. Milltail 

Creek, a tributary to Alligator River (a part of the Intracoastal Waterway), bisects both units. The 

creek is heavily used by motorized craft, including fishing and pleasure boats. Large sailboats and 

motorboats traveling through the Intracoastal Waterway also seek refuge in the creek during major 

storm events. The uses impact the quality of available opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. Milltail Creek is a navigable waterway and the Service has limited ability to manage 

motorized boating uses. Vegetation in Unit 20 is in transition from a hardwood forest to a marsh due 

to rising sea level, beaver dam impoundments, and excess water pumped into the unit from the 

refuge farm units north of Laurel Bay Road. 
Appendices 237

Appendix X. Consultation and Coordination 

This appendix summarizes the consultation and coordination that occurred in the processes of 

identifying the issues, alternatives, and preferred alternative which were presented in the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan; during the period of time while the Draft CCP was being prepared 

and distributed; and during the period of public review and comment on the Draft CCP. 

The Service formed a core planning team composed of representatives from various Service divisions 

to prepare the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge. The members of this team are identified in Table A. 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. 

In addition, a biological review team 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. 

Table B lists the members of this biological review team. 

Throughout the planning process, the core team also sought the contributions of experts from 

various fields (Table C). 

To expand the range of issues and to generate potential alternatives, the core planning team met 

in January 2001. Shortly thereafter, the team held a series of public scoping meetings on 

February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23 in Washington, Swan Quarter, Plymouth, Columbia, and Manns 

Harbor, North Carolina, respectively, 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 public scoping meetings, coupled with the input 

of the planning team, are summarized in Appendix IV, Public Involvement. After the team 

developed the alternatives, it held a second-round public meeting on April 26, 2005 in Manns 

Harbor, North Carolina, to solicit public reaction to the alternatives. The team then selected 

Alternative 2 as the proposed alternative. 

Table A. Core Planning Team members. 

Member Affiliation 

Mike Bryant, Refuge Manager 

Kathy Whaley, Former Deputy Manager 

Jim Wigginton, Assistant Manager 

Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Biologist 

Tom Crews, Fire Management Officer 

Bonnie Strawser, Park Ranger 

Ann Marie Salewski, Park Ranger 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Robert Glennon, Natural Resource Planner 

David Brown, Former Habitat Protection Biologist 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 
238 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table B. Biological Review Team members. 

Member Affiliation 

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 239

Table C. Expert contributors to the draft comprehensive conservation plan and their area(s) of 

expertise. 

Name Field 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, 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 

For a list of individuals, agencies, and organizations that contributed comments and suggestions to 

the draft plan and environmental assessment, see Appendix IV of this document. 
240 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Appendices 241

Appendix XI. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources in 

Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina, through the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). 

An Environmental Assessment has been prepared to inform the public of the possible environmental 

consequences of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge. A description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting the preferred alternative, the 

environmental effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse effects of the action, and a 

declaration concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting information can be found in the 

Environmental Assessment, Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Alternatives 

In developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated three alternatives: 

Alternative 1. No Action Alternative 

Alternative 1 represents no change from current management of the Refuge. The refuge currently 

manages its moist soil units very intensively by managing water levels and vegetation to create 

optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and aquatic organisms. It also 

manages marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire. The staff surveys waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

wading birds on a routine basis. The refuge allows the six priority public use activities: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

The staff conducts extensive environmental education and interpretation programs with the 

assistance of 10,000 hours of volunteer service every year. The staff of Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuge also manages Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. A staff of 16.7 of the 23 full-time 

equivalent positions manages Alligator River Refuge. The staff manages the refuge from a rented 

building in Manteo, 10 miles east of the refuge. 

Alternative 2. 

The preferred alternative, Alternative 2, is considered to be the most effective management action for 

meeting the purposes of the Refuge by proposing moderate program increases. Under this 

alternative, the refuge would continue to manage its moist soil units very intensively by managing 

water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading 

birds, and aquatic organisms. It also would manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire. 

The staff would inventory and monitor fire-dependent habitats to document their conditions and 

assess the effectiveness of management. The staff would survey waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading 

birds on a routine basis. The staff would also document presence of wildlife species as they are 

found and document the density of invertebrates in moist soil units. The refuge would allow the six 

priority public use activities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. The staff would conduct extensive environmental 

education and interpretation programs with the assistance of 12,000 hours of volunteer service every 

year. The staff would conduct programs on the refuge and in the newly constructed visitor center. 

The staff of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge would continue to manage the Alligator River and 

Pea Island national wildlife refuges. A staff of 26.75 of the 39 full-time equivalent positions would 

manage Alligator River Refuge. The staff would manage the refuge from a Service-owned building in 

Manteo, 10 miles east of the refuge. 
242 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative 3. 

The primary focus under Alternative 3 would be substantial program increases. Under this 

alternative, the refuge would continue to manage its moist soil units very intensively by managing 

water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading 

birds, and aquatic organisms. It also would manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire 

and deciduous forests with thinning. The staff would inventory and monitor all habitats to document 

their conditions and assess the effectiveness of management. The staff would survey all wildlife 

species on a routine basis. The staff would also document presence of wildlife species as they are 

found and document the density of invertebrates in moist soil units. The refuge would allow the six 

priority public use activities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. The staff would conduct extensive environmental 

education and interpretation programs with the assistance of 15,000 hours of volunteer service every 

year. The staff would conduct programs on the refuge and in the newly constructed visitor center. 

The staff of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge would continue to manage the Alligator River and 

Pea Island national wildlife refuges. A staff of 37.45 of the 58 full-time equivalent positions would 

manage Alligator River Refuge. The staff would manage the refuge from a Service-owned building in 

Manteo, 10 miles east of the refuge. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative 2 is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the Refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes wildlife conservation as our highest priority in 

refuge management, collects habitat and wildlife data, and ensures long-term achievement of Refuge 

and Service objectives. At the same time, these management actions provide balanced levels of 

compatible public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological 

principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the Refuge will be protected, 

maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses 

significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 

Environmental Effects 

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. Habitat management, 

population management, land conservation, and visitor service management activities on Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge would result in wildlife habitat enhancement, increased migratory bird 

use, increased protection for threatened and endangered species, enhanced wildlife and fish 

populations, and enhanced opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental 

education. These effects are detailed as follows: 

The refuge's current management actions have minimal to no effects on the biological or 

socioeconomic environment. The proposed management actions described in Alternative 2, such as 

monitoring a wider range of wildlife species and habitats; managing Atlantic white cedar and mixed 

pine-hardwood forests, increasing opportunities for public use, and acquiring private property from 

willing sellers would have positive effects on the biological environment and society. Implementation 

of Alternative 2 would produce new economic opportunities from the salaries of the new staff, refuge 

expenditures in the local economy, and refuge visitors participating in outdoor recreation and 

environmental education opportunities. The purchase of land from willing sellers would reduce the 

amount of taxes paid to the counties in real estate taxes. However, this decrease in tax revenue is 

partially offset through refuge revenue-sharing. 
Section B. Appendices 243

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Each alternative considered would protect existing habitat important to migratory birds, mammals, 

reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. Alternative 2 would provide data on more migratory 

species on the refuge and improved migratory bird habitat through sound management of various 

habitat types such as Atlantic white cedar, mixed pine-hardwood, and hardwood forests. 

The increased public use provided in Alternative 2 may affect the refuge's wildlife populations due to 

disturbance and habitat degradation. However, nesting and foraging habitat for waterfowl and land 

birds would improve under Alternative 2 because of improved habitat management. Populations of 

all wildlife species would increase slightly under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would protect sites 

important to migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and land birds. 

Alternative 2 would protect sites important to federally listed species, such as the red wolf, redcockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, and American alligator. 

The refuge's white-tailed deer population is currently at carrying capacity for pocosin habitat. Under 

Alternative 2, habitat management actions could increase the deer population, but not significantly. 

The staff would monitor deer populations and use hunting to manage the 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. 

The refuge initiated a wild turkey restoration project in 1999 in cooperation with the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission. Currently, the turkey population is doing well with numerous 

sightings each year. Under Alternative 2, the staff would monitor the turkey population and could 

expand the hunting program to include wild turkey 

The bear population on the refuge is at a high density relative to other bear populations in the 

state, region, and nation. Under Alternative 2, the staff would consider a conservative hunting 

program by permit only as a population management strategy. Any decision with regards to 

establishing a bear hunt on the refuge would require close coordination with the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission as the refuge is within the boundaries of the Northeastern North 

Carolina Bear Management Unit. Harvest would be closely monitored by refuge staff, with data 

collected from each harvested bear. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognizes and mandates compatible, 

wildlife-dependent priority uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation be made the priority public uses of national wildlife 

refuges. It is through these uses that present and future generations will further develop their 

appreciation of fish and wildlife resources and recognize the need to protect our valuable natural 

resources for generations yet to come. The 1997 Act also calls upon the National Wildlife Refuge 

System to increase compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation where possible and especially for family 

oriented opportunities. Science-based expansion of the refuge hunting program as well as other 

programs based upon wildlife dependent uses is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Act. 

The staff would develop an integrated pest management plan under Alternative 2. However, it is 

anticipated that the staff would continue to use some quantity of pesticides on an as-needed basis. 

Alternative 2 would provide additional protection to wetlands beyond the protection afforded by existing 

wetland regulations. Alternative 2 would also protect landscape characteristics, such as habitat 

connectivity, and would provide sufficient proprietary interest in properties to restore habitats for wildlife. 
244 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Under Alternative 2, the plan would concentrate the level of recreation use and ground-based 

disturbance from pedestrians on boardwalks, trails, and the refuge's office and maintenance areas. 

However, the generally open road system allows liberal public access by vehicle, and this type of 

public use could still have a negative effect on some wildlife populations. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Alternative 2 would have no negative effect on water quality from sources within the refuge. The 

alternative requires management of the refuge to minimize water pollution. There would be no 

change in point and non-point source discharges into the aquatic system from off-refuge sources as a 

result of refuge management actions. 

Alternative 2 would have a neutral 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 administrative and public use 

facilities, maintenance operations, and habitat management. 

Alternative 2 would positively affect the water quality in individual streams and wetlands on the refuge 

due to a relatively low level of soil disturbance and fertilizer 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. 

Alternative 2 would protect the aesthetic characteristics associated with natural habitats. The staff 

would carry out habitat management activities designed to improve forest composition and structure 

in such a way to minimize any short-term aesthetic effects. 

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 

Under Alternative 2, opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation would increase. Alternative 2 would also stimulate 

ecotourism and potentially increase tourism expenditures in the surrounding local communities. The 

refuge would continue to allow a few non-priority, traditional public uses through special use permits. 

Alternative 2 would allow public access by vehicle, foot, canoe, kayak, or bicycle to facilitate 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. The Service would close some areas seasonally, such as 

waterfowl resting and feeding areas, to all public entry to minimize disturbance to wintering waterfowl. 

Under Alternative 2, the Service would construct and staff a visitor center. The refuge staff would 

develop more education programs and tours. 

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The wildlife-dependent recreational activities described under Alternative 2 (e.g., 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. Development of wildlife-dependent recreation programs 

and facilities and improved publicity would lead to greater economic benefits from increased tourism. 

Land acquisition within the refuge's approved acquisition boundary would decrease the gross 

property tax revenues of Dare and Hyde counties. However, there would be an increase in refuge 

revenue-sharing payments. 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. The Refuge 
Section B. Appendices 245

Revenue Sharing Act also requires that Service lands be appraised every five years to ensure that 

payments to local governments remain equitable. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS 

Alternative 2 would not have a significant, negative effect on public health and safety. The only 

potential safety problems involve the possibility of boating accidents by visitors gaining access to the 

refuge by water; hiking and vehicular accidents occurring on the refuge's roads and trails; and accidents 

occurring during the hunting season. Through use of time and space zoning, signage, and publications, 

the possibility of potential accidents and conflicts between refuge user groups can be minimized. 

REGULATORY EFFECTS 

As indicated in Chapter I, Background, of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the Service 

must comply with a number of federal laws, administrative orders, and policies in the development 

and implementation of its management actions and programs. Selection and implementation of 

Alternative 2 described in this environmental assessment would be in full compliance with any of 

these or other mandates. 

CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCE EFFECTS 

Alternative 2 provides additional land protection and low levels of development, thereby producing 

little to no negative effect on the refuge's cultural and historic resources. There is potential for 

negative effects through logging and construction of new trails if they should be approved. Such 

management actions would require review by the Service's Regional Cultural Resources Officer in 

consultation with the State of North Carolina's 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 ongoing 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. Land acquisition by the Service would provide some degree of 

protection to important cultural and historic resources. 

UNCERTAINTY OF FUTURE ACTION EFFECTS 

Through implementation of Alternative 2, the Service would develop detailed step-down management 

plans to manage the fish and wildlife populations on the refuge, based on the application of sound 

fish and wildlife management principles and concepts. The specific content of the step-down 

management plans would provide the basis for further analysis of environmental effects. Alternative 

2 presents sufficient information to assess the full potential of the environmental effects of plans to be 

developed in the future. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects on the environment result from incremental effects of a proposed action when 

these are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. While 

cumulative effects may result from individually minor actions, they may, when viewed as a whole, 

become significant over time. 
246 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Implementation of Alternative 2 as described in this document includes actions relating to site 

development; fish and wildlife habitat and population management; land acquisition; and recreational 

use programs. These actions would have both direct and indirect affects (e.g., site development 

would result in increased public use, thus increasing littering, noise, and vehicular traffic); however, 

the cumulative effects of these actions over the 15-year planning period are not expected to be 

significant and would be dependent upon the number of projects initiated. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action are 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 

present in the area. Implementation of the public use program would take place through carefully 

controlled time and space zoning, establishment of protection zones around key sites, closures of allterrain vehicle trails, and routing of roads and trails to avoid direct contact with sensitive areas, such 

as nesting bird habitat, etc. All hunting activities (season lengths, bag limits, number of hunters) 

would be conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific 

regulations established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring activities through 

wildlife inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities would be utilized, and public 

use programs would be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts 

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs 

would be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, such as 

establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are effective 

tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action would not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property would be allowed through issuance of special use permits. 

Future land acquisition would occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values within the 

approved acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title purchases 

and/or donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, cooperative 

agreements) from willing sellers. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition 

boundary would likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. The management action contains neither provisions nor proposals to pursue offrefuge stream bank riparian zone protection measures (e.g., fencing) other than on a 

volunteer/partnership basis. 

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Proposed acquisition efforts by the Service would result in changes in land and recreational use 

patterns, since all uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility standards. Land 

ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the private sector. 

Potential development of access roads, dikes, control structures, and visitor parking areas could lead 

to minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site 
Section B. Appendices 247

development activities are proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act consideration during pre-construction planning. At that time, any required 

mitigation activities will be incorporated into the specific project to reduce the level of impacts to the 

human environment and to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. While funding and personnel 

resources will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these resources 

unavailable for other programs. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Coordination

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

All affected landowners 

Congressional representatives 

Governor of North Carolina 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

Dr. Jeffrey Crow, State Historic Preservation Officer 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 

Conservation organizations 

Findings 

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 167-169). 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, page 169). 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 169-170). 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 167-173). 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 171). 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, page 171). 
248 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and 

in foreseeable future actions. (Environmental Assessment, page 171). 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, 

or historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, pages 169-171). 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 165-166). 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of 

the environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 169). 

Supporting References 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, Dare County, North Carolina. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 

Document Availability 

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in May, 2006. Additional copies are 

available by writing: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, P. O. Box 1969, Manteo, NC 27954.