Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

September 2007

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

POCOSIN LAKES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 30345 

November 2007 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

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

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

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

Location ...............................................................................................................................5

Establishment ...................................................................................................................... 5

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

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

Purposes ............................................................................................................................. 7

Special Designations .................................................................................................................... 8

Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 9

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

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................11

Forest and Fragmentation ................................................................................................. 11

Alterations To Hydrology ................................................................................................... 13

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

Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants ............................................................................. 14

Conservation Priorities ...................................................................................................... 14

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

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

Geology ............................................................................................................................. 16

Subsurface Resources ...................................................................................................... 17

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 17

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 21

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

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 22

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 25

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 25

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................36

Invasive and/or Exotic Species ......................................................................................... 43

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 44

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 44

History of the Area ............................................................................................................ 44

Land Use in the Area ........................................................................................................ 46

Demographics In The Area ............................................................................................... 47

Employment In The Area .................................................................................................. 51

Forestry In The Area ......................................................................................................... 53
ii Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Outdoor Recreation In The Area ....................................................................................... 54

Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 54

Tourism In The Area ......................................................................................................... 55

Transportation ................................................................................................................... 56

Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................ 56

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 57

Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 57

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ........................................................................ 63

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 65

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 65

Summary Of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities .................................................................... 66

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 66

Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................ 66

Habitats ............................................................................................................................. 67

Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 68

Public Use ......................................................................................................................... 68

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 69

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 71

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

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 71

Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 72

Objectives and Strategies .......................................................................................................... 72

Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................ 72

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 76

Public Use ......................................................................................................................... 82

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 88

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

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 95

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 95

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 95

Volunteers ................................................................................................................................ 101

Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................ 101

Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 101

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 103

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 105

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .............................................................. 111

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ............................................................................. 117
Comprehensive Conservation Plan iii

APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 125

Summary of Public Scoping .....................................................................................................125

Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses ........................................................................ 125

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

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................................... 159

APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................... 162

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................................... 177

APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 201

APPENDIX VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND SPECIES SUITES ............................................... 227

APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................ 229

APPENDIX IX. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 257

APPENDIX X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................ 265

APPENDIX XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................... 269
iv Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. The location of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Tyrrell, Washington, 

and Hyde Counties, North Carolina ..................................................................................... 6

Figure 2. Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Area. ........................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3. Characteristics of soils of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ..................................... 20

Figure 4. Vegetative Habitat Types of Pocosin Lakes NWR. ............................................................. 27

Figure 5. Existing boundary of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ...................................... 58

Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge .................................... 60

Figure 7. Proposed Visitor Facilities of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. ........................ 83

Figure 8. Wilderness inventory units of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............................. 258

Figure 9. Potential wilderness study areas of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............. 262
Comprehensive Conservation Plan v

List of Tables 

Table 1. Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge acquisition history .................................................... 6

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Pocosin Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................................ 8

Table 3. Federally threatened and endangered animal species that occur on the South Atlantic ....... 11

Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ....................................... 18

Table 5. Active National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in Tyrrell, 

Washington, and Hyde Counties, North Carolina .................................................................. 23

Table 6. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Pocosin Lakes 

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

Table 7. Habitat types by approximate acreage for Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............ 26

Table 8. 1999-2000 Monthly peak waterfowl use on Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............ 38

Table 9. 1999-2000 Monthly waterfowl use days on Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............ 39

Table 10. 1988-2005 annual peak waterfowl use on Pungo Unit ....................................................... 40

Table 11. 1988-2005 annual waterfowl use days on Pungo Unit ........................................................ 41

Table 12. 2002-2005 (aerial survey only) annual peak waterfowl use on Pocosin Lakes 

 National Wildlife Refuge (including the Pungo Unit) ........................................................... 42

Table 13. 2002-2005 (aerial survey only) annual waterfowl use days on Pocosin Lakes 

 National Wildlife Refuge (including the Pungo Unit) ........................................................... 42

Table 14. Tyrrell County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census ..................................... 48

Table 15. Commodity production in Tyrrell County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997 ......... 48

Table 16. Hyde County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census ...................................... 49

Table 17. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997........... 49

Table 18. Washington County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census ............................ 50

Table 19. Commodity production in Washington County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and ......... 50

Table 20. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina Counties .......................... 52

Table 21. Protected lands in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties ............................................... 57

Table 22. Staff of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................... 63

Table 23. Projects supporting fish and wildlife population strategies .................................................. 95

Table 24. Projects supporting habitat strategies ................................................................................. 96

Table 25. Projects supporting public use strategies ........................................................................... 97

Table 26. Projects supporting resource protection strategies ............................................................. 98

Table 27. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies .......................................................... 99

Table 28. Proposed staff for the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ........................................ 100

Executive Summary - Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Executive Summary 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the 

management of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (Pocosin Lakes NWR) in Hyde, Tyrrrell, and 

Washington 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 opinion of the issues 

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

State agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge 

staff held six public scoping meetings and two public meetings to solicit public reaction to the 

proposed alternatives. Also, a 30-day public review and comment period of the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment was provided. In addition, two open house type 

public meetings were held during the 30-day public comment period to answer questions and take 

comments on the plan. 

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

status quo. The refuge currently manages its impoundments very intensively by controlling water 

levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl. It also manages pine forests 

and marshes with prescribed fire. Waterfowl are surveyed on a routine basis. The refuge has a 

visitor center, which includes an auditorium and indoor and outdoor classrooms, but depends on 

volunteers and cooperating agency personnel to staff and maintain the center. With regard to public 

use, each of the priority public uses as defined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation) is encouraged. The staff conducts a limited number of environmental 

education and interpretation programs. Under this alternative, eight staff members (7.5 full-time 

equivalents) are dedicated to refuge management and eight staff members (7.5 full-time equivalents) 

are dedicated to fire management, as was the case when the plan was started. Because of budget 

constraints, two of the refuge management positions have been held vacant for the last several 

years. 

Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, proposed moderate program increases to address the refuge 

priorities. The refuge would manage its impoundments very intensively by controlling water levels 

and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl. It would also manage pine forests 

and marshes with prescribed fire and would manage the vegetative composition of habitats in 

selected areas. Waterfowl would be surveyed on a routine basis. The staff would develop inventory 

plans for all species and implement them in selected habitats. The staff would develop and 

implement a black bear management plan. The staff would maintain the visitor center with volunteers 

and cooperating agency personnel supplementing refuge personnel. There would be eighteen staff 

members (17.5 full-time equivalents) dedicated to refuge management and eight staff members (7.5 

full-time equivalents) dedicated to fire management. The volunteer program would be expanded to 

recruit volunteers to contribute 4,000 hours of service. Two workamper pads would be built to attract 

volunteers with recreational vehicles. The six priority public uses would be allowed and the staff 

would conduct environmental education and interpretation programs to meet local needs. 
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative 3 proposed substantial program increases. The refuge would manage its impoundments 

very intensively by controlling water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating 

waterfowl. It would also manage pine forests and marshes with prescribed fire and would manage 

the vegetative composition of habitats on the entire refuge. Waterfowl would be surveyed on a 

routine basis. The staff would develop inventory plans for all species and implement them over the 

entire refuge. The staff would develop and implement a black bear management plan. The staff 

would maintain the visitor center with volunteers and cooperating agency personnel supplementing 

refuge personnel. There would be twenty-five staff members (25 full-time equivalents) dedicated to 

refuge management and seven staff members (7 full-time equivalents) dedicated to fire management. 

 The refuge would conduct forest management and hydrology restoration by contract. The volunteer 

program would be expanded to recruit volunteers to contribute 10,000 hours of service. Eight 

workamper pads would be built to attract volunteers with recreational vehicles. The six priority public 

uses would be allowed and the staff would conduct environmental education and interpretation 

programs to meet local needs and expand outreach to the communities. 

Alternative 4 proposed maintaining the refuge in caretaker status. The refuge would manage its 

impoundments very intensively by controlling water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat 

for migrating waterfowl. It would manage pine forests and marshes with prescribed fire. Waterfowl 

would be surveyed on a routine basis. The visitor center would depend on volunteers and 

cooperating agency personnel to staff and maintain it. There would be four staff members (3.5 fulltime equivalents) dedicated to refuge management and eight staff members (7.5 full-time 

equivalents) dedicated to fire management. The six priority public uses would be allowed; however, 

the staff would not conduct any environmental education and interpretation programs. 

The Service selected Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative and is reflected in this comprehensive 

conservation plan. Alternative 2 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 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Pocosin Lakes NWR was prepared to guide 

management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first 

priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long 

as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for 

which it ws established. 

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

refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft of this plan was 

made available to State and Federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general 

public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the development 

of this CCP, describing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s preferred plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that Pocosin Lakes NWR 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 will: 

y provide a clear statement of the desired future conditions when refuge purposes and goals 

are accomplished; 

y provide refuge neighbors and visitors with a clear understanding of the management actions 

on the refuge; 

y ensure management of the refuge reflects policies and goals of the Refuge System; 

y ensure refuge management is consistent with Federal, State, and local plans; 

y provide long-term continuity in refuge management; and 

y provide a basis for operation, maintenance, and capital improvement budget requests. 

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 CCP supports the following: 

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. 
2 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

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, and 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 over 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) is 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 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 Refuge System. The Act states that the Service shall manage 

each refuge to: 

y Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

y Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

y 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; 

y Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

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

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

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

y Retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses. 

Following the 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, all 

refuge comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared in conjunction with public involvement, 

and each refuge must complete its own plan within a 15-year schedule. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

Approximately 36.7 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 2004, mostly to observe 

wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, substantial economic benefits are 

being generated to the local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have reported that 

national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $1.37 billion annually to the regional economies (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 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 that wildlife comes first; that 

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

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

management with broad participation from others. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

A variety of international treaties, Federal laws and regulations, Department and Service Policies, and 

Presidential executive orders guide the administration of Pocosin Lakes NWR. The documents and 

acts listed in Appendix III contain management options under the refuge’s establishing authority and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and 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 government 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 from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian Arctic. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge. 
4 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

The Farm Bill programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture provide costshare funding and technical assistance to private landowners to install and manage conservation 

practices on working farms and forests, restoring 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 the foundation for the protection and management 

of fish and wildlife throughout the United States. 

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is a State-partnering agency with the Service, 

charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species, as well as 

managing the State’s natural resources. The Commission 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 near Pocosin Lakes NWR. The agency’s participation and contribution 

throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable, and it is continuing 

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

improve the condition of fish and wildlife populations in North Carolina. Not only has the agency 

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

process, it is also an active partner in annual hunt coordination planning and various wildlife and 

habitat surveys. A key part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of 

common mission objectives between the Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, where appropriate. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

 II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

LOCATION 

Pocosin Lakes NWR is in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties, North Carolina (Figure 1). The 

Service named the refuge for the pocosin habitat that dominates the landscape and for the lakes that 

occur within the pocosin. A pocosin is a swamp on a hill dominated by a dense, shrubby plant 

community and deep organic soil. The eastern edge of the refuge is on the Alligator River, just west of 

the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, and 47 miles west of the Atlantic Ocean. The northern edge 

of the refuge is U.S. Highway 64, four miles south of Albemarle Sound. The western edge of the refuge 

is just east of North Carolina Highway 45. The southern edge of the refuge is on the Intracoastal 

Waterway, four miles north of Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. This region is part of the 

physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

administrative ecosystem known as the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem. 

The population of Tyrrell County is 4,419; the population of Washington County is 13,723; and the 

population of Hyde County is 5,826. 

ESTABLISHMENT 

 

Congress established the 12,000-acre Pungo NWR in 1963 by the authorities of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The Service established the Pocosin 

Lakes NWR in 1990 and made the Pungo NWR a unit of the refuge. The refuge now includes 

110,106 acres. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES 

HISTORY 

The 12,350.35-acre Pungo Unit of Pocosin Lakes NWR was established in 1963 as the Pungo NWR. In 

1990, adjacent lands were donated to the Fish and Wildlife Service, establishing the Pocosin Lakes 

NWR. In 1991, Pungo NWR was abolished and the acreage transferred to Pocosin Lakes NWR. It is 

now known as the Pungo Unit of Pocosin Lakes NWR. Also in 1991, 5,707 acres in the Frying Pan area 

were transferred from Alligator River NWR to Pocosin Lakes NWR due to its proximity. 

The refuge’s complete acquisition history is in Table 1. 
6 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. The location of Pocosin Lakes NWR in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties, 

North Carolina 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

Table 1. Pocosin Lakes NWR acquisition history 

DATE TRACTS ACRES COST COST

ACRE 

TOTAL 

ACREAGE 

TOTAL 

COST 

1990 1 89,658.00 $0 $0 89,658.00 $0 

1991 3 19,465.37 $1,682,158 $93.14 109,123.37 $1,682,158 

1993 1 55.53 $0 $0 109,178.90 $1,682,158 

1994 1 879.32 $0 $0 110,058.22 $1,682,158 

1999 2 48.32 $0 $0 110,106.54 $1,682,158 

Total 8 110,106.54 $1,682,158 $15.27 

PURPOSES 

The purpose of Pocosin Lakes NWR, as reflected in the legislation under which Congress authorized 

the refuge and the refuge has acquired land, is to protect and conserve migratory birds and other 

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

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

birds... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929); 

...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. 3583 (Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act of 1986) 

...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. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restriction or affirmative 

covenant or condition of servitude... 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

The following objectives for the refuge were established in the Interim Management Plan completed 

soon after the establishment of Pocosin Lakes NWR: 

1. To protect and enhance habitat for those species which are classified as threatened, 

endangered, or of special concern; 

2. To protect and restore wetlands which will contribute to the Presidential Initiative of “No Net 

Loss of Wetlands;” 
8 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

3. To protect the watershed of nearby lakes, rivers, and estuaries which support recreational and 

commercial fisheries and which provide wintering habitat for Canada geese, snow geese, 

tundra swans, and a variety of ducks; 

4. To protect organic soils and pocosin wetlands from wildfires; 

5. To protect and enhance production habitat for wood ducks and songbirds and winter habitat 

for other waterfowl; and 

6. To provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent interpretation, outdoor recreation, and 

environmental education. 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s Atlantic Coast Joint Venture office, working 

through a collaborative effort with private, State, and Federal agencies, has established certain 

habitat objectives for the physiographic area. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

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

of cropland, moist-soil areas, and the shop area, as a “Significant Natural Heritage Area.” The Nature 

Conservancy ranks certain vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 2). 

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

Pocosin Lakes NWR as outstanding resource waters or high-quality waters (Table 2). The North 

Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has designated several streams and water bodies within and off 

the eastern border of the refuge as anadromous fish spawning habitats. 

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Pocosin Lakes NWR 

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 or local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Pocosin Lakes NWR 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-million-acre) complex of forested 

wetlands and uplands, dunes, and marshes that extended from Florida to North Carolina. Historically, the 

extent and duration of seasonal flooding along the ecosystem’s rivers fluctuated annually, recharging the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s aquatic systems, creating a rich diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a 

vast array of fish and wildlife resources. The natural hydrology of nonriverine wetlands maintained saturated 

conditions in mineral and organic soils. Precipitation in excess of the soil’s storage capacity ran off of the 

surface in sheet flow to area streams and water bodies. 

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, Swanquarter – and the Back Bay National 

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

Fear Rivers, which has been designated as Ecosystem Unit # 34, the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse- Cape 

Fear Ecosystem, by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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 individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on 

and off public lands. 

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

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

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

between North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners in 

Flight Plan, and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative. 

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

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

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

 

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

from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migration habitat for 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 priority species for each habitat type from which they will 

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

objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge. 
10 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 2. Pocosin Lakes NWR in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Area 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

The Farm Bill programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture each has State level 

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

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

wildlife or protect their land with easements. 

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has its own Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy to help direct the State’s allocation of funds from the federally funded State Working Grants 

Program. The Service has provided input to the development and execution of the strategy. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

FOREST AND FRAGMENTATION 

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

throughout the area. It has been estimated that 40 percent of the natural vegetation has been lost to 

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

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

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

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

Atlantic Coastal Plain. Development has reduced vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests to 

forest fragments, ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas 

that have maintained many of the original functions and values of forested habitats. Severe 

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

species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, threatened, or 

endangered include the red wolf and Bachman’s sparrow (Table 3). 

Table 3. Federally threatened and endangered animal species that occur on the South Atlantic

Coastal Plain in North Carolina 

Region Status Common Name Scientific Name 

Coastal Plain Endangered Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus 

Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Coastal Plain Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana 

Coastal Plain Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum 
12 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Region Status Common Name Scientific Name 

Coastal Plain Endangered Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon 

Coastal Plain Endangered Wolf, Red Canis rufus 

Coastal Plain Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Coastal Plain Threatened Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis 

Coastal Plain Threatened Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Coastal Plain Threatened Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas 

Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Coastal Plain Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa 

Coastal Plain Endangered Sparrow, Bachman’s Aimophila aestivalis 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

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

species most adversely affected by fragmentation and habitat degradation 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/or those that depend on good water quality. Increased nest parasitism 

from brown-headed cowbirds is also common in fragmented forests. 

More that 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds are found in the region. Some of these 

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

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

recover and sustain their existence. 

Fragmentation has also brought the forest edge and brown-headed cowbird (a seed-eating bird 

common in agricultural areas) closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting birds. 

The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds, rather than 

building a nest of its own. Nestling cowbirds are typically bigger and more aggressive and outcompete the young of the species building the nest. This results in poor reproductive success and 

declining populations of forest interior-nesting species that are forced to nest near forest edges. 

Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts 

surrounded by a sea of 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 and red wolf. 

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been substantial 

alterations in the region’s hydrology. This is due to managed stream flows from flood control and 

hydroelectric power generation reservoirs, drainage ditches, river channel modification, flood control 

levees, deforestation, and degradation to aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation, 

contaminants, and urban development. 

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

forested 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 flooding. The alteration of this 

annual flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the forested wetlands and their associated 

wetland-dependent species. Specifically, the combination of managed stream flows and drainage 

ditches in bottomland forests exposes the forests to more frequent flooding than occurs naturally, drains 

back swamps through natural levees, and floods the back swamps at low flows through the ditches. 
14 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to fully emulate and reconstruct 

the structure and functions of a natural wetland. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993), 

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

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

SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

Siltation from deforestation and hydrologic alteration has degraded aquatic systems, including lakes, 

rivers, sloughs and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated 

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

bodies, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. It also reduces light penetration in shallow 

water and the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation growing in the water. Concurrently, the nonpoint source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic 

resources. Six species of federally threatened aquatic organisms and twelve species of federally 

endangered aquatic species occur in North Carolina and Virginia. 

Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created oxbow 

lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration 

of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with 

flood control and navigation. 

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

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

fish and wildlife resources have prompted the Service to designate these forest systems as areas of 

special concern. A collaborative effort involving private, State, and Federal conservation partners is 

now underway to implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands 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. Some areas 

are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation. 

Conservation agencies and organizations have initiated several coordinated efforts to set priorities 

and establish focus areas to overcome the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. 

A cooperative private-State-Federal partnership, known as the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, was established in 1986 to help provide sufficient 

wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

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

bird objectives for shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and neotropical migratory songbirds. The 

Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is working with the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Working Group to 

establish step-down objectives for shorebird foraging habitat for the fall and spring migration period 

throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. 

Partners in Flight has developed bird conservation plans to focus a number of private, State, and 

Federal restoration programs into specific areas in an effort to provide maximum program benefits for 

neotropical migratory songbirds. The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide islands 

or blocks of habitat in an otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The targeted block sizes of forest 

habitat range from 10,000 to 100,000 acres. Such areas are large enough to support viable 

populations of various suites of neotropical migratory interior forest-dwelling songbirds. Of course, 

these areas will also support other species that depend on large forested blocks. The plans are 

anchored by existing or proposed State wildlife management areas or national wildlife refuges. 

These public lands serve as centers of biodiversity that are enhanced and supported by the 

expansion of blocks of habitat, either through public or private management. 

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

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

management objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs, including those of wintering 

migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, wading birds, threatened and 

endangered species, large mammals, and other wide-ranging species. Often a management strategy 

for one species or species’ group conflicts with that of 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. Land managers 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 manage the forests on Pocosin Lakes NWR in an effort to provide 

habitat for many species of neotropical migratory songbirds that use dense understories of shrubs. 

Such an approach may overlook the critical habitat needs of other songbirds that prefer forests with 

sparse understories. 

Partners in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture can only meet their habitat goals through active 

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

(Reinecke and Baxter 1996). Biologists must actively manage land (i.e., vegetation manipulation and 

hydrology restoration) to compensate for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that deforestation 

and hydrologic alterations have caused throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Properly 

managed, the Pocosin Lakes NWR will make a substantial contribution to meeting the objectives of 

the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. Setting habitat and species objectives from the perspective of the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain is advantageous, because it looks at the big picture and enables 

managers to plan and provide habitat for a diversity of species throughout their range. 

Although forest stand management is probably the best solution for restoring the vast forests in the 

region, land managers must remember that hydrology (i.e., flooding) drives the ecological system in 

the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The plant and animal community throughout the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain is dependent upon the hydrologic cycle. It is incumbent upon land managers to 

manage hydrology in an effort to restore the ecological diversity that once characterized the South 

Atlantic Coastal Plain. Refuges can install impoundments and structures to control and manage 

water in an effort to mimic historic flood cycles and to meet wildlife habitat objectives. 
16 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

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

has a great influence on precipitation patterns while the maritime influence affects climatological 

factors, such as length of growing season. The Gulf Stream current flows only a short distance off 

the North Carolina coast. Its direct effects are limited by the fact that the prevailing winds in winter 

are from the southwest most of the year and from the northeast in the winter 

Lows usually form along the coast as "Cape Hatteras lows" and then move north along the coast. 

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

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

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

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

throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms that occur on an average of 

45 days. Autumn is slightly drier than the other three seasons and is to many people the most 

pleasant with its many clear, warm days and cool nights with relatively little rain. This weather usually 

lasts from October through December. 

Occasional hurricanes do have major impacts on Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties. The 

storms usually pass off the coast east of the Pocosin Lakes NWR, but may bring large quantities of 

rain to the refuge. Most North Carolina tornadoes occur in the Piedmont and the interior of the 

coastal plain, which spares Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties. 

The average annual precipitation is 51.51 inches, and the average snowfall is 4.2 inches. Snow 

accumulations of more than 1 inch for more than a day are rare. Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout 

the year without a pronounced wet or dry season: average monthly rainfall ranges from 3.10 inches in 

April and November to 6.39 inches in July. Eight months have average precipitation between 4 and 6 

inches. Of the total annual precipitation, about 30 inches usually fall in April through September. The 

growing season for most crops falls within this period. 

The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 60 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and 

the average at dawn is about 85 percent. The sun shines 65 percent of the time in summer and 60 

percent in winter. The prevailing wind is from the southwest. Average wind speed is highest, 11 

miles per hour, in late winter and early spring. In January, the average temperature is 42 degrees, the 

average daily minimum temperature is 30 degrees and the average daily maximum is 53 degrees. In 

July, the average temperature is 78 degrees, the average daily maximum temperature is 89 degrees, and 

the average daily minimum is 67 degrees. 

The average growing season is 192 days long. The average last date of frost in the spring is April 15 

and the first frost in the fall is October 25. 

GEOLOGY 

The Coastal Plain Province lies east of the Piedmont Province. The Piedmont begins at the "Fall 

Line," which is a broad transition zone where the crystalline rocks of the Piedmont (i.e., the igneous 

and metamorphic rocks that cause the rapids in the Roanoke River at Roanoke Rapids) become 

buried by the marine sediments of the Coastal Plain. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Thin beds of Quaternary sediments were deposited on the surface of the Coastal Plain during the past 

three million years (Riggs and Belknap 1988). This Quaternary history and the resulting surface veneer 

of unconsolidated sediments directly dictates the general characteristics of the Coastal Plain, including 

the regional morphology and character of the drainage systems and flooded estuaries, soil types, and 

potential land use. Quaternary sediments were deposited by the coastal system, which rapidly migrated 

back and forth across the Coastal Plain-Continental Shelf as sea-level fluctuated in response to repeated 

episodes of glaciation and deglaciation. Within this rapidly changing coastal system, extremely varied 

sediments, including gravel, sands, clays, and peat in all possible combinations, were deposited in river, 

estuarine, barrier island, and continental shelf environments. Thousands of feet of sedimentary rock 

underlie the refuge with sand and shale closer to the surface and limestone at greater depths. 

SUBSURFACE RESOURCES 

Sand and peat are the only subsurface resources occurring in economic quantities on the refuge. 

There are no commercial sand pits adjacent to the refuge. 

SOILS 

Soil types identified on the refuge are Pungo muck,* Belhaven muck,* Scuppernong muck.* Ponzer 

muck,* Dorovan muck,* Wasda muck,* Pettigrew muck,* Gullrock muck,* Longshoal muck,* 

Arapahoe fine sandy loam,* Hyde loam,* Weeksville silt loam,* Cape Fear loam,* Portsmouth loam,* 

Newholland mucky loamy sand,* Udorthents (sands), Tomotley fine sandy loam,* Perquimens silt 

loam,* Augusta fine sandy loam, Altavista fine sandy loam, Argent silt loam*, Seabrook fine sand, 

Roanoke loam*, Fortescue silt loam,* Arapahoe fine sandy loam,* Conetoe loamy fine sand, Yonges 

loam,* Chowan silt loam,* Wysocking very fine sandy loam,* and State loamy fine sand (USDA, Soil 

Conservation service, 1988) (Table 4). Soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in “Hydric Soils of 

the United States” (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985) (Table 4) and (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. 

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, acid soils. Tall trees are unable to establish their deep root systems on the 

deep organic soils. Wind easily topples trees that do grow on the deep organic soils. Over the years, 

natural selection has favored 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 (66,675 

acres; 65 percent of land), Dorovan (3,644 acres; 3.5 percent), and Longshoal (13 acres). The following 

soils have surface layers of 16 to 51 inches of muck: Belhaven (16,490 acres; 16 percent), 

Scuppernong (6,179 acres; 5.9 percent), and Ponzer (3,289 acres: 3.1 percent). These six soils make 

up 95 percent of the terrestrial 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 due to accelerated oxidation of 

peat and release of nitrogen and mercury – a negative impact on water quality. 
18 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Series Approximate 

Acreage 

Surface 

Texture 

Muck 

Depth 

Water Table 

Depth 

Flooding 

Frequency 

Dorovan 3,644 Muck 90” 0-1’ Frequent 

Longshoal 13 Mucky Peat 72” 0-0.5’ Frequent 

Pungo 66,675 Muck 65” 0-1’ Rare 

Belhaven 16,490 Muck 45” 0-1’ Rare 

Scuppernong 6,179 Muck 33” 0-1’ Rare 

Ponzer 3,289 Muck 30” 0-1’ Rare 

Wasda 710 Muck 15” 0-1’ Rare 

Conaby 418 Muck 13” 0-1’ Rare 

Gullrock 44 Muck 13” 0-1’ Rare 

Pettigrew 539 Muck 12” 0-1’ Rare 

Roper 218 Muck 10” 0-1’ Rare 

Hyde 1,306 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Cape Fear 648 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Portsmouth 635 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Perquimens 137 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Roanoke 35 Loam None 0-1’ Never 

Yonges 6 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Weeksville 779 Silt Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Argent 41 Silt Loam None 0-1’ Rare 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Series Approximate 

Acreage 

Surface 

Texture 

Muck 

Depth 

Water Table 

Depth 

Flooding 

Frequency 

Fortescue 37 Silt Loam None 0-0.5’ Rare 

Chowan 2 Silt Loam None 0-0.5’ Frequent 

Tomotley 286 Fine Sandy 

Loam 

None 0-1’ Rare 

Arapahoe 33 Fine Sandy 

Loam 

None 0-1’ Rare 

Wysocking 1 Very Fine 

Sandy Loam 

None 0-1 Rare 

Newholland 401 Mucky Loamy 

Sand 

None 0-1’ Rare 

Augusta 65 Fine Sandy 

Loam 

None 1-2- Never 

Altavista 59 Fine Loamy 

Sand 

None 1-2- Never 

Seabrook 37 Fine Sand None 2-3’ Rare 

State 1 Loamy Fine 

Sand 

None 4-6’ Never 

Conetoe 7 Loamy Fine 

Sand 

None >6’ Never 

Udorthents 334 Sand None >6’ Rare 

Total Land 103,069 

Water 7,000 

Total 110,069 
20 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 3. Characteristics of soils of Pocosin Lakes NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Four soils (1,929 acres, 1.9 percent) have less than 16 inches of muck over mineral soil: Wasda (710 

acres, 0.6 percent), Pettigrew (539 acres), Conaby (418), Roper (218 acres), and Gullrock (44 acres). 

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 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, classifies Wasda, Pettigrew, 

Conaby, Roper, and Gullrock as prime farmland soils. Part of the refuge farmland is in Conaby muck. 

Mineral soils make up 4,850 acres (4.7 percent) of the land area of the refuge. The soil with the 

largest area is Hyde (1,306 acres mostly in the Frying Pan Unit, 1.2 percent of land area), followed by 

Weeksville (779 acres), Cape Fear (648), Portsmouth (635), Newholland (401), Udorthents (334), 

Tomotley (286), Perquimans (137), Augusta (65), Altavista (59), Argent (41), Seabrook (37), Roanoke 

(35), Fortescue (37), Arapahoe (33), Conetoe (7), Yonges (6), Chowan (2), Wysocking (1), and State 

(1). Most mineral soils are more productive than organic soils for crops and forest trees. Most on the 

refuge is poorly drained and would grow loblolly pine, bald cypress, 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 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

classifies Altavista, Arapahoe, Augusta, Cape Fear, Conetoe, Fortescue, Hyde, Newholland, 

Perquimens, Portsmouth, Roanoke, State, Tomotley, Weeksville, Wysocking, and Yonges as prime 

farmland soils. Part of the refuge cropland is on Newholland, Portsmouth, and Seabrook soils. 

The Udorthents, Augusta, Altavista, State, Conetoe, and Seabrook soils are well-drained to droughty 

and are more suitable for native tree species, such as loblolly pine, and for 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 due 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). 

HYDROLOGY 

Soil on the refuge is more than 99 percent hydric and is maintained as natural or managed wetlands. 

These wetlands are in the coastal plain province. Water is the driving force of the Pocosin Lakes 

NWR’s pocosin, marsh, and hardwood/pine forest communities. Water forms and maintains the 

wetlands by transporting and redistributing sediments from watersheds upstream. It provides 

seasonal access for aquatic organisms to the marsh and forest and transports nutrients and detritus 

across the marsh. Sources of water to the Albemarle Sound system include precipitation and runoff 

and groundwater that originate from it. 

Groundwater is the source of the area’s water supply. The depth to freshwater is generally less than 

100 feet in the vicinity of the Albemarle Sound and more than 400 feet in the center of the peninsula. 

The freshwater is contained in the upper sandy and shaly aquifer, which is capable of yielding up to 

1,000 gallons per minute. The lower limestone aquifer is capable of yielding thousands of gallons per 

minute except near the Albemarle Sound where the water is salty. The maximum available 
22 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

groundwater is estimated at one million gallons per day per-square-mile. The water is 

characteristically very hard and may contain excessive iron. Water from shallow wells may be hard or 

soft and may also contain excessive iron (T. M. Robison 1977). 

WATER QUALITY 

The water quality on most of Pocosin Lakes NWR is related directly to the water quality in Albemarle 

Sound, Scuppernong River, Lake Phelps and Alligator River. Nutrient loading in the Albemarle 

Sound, Scuppernong River, and Alligator River and related non-point source pollution will affect the 

water quality on most of the refuge in the future. 

There are sixteen facilities in the counties around the refuge in the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) (Table 5). The State of North Carolina has classified the water bodies 

around Pocosin Lakes NWR for minimum water quality standards (Table 6). All the water bodies and 

streams meet the standards established for the minimum uses. 

The high water tables in the soils in the three counties represent a great potential for non-point pollution. 

The residences in the three counties have onsite treatment of domestic wastewater. Those systems are 

more likely to fail on soils with high water tables. Agricultural operations are also more likely to pollute on 

the soils in the area. Nutrients and pesticides applied to crops have a great potential to reach the water 

table before plants utilize the nutrients or the pesticides break down. The drainage of organic soil has the 

potential to release nitrogen and mercury in the muck into the water table. 

AIR QUALITY 

The laws of the State of North Carolina specify that no source of air pollution shall cause any listed 

ambient air quality standard (Section .0400) to be exceeded or contribute to a violation of any listed 

ambient air quality standard (Section .0400) except as allowed by Rules .0531 or .0532 [.0401(c), 

NCAC, Title 15A, Subchapter 2D - Air Pollution Control Requirements (North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources)]. 

Subchapter 2D lists ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides (measured as sulfur dioxide), total 

suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and 

particulate matter. Section 0.0520 (7) indicates that prescribed fires purposely set to forest lands for 

forest management practices acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the 

Environmental Management Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and 

regulations of governmental entities having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that 

addresses certain potential liabilities of prescribed burning even though permissible. 

The area closest to the refuge that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors continuously is the 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk metropolitan area. Despite the large population with the industry, traffic, and 

power plants, the area did not violate any air quality standards in 2004, due to the breezes blowing 

through the area from the ocean. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources monitors air sporadically at stations in Martin, Pitt, and Edgecombe Counties, west of the 

refuge. No reading at any of the three stations violated air quality standards in 2004. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Table 5. Active National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in Tyrrell, 

Washington, and Hyde Counties, North Carolina 

Permit Number Applicant Type of Facility Receiving Stream 

Tyrrell County 

NC0086924 Tyrrell County Water Treatment Plant Bulls Bay 

NC0087092 Tyrrell County Water Treatment Plant Riders Creek 

NC0007510 Columbia Water Treatment Plant Scuppernong River 

NC0020443 Columbia Waste Treatment Plant Scuppernong River 

NC0085081 Dalton House Domestic Waste Treatment Scuppernong River 

Hyde County 

NC0068233 Hyde County Water Treatment Plant Lake Mattamuskeet 

NC0077992 Hyde County Water Treatment Plant Pungo Lake Canal 

NC0000744 Captain Charlie Industrial Waste Treatment Far Creek 

NC0076571 Gullrock Seafood Industrial Waste Treatment Gray Ditch 

NC0070211 Rose Bay Oyster Industrial Waste Treatment Rose Bay 

NC0085002 Eastern Fuels Groundwater Remediation Far Creek 

NC0035751 Regional Housing 

authority 

Domestic Waste Treatment Swanquarter Bay 

Washington County 

NC0002313 Plymouth Water Treatment Plant Conaby Creek 

NC0020028 Plymouth Waste Treatment Plant Roanoke River 

NC0027600 Creswell Water Treatment Plant Scuppernong River 

NC0031925 Roper Water Treatment Plant Main Canal 
24 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 6. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Water Body or Stream Classification Minimum Uses 

Albemarle Sound 

Bulls Bay 

SB – Saltwater Primary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 

Intracoastal Waterway 

Little Alligator River 

Goose Pond 

SC – Saltwater 

Sw – Swamp 

Waters 

Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 

Grapevine Bay 

Rattlesnake Bay 

The Straits 

The Frying Pan 

Coopers creek 

Babbitt Bay 

SC – Saltwater 

Sw – Swamp 

Waters 

ORW-Outstanding 

Resource water 

Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 

Phelps Lake 

Goose creek 

Second Creek 

B – Freshwater 

Sw – Swamp 

Waters 

ORW-Outstanding 

Resource Water 

Primary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 

Pungo Lake C – Freshwater 

Sw – Swamp 

Waters 

NSW- Nutrient 

Sensitive Water 

Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 

Gum Neck Creek 

Southwest Fork, Alligator 

River 

Northwest Fork, Alligator 

River 

Juniper Creek 

Alligator River 

C – Freshwater 

Sw – Swamp 

Waters 

ORW-Outstanding 

Resource Water 

Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 

Dunbar Creek 

Basnight Creek 

Grays Canal 

Bush Harrell Canal 

Riders Creek 

Second Creek 

Bee Tee Canal 

Bunton Creek 

(source to Bulls Bay) 

Bonarva Creek 

Scuppernong River 

Transportation Canal 

New Lake 

C – Freshwater 

Sw – Swamp 

Waters 

Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Visual Resources/Aesthetics 

Pocosin Lakes NWR is part of an extensive complex of pocosins (shrub wetlands), forested wetlands, 

and freshwater marshes interspersed with cropland. Farmers and logging companies have cleared 

and drained many of these wetlands in the past, but conservation agencies and organizations have 

acquired and protected them. They have restored the areas or allowed them to go through 

succession to native vegetation. In addition to the 110,106-acre Pocosin Lakes NWR, the counties 

have natural vegetative cover on 64,000 acres at the Mattamuskeet and Swanquarter NWRs, 47,000 

acres at eight State game lands, 18,000 acres on the Buckridge National Estuarine Research 

Reserve, and 4,531 acres at the Pettigrew State Park. 

Visitors to the refuge have the opportunity to experience solitude, wildness, uninterrupted quiet, spirit 

and adventure, and observe the signs and the sounds of activity in the pocosin, marsh, and forested 

wetlands. Most people will only experience the refuge from gravel roads due to the prevalence of 

deep, organic soil that will not support a person’s weight. The casual observer will see large 

expanses of freshwater marsh and hardwood and pine forest. During the growing season, the 

marshes appear alive with neotropical songbirds, raptors, wading birds, marsh birds, mink, otter, and 

other wildlife species. The forests of loblolly pine, red maple, black gum, sweetgum, green ash, and 

wax myrtle echo the sounds of songbirds, wood ducks, red wolves, bear, and deer. The pocosins of 

evergreen shrubs attract songbirds and bears to their fruit-bearing branches. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

The term “pocosin” includes several distinct plant communities (Table 7) (Figure 4) (Richardson 1991, 

Weakely and Schafale 1991) whose characteristics and dynamics are still poorly understood 

(Weakely and Schafale 1991). In the great peatlands, fire frequency and depth of peat are two 

master factors determining the distribution and structure of many plant communities. Much of the 

land within Pocosin Lakes NWR is not forest; yet forests clearly grew there in the past. Swamp 

forests are dynamic, not static (Drayton and Hook 1988, Hinsely 1999, Odum 1984). It is one thing to 

note the presence of tree residue, but it is more difficult to say exactly when these stands existed. 

Through the millennia, peat accumulated around these residues as they were deposited. Offsetting 

the process of accumulation were the effects of subsidence, mostly in response to drainage, as well 

as loss of peat in fires, both of which left material at the surface that might be very old. Some soil 

profiles contain strata composed of very different plant species, each group with different 

requirements for establishment and growth. Ruffin (1861) described a peat profile near Pungo Lake 

in which there were three major layers of embedded woody material: pond pine (upper), cypress 

(middle), and Atlantic white cedar (lower). Peat profiles near Pungo Lake also contain several distinct 

layers of tree residue (Dolman and Buol 1967). 

Species composition of the swamp vegetation in eastern North Carolina has undergone several major 

changes through its history (Dolman and Buol 1968, Lewis and Cocke 1929, Whitehead and Oaks 1979). 

Otte (1981) said he had never observed a pocosin (underlain by deep peat soils) that had been 

dominated by a single vegetation type throughout the history of the wetland. No single vegetation type 

has always existed on these sites. Analysis reveals many localized changes and successional 

sequences during the last several thousand years, indicating a state of dynamic equilibrium and a modest 

capacity for self-repair over long periods without disturbance, say several centuries (Whitehead and Oaks 

1979). This tenuous equilibrium is constantly threatened by activities of man. Preserving pocosin 

systems requires recognition of the many factors that permitted them to develop and of the variety of 

forces that have maintained them for thousands of years (Whitehead and Oaks 1979). 
26 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 7. Habitat types by approximate acreage for Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Habitat Type Acreage 

Pocosin 63,896 

Bay Forest 4,280 

Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest 3,124 

Mixed Pine Flatwoods 13,649 

Hardwood Swamp Forest 14,045 

Cypress/Gum Swamp 970 

Marsh 987 

Xeric Sandhill Scrub 276 

Cropland 1,250 

Moist Soil Areas (Managed Wetlands) 443 

Natural Lake Shoreline 446 

Open Water 6,740 

TOTAL 110,106 

Roads, Roadsides 970 

Canals 909 

Firebreaks 1,200 

Administrative Areas 10 

NOTE: Roads, roadsides, canals, firebreaks, and administrative areas occur within the 

various habitat types listed above. Firebreak maintenance (mowing, burning, chemical 

treatment) results in these acres being maintained in a pocosin (grass stage) habitat type. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of Pocosin Lakes NWR 
28 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

South of Phelps Lake, in the vicinity of Boerma Road and County Line Road, the peat is 7 to 9 

feet thick (Pungo soil) and contains thousands of tons of logs and stumps. The age of the woody 

material is approximately 7,000 years just above the sand at the bottom of the peat and 

approximately 3,400 years at mid-depth (Courtney Hackney, University of North CarolinaWilmington, personal communication). The woody material throughout the peat is Atlantic white 

cedar (Hackney, personal communication). 

Other references from Hinsely’s Forest Habitat Management Plan (1999) indicate that the vegetation 

south of Phelps Lake on present-day refuge land was mostly pond pine pocosin. There is no 

reference documenting the existence of Atlantic white cedar there in the last 150 years. However, 

the Superintendent of Pettigrew State Park, Mr. Sidney Shearin, remembers observing Atlantic white 

cedars south of Lake Phelps along Allen Road prior to the 1985 wild fires. The site is currently 

dominated by typical pocosin and bay forest habitats. 

Pocosins: There are 63,896 acres of typical pocosin wetlands on the refuge. Pocosin wetlands, 

also called southeastern shrub bog, are characterized by high organic content peat soils and a dense 

layer of shrub vegetation. Shrub species include fetterbush (Lyonia lurida), inkberry (Ilex glabra), 

sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). An overstory of pond pine 

(Pinus serotina), from scattered to densely stocked, is also often present. Pocosins have been 

classified in many different ways. For example, Frost describes two types of low pocosin: true 

ombrotrophic low pocosin (influenced by nutrient deficient organic soils deeper than 4 feet) and firemaintained low pocosin. The fire influenced low pocosin is maintained by frequent burn cycles from 1 

to 7 years. Canebrakes and a large portion of the shrub-dominated pocosins on the refuge are firemaintained pocosins on shallower peat soils (< 4 feet). These fire-maintained sites often have more 

nutrients available because of the shallower peat soils overlaying mineral soil. In the absence of 

frequent fire, the canebrake succeeds to shrub pocosin and eventually to climax community with a 

pine overstory and a shrub understory. Pitcher plant bogs occur throughout many of these pocosins, 

especially where ground fires have created potholes in the soil. Due to past land management 

practices (e.g., draining, clearing, timber harvest, agriculture, pasture, and wildfire), some of these 

areas contain mostly grasses, ferns, and other herbaceous vegetation. 

In this CCP, we divide the pocosin habitat, including the 362 acres of true ombrotrophic low pocosin that 

occurs on the refuge, into three ecological successional stages based on the current vegetation. These 

three stages include forest (tree) pocosin, shrub pocosin, and herbaceous (grass) pocosin. In the grass 

stage, the recovering vegetation consists of low-growing grasses, forbs, ferns, and other herbaceous 

vegetation. In the shrub stage, mid-story shrub species dominate the site. Pond pine saplings may also 

be visible. In the forest (climax) stage, the site is characterized by a pond pine overstory, from widely 

scattered to fully stocked, with an extremely dense shrub understory. 

The Nature Conservancy has ranked pond pine canebrake, a type of pocosin on shallow peat soils (< 

three feet), as a critically endangered ecosystem. Large tracts of this community type are found on the 

eastern side of the refuge. 

Key wildlife species of management concern include the endangered red wolf, the endangered redcockaded woodpecker, black bear, small mammals, brown-headed nuthatch, red-headed 

woodpecker, American bobwhite quail, Chuck-will’s-widow, American woodcock, neotropical 

migratory birds, canebrake rattlesnake, carnivorous plants, and green treefrog. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Bay Forest: Bay forest is a special type of pocosin wetland. There are 4,280 acres of bay forest on 

the refuge. It has a dominant cover of loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), sweetbay magnolia 

(Magnolia virginiana), and red bay (Persea palustris). Bay forests are late-successional communities, 

replacing peatland Atlantic white cedar or pond pine woodland after a long absence of fire (Buell and 

Cain 1943, Kologiski 1977). Other tree species, such as red maple (Acer rubrum), Atlantic white 

cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), pond pine (Pinus serotina), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), 

may be present in the understory or canopy. Bay forests typically have a dense shrub layer 

component. Shrub species include fetterbush (Lyonia lurida), inkberry (Ilex glabra), sweet gallberry 

(Ilex coriacea), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). 

Key wildlife species of management concern in bay forests include: Swainson’s warbler, American 

woodcock, and prothonotary warbler. 

Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest: Atlantic white cedar forest is a special type of pocosin 

wetland. There are 3,124 acres of peatland Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) forest 

on the refuge. The Nature Conservancy has ranked Atlantic white cedar as an imperiled 

ecosystem. Historically, Atlantic white cedar was the most valuable tree on the Albemarle 

Peninsula. The acreage of Atlantic white cedar today is probably less than five percent of the 

original (Davis et al., 1997, Frost 1987). Less than 10,000 acres of Atlantic white cedar remain in 

North Carolina, with more than half in Dare County (Davis et al., 1997). The occurrence of 

Atlantic white cedar is affected by the frequency and intensity of fires and other disturbances. 

Results are often unpredictable, resulting in conversion to hardwood swamps rather than Atlantic 

white cedar. Where possible, land managers must carefully control disturbance in order to 

encourage, not deter, cedar regeneration (Roman et al., 1990). 

Atlantic white cedar forests are the product of a low frequency, relatively high intensity fire regime that 

is probably related to their marginally moist-soil conditions. Too frequent fire either prescribed or as 

the result of lower water tables, will convert such areas to pocosin shrub bogs. Infrequent fires result 

in decreased importance of white cedar and pine (Christensen 1981). In other words, Atlantic white 

cedar stands will succeed to bay forests following a catastrophic wildfire and/or long-term fire 

suppression. The most extensive development of Atlantic white cedar forests occurred on mediumto-deep peat soils overlying sandy soil, or in sandy creek bottoms with soils high in organic matter. 

Fire intervals are 100 - 300 years (Frost 1995). One hundred years allow stands to mature and 

accumulate an extensive seed bank in the upper few inches of peat. Three hundred years is the 

approximate longevity of Atlantic white cedar, but at that age, too few trees still remain on the site to 

maintain a good seed bank or prevent succession to other species (Frost 1995). Atlantic white cedar 

stands can sustain themselves with fire intervals of 50 to 100 years; sometimes, small patches might 

appear with fire intervals of 13 to 25 years (Frost 1995). Atlantic white cedar, a pioneer species, 

often grows in dense, even-aged stands. 

It appears that the limiting factors to Atlantic white cedar on the refuge are altered hydrology and the 

absence of a seed source, which prevents it from naturally regenerating after disturbances, including 

fire. For this reason, the Service should establish stands of Atlantic white cedar throughout the 

refuge to serve as a future source of regeneration (Hinsley 1999). Several plantings at Pocosin 

Lakes NWR have conclusively shown that seedlings grown to large transplants (3 feet in height) give 

better results in the field, especially when subjected to browsing and heavy weed competition 

(Hughes 1995, Hinsley et al., 1999). As of 2001, approximately 425 acres south of Phelps Lake have 

been planted with Atlantic white cedar. 
30 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Key wildlife species of management concern in Atlantic white cedar forests include the blackthroated-green warbler, American woodcock, Swainson’s warbler, and yellow-throated warbler. 

Mixed Pine Flatwoods: Mixed pine flatwoods is another special type of pocosin wetland. There are 

13,649 acres of mixed pine flatwoods forest on the refuge, mostly in the northeast corner in the Frying Pan 

area, and in the area south of Columbia and west of State Route 94 where the organic soils are deeper than 

16 inches. This habitat type contains loblolly (Pinus taeda) and pond pine (Pinus serotina) and a wide 

variety of hardwood tree species. The hardwood species are soft mass species, such as red maple (Acer 

rubrum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). 

Key wildlife species of management concern include the endangered red wolf, red-cockaded woodpecker, 

black bear, white-tailed deer and small mammals (red wolf prey base), brown-headed nuthatch, red-headed 

woodpecker, Chuck-wills’s-widow, American woodcock, prothonotary warbler, Swainson’s warbler, cerulean 

warbler, wood thrush, yellow-billed cuckoo, northern parula, yellow-throated warbler, rusty blackbird, hooded 

warbler, Kentucky warbler, yellow-throated vireo, summer tanager, yellow-crowned night-heron, acadian 

flycatcher, Louisiana waterthrush, and eastern wood-pewee. 

In areas with surface water, additional species of concern are the bald eagle, nesting and wintering 

wood duck, wintering black duck, anhinga, and the following anadromous fish species: blue back 

herring, alewife, and hickory shad. 

Hardwood Swamp Forest: There are 14,045 acres of hardwood swamp forest, including examples 

of nonriverine swamp forest and wet hardwood forest on the refuge. These habitat types contain a 

variety of hard and soft mast bearing species of trees and ideally should contain a midstory of 

younger trees along with understories of ferns, grasses, forbs, and leaf litter. The swamp forests 

occur on soils with organic topsoil and have soft mast species, such as red maple (Acer rubrum), 

swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). The wet hardwood forests occur on 

mineral soil and have hard mast species, such as water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus 

phellos), laurel oak (Quercus laurelifolia), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodafolia), and swamp 

chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). 

Key wildlife species of management concern in the forests include: endangered red wolf, wood duck, 

Swainson’s warbler, American woodcock, cerulean warbler, American black duck, white-tailed deer, 

black bear, and other mammals. 

Cypress/Gum Swamps: There are 970 acres of cypress/gum swamps on the refuge. This habitat 

type varies greatly in response to past management practices, hydrology, and soils. In general, it is 

some mixture of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp hardwood species, including swamp 

tupelo (Nyssa biflora) in wetter areas, and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) in drier areas. 

Bald cypress usually occurs in even-aged groups in all-aged stands (Matoon 1915), and rarely 

constitutes more than 25 percent of the stand (Pinchot and Ashe 1897). Although much of the 

swampland west of Lake Phelps and Pungo Lake had bald cypress and swamp tupelo in the early 1800s 

(Ruffin 1839), today approximately 2,800 acres exist around Pungo Lake, and in Tyrrell County. 

Key wildlife species of management concern in bald cypress/gum swamps include: red wolf, bald 

eagle, American alligator, black bear, wood duck, Swainson’s warbler, cerulean warbler, and 

American woodcock. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Marsh: This habitat type includes 987 acres of freshwater marshes along the Alligator River and 

Intracoastal Waterway. The marshes are dominated by sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense). Invasion of 

common reed (Phragmites australis) has been a major problem in many of the marshes. 

Key wildlife species of management concern include the endangered red wolf, American alligator, 

peregrine falcon, American black duck and other waterfowl, black bear, yellow rail, king rail, Virginia 

rail, American bittern, least bittern, and northern harrier. 

Xeric Sandhill Scrub: This habitat type includes 276 acres on the sandy spoil banks created by 

excavating the Intracoastal Waterway along the southern edge of the refuge. It features an open 

canopy of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) with an open to dense understory of scrub oaks and sparse to 

moderately dense herb layer, including wiregrass (Aristida stricta). It is the least productive of the 

longleaf pine-dominated communities, occupying the most xeric end of the gradient, but still subject 

to frequent low intensity fires. There is low plant diversity and the absence of most scrub oaks, other 

than turkey oak (Quercus laevis), helps distinguish this type. 

Key wildlife species of management concern include the endangered red wolf, red-cockaded 

woodpecker, black bear, white-tailed deer and small mammals (red wolf prey base), brown-headed 

nuthatch, red-headed woodpecker, northern bobwhite, chuck-wills’s-widow, American woodcock, 

prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler. 

Cropland: There are 1,250 acres of cropland on the refuge, all of which is on the Pungo Unit. It is 

managed primarily to provide grain and green browse for wintering waterfowl. The cropland is 

managed through a Cooperative Farming Program. Local farmers are allowed to farm the ground in 

exchange for leaving 20 percent (about 250 acres annually) of the crop standing in the field for 

wildlife. The refuge normally takes its share in corn and specifies to the farmer which rows to leave. 

Normally, about 200 acres of winter wheat are also planted behind corn and provides winter green 

browse for swans and geese. Some corn and wheat is harvested, stored in grain bins, and used to 

support waterfowl banding operations at refuges throughout eastern North Carolina. 

Moist-soil Units (Managed Wetlands): There are 443 acres of moist-soil habitat on the refuge in 

six moist-soil units (Smartweed, Jones Pond, Marsh A, Van’s Pond, Hyde Park, and Evan’s Pond). 

There are also about 550 acres of other wetlands managed for waterfowl (Marsh C, North 

Smartweed, and part of the Triangle Block). The acreages for these areas are included under their 

appropriate habitat types, such as Hardwood Swamp Forest, Cypress/Gum Swamp, and Mixed Pine 

Flatwoods. Water supply (which has historically been from rainfall only) for flooding the moist-soil 

units in the fall has been a limiting factor in providing excellent habitat conditions for wintering, 

migratory waterfowl. 
32 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

The 84-acre Smartweed Impoundment is located between D-Canal Road and West Lake Drive. The 

impoundment has been flooded annually since 1977, when dikes were constructed on its west and 

south sides. Fifteen acres of the unit were in agricultural production from 1969 to 1978. In 1978, 

excellent stands of smartweed (Polygonum spp.), wild millet (Echinochloa crusgalli), and fall panicum 

(Panicum dichotomiflorum) were observed, resulting in a habitat management decision to convert the 

unit to a moist-soil impoundment. In 1988, a dike was constructed to completely impound the area to 

provide independent water management. The current habitat management strategy is to plow or 

burn the impoundment at 2- to 5-year intervals to maintain and restore desirable, early ecological 

successional plant species. If the unit is left undisturbed, these desirable species will be replaced 

with undesirable, later successional species, such as cattail (Typha spp.), black willow (Salix nigra), 

and wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus). The encroachment of invasive species, including sesbania 

(Sesbania sp.), common reed (Phragmites austrailis), and alligator weed (Alternathera philoxeroides), 

continues to be a management challenge in the Smartweed Impoundment. The refuge has used 

herbicide treatments, including a glyphosate product labeled for aquatic use, and the herbicide, 

Habitat, successfully to set back invasive species encroachments. 

Water levels for the impoundment are controlled at a water control structure at the southern end and 

the Hyde Park water control structure located 4 miles downstream. The structures are closed in 

September to flood the impoundment from October to December. Water in the Smartweed 

Impoundment gradually spreads from the lower elevation located at the south end. Approximately 2 

to 3 feet of water in the south end are required to provide flooding for the north end of the unit. This 

is the first moist-soil unit to flood each year. 

The Service flooded the southern third of the 200-acre Jones Pond from 1973 to 1977, and has 

completely flooded the pond each winter since 1978. Historically, the staff flooded the impoundment 

from November through February to provide habitat for wintering, migratory waterfowl. To facilitate 

flooding capabilities, the staff places boards in the Hyde Park water control structure in September to 

provide gravity flow of water and to collect accumulated rainfall. In 2004, the Service installed an 

artesian well and pump. This greatly increased water management capabilities in the Jones Pond 

unit for waterfowl and shorebird management. The staff inundated the area by blocking water at the 

Hyde Park structure. Boards were placed in the structure in September but flooding occurred from 

November-February, depending on rainfall. In October 1992, the Service completed dike 

construction to impound the entire unit. In 2004, the refuge installed a well and pump. 

Vegetation in the area includes black willow (Salix nigra), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 

smartweed (Polygonum spp.), fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum), sedges (Carex spp.), wool 

grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and river cane (Arundinaria gigantea). The Service plows or burns the 

area every 2 to 5 years depending on the extent of encroachment by the undesirable, later 

successional species. The early detection of and rapid response to the exotic common reed 

(Phragmites australis) have continued to successfully minimize encroachment of this highly invasive 

species in Jones Pond. Herbicides labeled for aquatic use have been successfully implemented on 

small patches of common reed as part of the management program for this unit. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Marsh A was created in 1971. Water management in this 84-acre unit is extremely limited because 

the land elevation is too high to permit flooding in any but extremely wet years. The marsh was 

periodically burned until burning was eliminated in 1981. No management or manipulation was 

accomplished until the fall of 1988 when the area was double plowed. Marsh A was successfully 

burned by prescription in 1999. Three potholes were dug in 1989 and the area flooded in November. 

A small patch of the invasive common reed (Phragmites australis) continues to be managed with a 

formulation of the herbicide glyphosate, labeled for aquatic use. Three potholes were dug in 1989 

and the area flooded in November. Two thousand ducks used the area consistently during the years 

1989-90 and 1990-91, and 500 ducks used the area in the 1996 and 1997 waterfowl seasons. 

Van’s Pond was created in late summer of 1987. Although much of this 10-acre unit was bare due to 

the lateness in the growing season, 250-500 tundra swans daily used the cleared area during most of 

the winter of 1987-88. During the 1997-98 waterfowl season, 80 tundra swans and 100 ducks were 

observed in the unit. 

The Hyde Park structure controls the flooding of the area of Van’s Pond. Normally, the staff closes 

the structure in September but the area normally does not flood until December – February, 

depending on rainfall. 

The 25-acre Hyde Park Pond has been flooded annually since 1973. The Hyde Park water control 

structure, located at the southwest corner of the field, floods this pond, Jones Pond, and Smartweed 

Pond. The staff closes the structure in September, but this area normally does not flood until 

between December and February, depending on rainfall. This pond has the highest elevation on the 

drainage system and is the last to flood and the first to be drawn down. 

Initially, cooperative farmers “clean” farmed this area for corn, milo, and soybeans with conventional 

tillage and application of pre-emergent herbicides before planting, cultivation in the early stages of the 

crop’s development, and post-emergent herbicide use later in the crop’s development. When a few 

excellent natural foods, such as giant foxtail (Setaria magna), were observed growing with the crops, the 

staff conducted some experiments to grow corn and natural foods together. The experimental treatments 

included the elimination of late tilling after crops are 12 inches high, the elimination of post-emergent 

herbicides, and the use of no-till techniques to grow crops. Conclusions from the experiments showed 

that the longest sustained high use by waterfowl occurred when this area was clean farmed and the staff 

flooded the standing corn. Biologists have observed Canada geese in this unit. 

The Service began initial waterfowl work on the 40-acre Evan’s Pond unit in 1993, when the Service 

plowed the unit twice in July and August to set back succession and began pumping in December. 

The old dike has several leaks that have been scheduled for repair since 1994. 
34 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Natural Lake Shoreline: The majority of the 446-acre natural lake shoreline community on the 

refuge occurs around Pungo Lake, Phelps Lake, and New Lake. High water levels driven by wind 

tides prevent the establishment of trees. Vegetative cover in these areas includes rare, naturally 

occurring non-estuarine marshes. This community features a marsh and shrub zone along the lake 

shoreline. Common herbaceous species include broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), common threesquare (Scirpus americanus), and soft rush (Juncus effusus). The dominant tree species beyond the 

shrub zone include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora). Common 

reed or Phragmites (Phragmites australis) has encroached on the majority of the natural lake 

shoreline around Pungo Lake. Phragmites is a noninvasive species native to the northeastern United 

States, but invasive ecotypes entered the country from Europe as packing material on ships at the 

turn of the century (Saltonstahl 2002). The invasive ecotypes have spread throughout the east and 

are threatening marsh ecosystems throughout the area. The presence of Phragmites has also been 

observed around Lake Phelps and New Lake. Efforts to control the spread and eradicate the 

presence of Phragmites are essential to optimize natural lake shoreline ecosystems. 

Key wildlife species of management concern on the natural lake shoreline include wood ducks and other 

waterfowl, marsh and wading birds, neotropical migratory birds, and muskrat and other mammal species. 

Open Water: The 6,740 acres of open water include Pungo Lake and New Lake. The 2,800-acre 

Pungo Lake is a natural lake, which may have formed by ground fires that burned deep into the peat 

soils. The resulting depression filled with rainwater and became a lake. Remnant logs and stumps 

show evidence of historic Atlantic white cedar and bald cypress forests. Frequent fires converted 

these forests to the more common pocosin species, including titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), inkberry (Ilex 

glabra), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), red maples (Acer rubrum), and scattered pond pine (Pinus 

serotina). The northern and western shorelines consist of swamp forest with a dominant species of 

swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora)). 

Pungo Lake can be lowered much easier than it can be refilled. Water inflow into the lake is from the 

property line drainage ditch through a one-way flap gate structure located on the west side of the 

lake. The property line ditch is not a significant water source, as it must be completely full before 

water can flow into the lake. Rainfall is essentially the only source of water for the lake. On the 

southeast part of the lake, a 60-inch culvert, with stopboard riser, allows water to be released. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

The lake water has a pH of 4.9 and is darkly stained by tannic acid and suspended organic matter 

that limits sunlight penetration. The lack of sunlight penetration and low pH prevents germination of 

aquatic plants in the lake. Potential waterfowl food production is along the natural lake shoreline. 

The lake level was lowered yearly from 1964 to 1971, and in 1976, 1981, and 1985. The exposed 

shoreline produced good stands of desirable natural foods, primarily American threesquare (Scirpus 

americana), and undesirable stands of black willow (Salix nigra) and Phragmites (Phragmites

australis). There was seldom enough precipitation to refill the lake after the drawdowns. 

Pungo Lake’s primary benefit to waterfowl has been for roosting and resting. Maximum acreage 

should be maintained with water to accommodate the large number of birds that use it. Pungo Lake 

receives extensive use by tundra swans, snow geese, ducks, and Canada geese. Duck numbers 

peak when the lake is full and there is standing water in the lakeshore marshes and adjacent moistsoil units. Biologists have observed peaks of 38,000 tundra swans, 10,000 Canada geese, 80,000 

snow geese (2006/07), and 60,000 ducks on the lake within the past 13 years. 

Recommended water management is to maintain a year-round full lake level (10 feet above mean 

sea level) to ensure adequate water when migrating birds return in the fall; however, water levels in 

the lake fluctuate throughout the year due to climatic conditions. 

The refuge includes 3,940 acres of the 4,800-acre New Lake (sometimes called Alligator Lake), and 

approximately half of its shoreline. The outflow of this lake is discharged through two water control 

structures. A landowner plugged the canal that was channeled into the lake in 1985 to fight a large 

wildfire in the summer of 1993. The lake was full for the first time since 1985 during the winter of 

1995 and was full again at the end of 1997. 

Natural Areas: In the early 1980s, the Coastal Energy Impact Program funded efforts to construct 

natural area inventories for Washington, Hyde, and Tyrrell Counties. This work was undertaken 

partly in anticipation of proposed peat mining activities in the region. Inventories excluded land 

already within Federal ownership. The mission was “... to identify natural areas containing highly 

unique, endangered, or rare natural features, or high-quality representations of relatively undisturbed 

natural habitats, and which may be vulnerable to threats and damage from land use changes. The 

resulting inventory and recommendations were designed to help State and Federal agencies, county 

officials, resource managers, landowners, and developers work out effective land management and 

preservation mechanisms to protect outstanding or exemplary natural areas....”(Lynch and Peacock 

1982a, 1982b: McDonald and Ash 1981). 

These inventories are useful in developing a picture of plant communities that previously existed in 

certain areas and/or on certain soil types. Legrand and his associates prepared updated inventories of 

natural areas in the Albemarle-Pamilico Peninsula (Legrand et al., 1992). Natural areas total 62,300 

acres, representing 58 percent of the terrestrial area within Pocosin Lakes NWR. They suggested that 

management activities be directed toward maintaining and/or conserving the unique botanical and fauna 

of these areas. Under some situations, prescribed fire might be required. Due to the inaccessibility of 

some areas, active management is probably not feasible. 

Hyde County: An area south and southeast of New Lake, extending to the Intracoastal Waterway, 

was called New Lake Fork Pocosin (9,300 acres total; 7,300 acres in Pocosin Lakes NWR) (Lynch 

and Peacock 1982a). Prior to a severe fire that burned the entire area in 1982, it was mostly high 

pocosin, with some pond pine woodland. Legrand and his associates also included this area and 

suggested that the Service consider prescribed fire to perpetuate the type, especially if it could 

restore the wetland hydrology (Legrand et al., 1992). 
36 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Tyrrell County: The inventory of McDonald and Ashe included several natural areas within presentday refuge property in Tyrrell County. The largest was Upper Alligator River Pocosin, the drainage 

basin for the Northwest and Southwest Forks of Alligator River. The vegetation was mostly pond pine 

pocosin. The area, described as “vast inaccessible,” was given a State Natural Heritage rating of 

“high” (statewide significance) (McDonald and Ashe 1982). 

McDonald and Ashe described a small area on the western side as “forest that was cut within the 

last 15-20 years, but the loggers left behind some huge bald cypress trees (cull remnants of 

earlier logging), most with their tops blown out, and some as large as 5 feet in diameter.” The 

authors speculated that the area might contain a State-record tree. Other trees were mostly 

blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). 

Insect and Disease Pests of Habitats: In recent years, the forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma 

disstria) has caused widespread defoliation in the State (Collins 2005). Prolonged flooding and 

saturation on coastal plain soils adversely impacts the parasitic wasp that preys on the forest tent 

caterpillar. The parasitic wasp spends part of its life cycle in the ground. Prolonged flooding kills 

the wasp so it can no longer serve as a check on the populations of the forest tent caterpillar. 

This may account for the large outbreaks resource managers have been observing the last 

decade on the coastal plain. 

The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar Linnaeus) is now well established as far south as northeastern 

North Carolina. The North Carolina Division of Plant Industry and the USDA Forest Service closely 

monitors gypsy moth populations. They utilize pheromone traps located throughout the State, 

including refuge lands. When they detect large-scale outbreaks, they use integrated pest 

management techniques to suppress the outbreak, but not necessarily eliminate the species from the 

area (McManus 1989). 

The southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) is becoming a more common pest of pines in 

northeastern North Carolina. The beetles feed on the inner bark of stress-weakened trees. The needles 

turn yellow or straw-colored within two or three weeks of the attack, before finally turning reddish-brown. 

Land managers treat infected stands by cutting down a swath of trees around the area where the beetles 

are actively feeding, thus removing their food and starving them. Managers must monitor their pine 

stands and investigate any trees that appear infected (Townsend and Rieske-Kinney 2000). 

Fire ants (Solenopsis spp) were introduced into the United States from South America during the 

1940s (Tvedten 2005). This species is associated with disturbed, open habitats, including roadsides, 

turf, farm fields, and firebreaks. The fire ant mounds are on average between 10 to 24 inches in 

diameter and approximately 18 inches in height. During prescribed burns, the drier soil, which makes 

up the ant mounds, often introduce ground fire in the peat soils on the refuge. This has resulted in a 

continual management challenge for the refuge’s prescribed fire program. 

WILDLIFE 

Many wildlife species occur in a variety of habitats across the refuge. Surveys are needed to 

document presence and establish population estimates for many of the classes of wildlife. 

Amphibians: Although surveys have not been conducted, Pocosin Lakes NWR may provide habitat for 

up to 36 species of amphibians. There are approximately 20 species of frogs and toads, including the 

more common spring peeper, gray and barking treefrogs, southern toad, and bullfrog. Over 15 species 

of salamanders, including the eastern newt and spotted salamander, may occur on the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Reptiles: Over 40 species of reptiles, including lizards, snakes, turtles, and American alligator, occur 

throughout the refuge. Eight species of turtles frequently observed on the refuge include the yellowbellied slider, painted turtle, spotted turtle, eastern box turtle, eastern musk turtle, eastern mud turtle, 

common snapping turtle, and Florida cooter. There are at least 9 species of lizards frequently 

observed on the refuge. The more common species include the green anole, broadhead skink, sixlined racerunner and five-lined skink. 

The refuge provides habitat for a diverse array of snakes, including four venomous snakes: 

copperhead, pigmy rattlesnake, timber rattlesnake (canebrake), and cottonmouth. Other common 

species of snakes observed on the refuge include black rat snake, redbelly water snake, and 

eastern hognose snake. 

Mammals: Pocosin Lakes NWR provides habitats for over 40 mammal species, including the 

endangered red wolf. Other species frequently observed on the refuge include black bear, whitetailed deer, Virginia opossum, raccoon, and the exotic nutria. Other more secretive mammals found 

on the refuge include river otter, bobcat, mink, and long-tailed weasel. 

Although very little is known about the flying mammals on the refuge, approximately nine species of 

bats may occur on the refuge. Some of these include southeastern myotis, eastern pipistrel, red bat, 

big brown bat, and eastern big-eared bat. 

During 2003 and 2004, graduate student Catherine Tredick from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University conducted a study to determine population abundance and genetic structure of black 

bears on Pocosin Lakes NWR, using noninvasive genetic techniques. Black bear density estimates 

were derived from DNA samples extracted from hair samples. The estimated densities on Pocosin 

Lakes NWR were some of the highest reported in the literature and ranged from 1.23 to 1.66 bears 

per square kilometer in the areas sampled. The number of bears on Pocosin Lakes NWR in suitable 

habitat (i.e., ~ 300 km2 of hardwood, pocosin, and cypress-gum forests) would range 369-498 bears. 

However, this range is likely an underestimate because bears also inhabit areas of low-quality habitat 

(i.e., low pocosin and marsh) at lower densities (C. Tredick 2005). Genetic variability and structure 

was substantially higher on the refuge compared to other bear populations in North America (C. 

Tredick 2005). 

Migratory Birds: Throughout the year, over 200 species of migratory birds (e.g., shorebirds, marsh 

birds, wading birds, waterfowl, and neotropical migratory songbirds) occur in the abundant habitats 

found at Pocosin Lakes NWR. Additional surveys are needed to document the diversity of species 

that migrate through the refuge. 

Shorebirds and Marsh and Wading Birds: More intensive surveys are required to document 

shorebird and marsh and wading bird use on the refuge. Climatic conditions, especially rainfall, 

determine habitat availability to support most shorebird species on the refuge. The most abundant 

and diverse shorebird species occur during drought years. The staff conducts shorebird surveys 

depending on habitat availability (exposed mudflats) around the lake, firebreaks, and moist-soil units. 

Waterfowl: Intensive surveys, including bi-monthly ground surveys and bi-monthly aerial surveys, 

have documented waterfowl peak use and use days since the establishment of the Pungo Unit as 

Pungo National Wildlife Refuge in 1963. Over 1,000 acres of moist-soil units, other managed 

wetlands, and three lakes provide abundant wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. The refuge 

provides breeding habitat for wood ducks, hooded mergansers, American black ducks, and mallards. 

 See Tables 8 – 13 for waterfowl use of the refuge. 
38 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Neotropical Migratory Birds and other Land Birds: The refuge provides breeding, wintering, and 

stopover habitat for neotropical migratory birds and other land bird species. The staff must perform 

more intensive surveys to more accurately document population parameters for the various species 

that occur on the refuge throughout the year. 

Threatened and Endangered Species: Two federally listed species occur on the refuge. These are the 

endangered red wolf and the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. The bald eagle, previously listed 

as threatened, was recently removed from the list of threatened and endangered species. Biologists 

have documented the presence of American alligators on land adjacent to the refuge. This species is 

listed as “threatened” due to similarity of appearance to other endangered crocodilian species. 

State listed species that do or could occur on the refuge include: star-nosed mole, Rafinesque’s bigeared bat, Southern dismal swamp shrew, southern bald eagle, loggerhead shrike, Bachman’s 

sparrow, black vulture, red-cockaded woodpecker, little blue heron, tri-colored heron, Cooper’s hawk, 

American eastern peregrine falcon, glossy ibis, and American alligator. 

Table 8. 1999-2000 Monthly peak waterfowl use on Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Species 

PEAK USE 

October November December January February March 

Snow Geese 0 3,502 45,000 36,009 22,360 23 

Mallard 239 501 2,939 3,125 1,843 765 

Green-winged Teal 432 779 2,530 1,720 4,280 1,132 

Ring-necked Duck 15 161 864 38 18 0 

Northern Pintail 3 172 791 613 314 3 

American Wigeon 25 401 583 1,375 1,046 119 

Black Duck 179 169 583 499 385 441 

Canada Geese 310 100 380 645 488 135 

Wood Duck 7 116 321 528 710 56 

Ruddy Duck 22 160 371 80 3 3 

Northern Shoveler 0 94 190 383 274 134 

Bufflehead 4 87 168 13 10 27 

Gadwall 35 33 25 124 0 38 

Hooded Merganser 0 4 16 10 19 0 

Blue-winged Teal 30 3 0 0 0 2 

Redhead 0 0 0 25 0 0 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Table 9. 1999-2000 Monthly waterfowl use days on Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Species 

USE DAYS 

October November December January February March 

Snow Geese 0 27,618 707,854 813,016 539,980 356 

Mallard 7,332 8,598 58,249 63,106 50,682 12,508 

American Wigeon 11,036 11,334 29,971 40,920 73,834 24,955 

Ring-necked Duck 279 2,304 11,718 703 193 0 

Northern Pintail 465 2,418 10,986 9,992 4,408 46 

Black Duck 3,022 2,160 9,691 7,130 4,485 6,913 

Canada Geese 6,913 942 6,690 7,543 5,017 2,092 

Northern Shoveler 0 912 5,326 6,045 5,104 3,240 

Wood Duck 108 1,224 4,290 6,851 11,349 868 

Ruddy Duck 512 966 2,982 827 48 46 

Bufflehead 62 522 1,290 134 126 418 

Hooded Merganser 0 48 273 103 203 0 

Gadwall 542 666 236 1,829 0 852 

Blue-winged Teal 465 18 0 0 0 31 

Redhead 0 0 0 258 0 0 
40 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 10. 1988-2005 annual peak waterfowl use on Pungo Unit 

TOTAL 

PEAK USE 

Ducks Canada 

Geese 

Snow 

Geese 

Tundra 

Swans Coots 

1988-1989 35,000 4,500 15,000 30,000 20 

1989-1990 60,000 10,000 17,000 34,000 30 

1990-1991 26,200 1,436 16,000 20,000 5 

1991 25,100 1,000 16,000 20,000 0 

1991-1992 11,250 1,400 26,000 28,000 50 

1992-1993 31,400 3,000 20,000 20,000 150 

1993-1994 26,000 1,939 25,000 26,473 40 

1994-1995 35,000 1,200 20,000 38,715 100 

1994-1995 11,100 1,205 30,000 31,377 50 

1996-1997 10,000 705 30,000 32,000 540 

1997-1998 18,210 450 38,520 16,355 129 

1998-1999 14,260 380 43,000 25,000 402 

1999-2000 7,599 425 45,000 23,930 167 

2000-2001 11,325 720 46,000 28,062 41 

2001-2002 6,055 700 44,000 19,985 5 

2002-2003 13,217 1,110 65,000 11,105 10 

2003-2004 21,915 477 70,000 11,105 0 

2004-2005 28,283 380 57,000 15,577 5 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

Table 11. 1988-2005 annual waterfowl use days on Pungo Unit 

YEAR 

USE DAYS 

Ducks Canada 

Geese 

Snow 

Geese 

Tundra 

Swans 

1988-1989 2,632,162 230,401 924,800 1,248,621 

1989-1990 2,907,846 398,290 848,800 1,716,550 

1990-1991 1,876,346 106,989 1,313,500 1,477,514 

1991 2,090,760 103,495 1,277,150 1,496,439 

1991-1992 834,680 103,915 1,406,365 1,904,175 

1992-1993 1,959,909 130,529 1,245,300 1,734,334 

1993-1994 1,235,086 89,694 1,685,375 1,623,989 

1994-1995 2,513,940 78,716 1,043,666 1,562,838 

1995-1996 837,529 56,157 1,419,140 1,984,691 

1997-1998 888,740 35,516 1,548,799 2,087,401 

1998-1999 570,563 34,727 2,017,493 818,669 

1999-2000 540,946 20,085 1,992,877 1,451,992 

2000-2001 527,363 12,504 1,579,964 592,300 

2001-2002 374,310 60,620 1,341,091 359,950 

2002-2003 281,232 14,926 1,321,375 696,666 

2003-2004 1,261,648 38,071 2,407,533 1,317,500 

2004-2005 434,712 22,496 2,512,536 787,443 
42 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 12. 2002-2005 (aerial survey only) annual peak waterfowl use on Pocosin Lakes NWR 

(including the Pungo Unit) 

Year Ducks Canada 

Geese Snow Geese Tundra Swans 

American 

Coots 

2002-2003 16,111 1,177 47,500 13,324 10 

2003-2004 22,552 774 40,000 22,805 5 

2004-2005 30,161 795 23,000 23,000 5 

Table 13. 2002-2005 (aerial survey only) annual waterfowl use days on Pocosin Lakes NWR 

(including the Pungo Unit) 

Year Ducks Canada 

Geese Snow Geese Tundra Swans 

American 

Coots 

2002-2003 814,758 75,354 1,876,450 822,260 100 

2003-2004 1,879,796 69,718 2,272,300 2,850,600 202 

2004-2005 1,059,211 34,696 1,318,854 1,104,580 183 

Animal Damage Control: The majority of animal damage control is focused around feral hogs, 

beavers, white-tailed deer, rabbits, black bears, and nutria. Feral hogs grub in the ground for food and 

can cause significant soil disturbance and damage to native vegetation. Feral hog sightings in the 

Frying Pan area began increasing around 2002, and they were seen in the central parts of the refuge 

(harvester road area) in 2006. Beavers can be a high-maintenance challenge on the refuge by 

damming culverts and water control structures. White-tailed deer and rabbits have been a continual 

challenge to the refuge’s Atlantic white cedar restoration. Seedlings below approximately 36 inches in 

height are severely browsed, resulting in either stunting or killing the seedlings. Dr. Eric Hinesley, a 

professor from North Carolina State University, has been researching various exclosure treatments to 

protect the seedlings. Nutria can potentially cause problems with erosion from their foraging behaviors. 

Although several litters of nutria are observed throughout the year, the nutria population appears to be 

heavily preyed upon by the red wolf and other predator species on the refuge. It is difficult to determine 

any adverse effects of the presence of nutria on the native muskrats due to unknown historic muskrat 

population estimates. However, more nutria are being observed than muskrats. 

Visual observations of black bears on the refuge suggest an increase in the population. Bears are 

attracted to and will damage salt-treated lumber used to post staff gauges and signs and anything 

made of plastic or vinyl. There are legitimate concerns of bears becoming bold on the Pungo Unit. 

Bears seem to have learned to associate the sound of gunfire with food -- deer carcass. There have 

been increasing hunter complaints concerning bears tearing up deer stands and scratching truck 

beds that had residual deer scent from carcasses or blood remains present. Refuge bird banding 

programs are also experiencing bold bears taking over banding sites and damaging rocket net 

equipment. Valid, scientific data on population estimates is essential to develop black bear 

management strategies. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Insects and Diseases: Very little is known about the insect populations on the refuge. Several 

diseases potentially transmittable to humans associated with insects that do or potentially could occur 

on the refuge include: Lyme and other tick-borne diseases and West Nile’s virus encephalitis and 

other mosquito-borne diseases. 

Other diseases transmitted to humans documented on land adjacent to the refuge include rabies 

and distemper. 

INVASIVE AND/OR EXOTIC SPECIES 

There are several invasive and/or exotic species found on the refuge. These include common reed 

or Phragmites (Phragmites australis), alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), Japanese 

stiltgrass (Microstegium sp.), parrot feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), Sesbania (Sesbania exaltata), 

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Chinese privet 

(Ligustrum sinense), fire ants (Solenopsis invicta), gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), nutria (Myocastor 

coypus), European starling (Sturnis vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), coyote (Canis 

latrans), and feral hog (Sus scrofa). 

Alligator weed and parrot feather are exotic aquatic plants which out-compete native vegetation. 

Alligator weed has significantly spread and can be found in the majority of the refuge canals located 

on the east side of the refuge and, for the first time in 2005, on the Pungo Unit. Large mats of this 

weed are found floating in the Alligator River, Scuppernong River, and their tributaries, sometimes 

limiting or preventing accessibility to remote locations of the rivers. Parrot feather, originally an 

ornamental aquarium plant, is spreading at a slower rate but is becoming more frequently prevalent in 

refuge canals and small ponds. 

The staff deploys up to five phermone-gypsy moth traps at high public use areas across the refuge to 

monitor the spread of gypsy moths. During the last 10 years of monitoring, two male moths were 

captured, one in 1997 and one in 1998. 

Nutria, an exotic and invasive mammal species, was introduced in the United States in 1899. Nutria 

are polyestrus and can produce between 2 to 3 litters per year. This generalist species out-competes 

the native muskrat and can cause erosion problems around dikes from their foraging behavior. 

Biologists observe sites that nutria use frequently in the Pungo Unit. 

Fire ants have continued to spread throughout the refuge. Scientists know little about the adverse 

effects to ground nesting birds, herpetofauna, and small mammals on the refuge. The presence of 

large fire ant mounds has caused concerns for introducing ground fires during prescribed burn 

operations because the mounds are higher and drier than the surrounding terrain, burn more readily, 

and may carry the fire down into organic soil. 

Small patches of Sesbania were first observed while conducting the 1999 vegetation surveys in the 

Smartweed impoundment. Within the last two growing seasons, the size of the patches has 

considerably increased. Treatments with glyphosate herbicide to eradicate this invasive species 

began during the fall of 2000 and continued through 2005. The presence of common reed will require 

continued early detection and rapid response to its detection through active management. 
44 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Control of common reed on the refuge is a top priority. This species has invaded approximately 300 

acres of refuge habitat, including the natural shoreline community around Pungo Lake. Once 

established, this invasive species out-competes the preferred vegetation and eventually becomes a 

monoculture of reeds. Between 2000 and 2006, the refuge treated between 100 and 200 acres of 

Phragmites annually with glyphosate or imazapyr herbicides. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. No significant artifacts have 

been found. The wetland environment makes it unlikely that there are many cultural resources on the 

refuge. The small area of uplands (170 acres of the 110,106 acres on the refuge) is the most likely 

site of settlements or encampments. The staff must conduct management activities so as to avoid 

compromising sensitive sites. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The current area of Pocosin Lakes NWR lies in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties, North 

Carolina. Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties are in northeastern North Carolina with Dare 

County and the Atlantic Ocean to the east, Pamlico Sound to the south, Martin and Beaufort 

Counties, North Carolina, to the west, and the Albemarle Sound to the north. The areas have 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 Tyrrell and Washington Counties. The lack of growth is due in 

large part to the poorly drained, deep organic soil that makes development expensive and 

environmentally hazardous. Unemployment and poverty rates are much higher than the State 

average; high school and college graduation rates are below the State average. 

The area is still predominantly rural, and the largest towns and county seats are Columbia (2000 

population: 819), Plymouth (2000 population 4,107), and 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 and farming, commercial fishing, and forestry are 

important elements of the economy. 

HISTORY OF THE AREA 

Tyrrell County: The inhabitants of Tyrrell County at the time of European settlement were Coastal 

Algonquians called the Secotan. These Algonquians were the southernmost extent of a tribe that 

inhabited the Atlantic Coast north to Canada. They settled in relatively dispersed patterns with capital 

villages, villages, seasonal villages, and camps for specialized activities. The settlements were along 

the sounds, estuaries, major rivers, and tributaries. Some of the villages had regular internal 

organization with palisades and some were less organized with an open structure. They settled 

where they could conduct agriculture, fishing, shell fishing, hunting, and gathering close to the village. 

The farmsteads were occupied by extended families. The Coastal Algonquians grew corn, squash, 

sunflowers, beans, and native plants on sandy ridges. They traded extensively with the Tuscarora 

that inhabited the area west of the Tidewater region (Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow 2000). 

The governor of colonial North Carolina established the Tyrrell Precinct in 1729 from parts of presentday Chowan, Bertie, Currituck, and Pasquotank Counties. The precinct was large and stretched from 

Roanoke Island to Tarboro. From 1774 to 1870, governors formed Martin, Washington, and Dare 

Counties from parts of the Tyrrell Precinct. The North Carolina General Assembly chartered the town 

of Elizabeth in 1793, chartered it as the county seat in 1799, and changed its name to Columbia in 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

1810. The town had a population of 100 in 1810 and a diverse economy of mercantile trade, milling, 

county administration, and maritime occupations. 

Agriculture and forest products have been important to the county from the time of early settlement. 

The rich soil with an organic topsoil layer has been the resource responsible for the county’s high 

productivity. The first settlers farmed for survival and absentee landowners in Edenton. Landowners 

established large, nearly self-sufficient plantations. After the Civil War and the end of slavery, these 

large plantations failed and agricultural production declined, but the timber industry thrived. In the 

twentieth century, the use of mechanization and adoption of modern production techniques led the 

county’s return to prominence as an agricultural area. 

In the later part of the twentieth century, conservation agencies and organizations began to purchase 

areas less suited for agriculture and production forestry due to the deep organic soils. They managed 

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. 

Hyde County: The inhabitants of Hyde County at the time of European settlement were also Coastal 

Algonquians 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 was given the name 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 that decreased the size 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 

to drain Lake Mattamuskeet completely with more drainage canals and a pumping plant in 1910 for 

crop 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 first 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 bird-watchers. 

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. 
46 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

In the later part of the twentieth century, conservation agencies and organizations began to purchase 

areas less suited for agriculture and production forestry due to the deep organic soils. They manage 

those areas for wildlife habitat, the protection of unique ecological communities, and outdoor 

recreation. Recreation based on natural and cultural resources is a growing part of the local lifestyle. 

 Some of the recreation has presented business opportunities to local residents in the form of guide 

services for hunting and fishing and the sale of hunting leases. 

Washington County: The inhabitants of Washington County at the time of European settlement 

were also Coastal Algonquians called the Moratucs and the Secotans, who lived in the area as early 

as 10,000 years ago. By 1755, less than 100 years after settlement, the total Indian population in the 

northeastern part of North Carolina was less than 365 (Lee 1963). 

Trapping, logging, and farming were the main sources of livelihood in the early years of the colony. 

Trade was begun with the West Indies and the northern colonies. The main exports were tar, pitch, 

turpentine, lumber, corn, and tobacco. 

In 1702, entrepreneurs built a gristmill and sawmill in an area known as Lee’s Mill. By 1799, the 

North Carolina General Assembly established Washington County and the town of Lee’s Mill became 

the first county seat. Lee’s Mill became Roper in 1890. 

Several landowners built large estates in the county, chiefly Buncombe Hall, built in Roper, and Josiah 

Collins’ Somerset Place on Lake Phelps. Traders shipped corn produced on Collins’ plantation 

worldwide. Collins attempted to drain Lake Phelps into the Scuppernong River by way of a 6-mile-long 

canal, 20 feet wide, dug by 80 slaves imported directly from Africa. The canal helped with drainage, 

irrigation, and shipping. The plantation eventually grew to 100 buildings and 300 slaves (Tetterton 1998). 

Plymouth, which was an important seaport until the Civil War, was laid out in 1785. It became the first 

incorporated town in the county in 1807, and is the present county seat. Its founders named it after 

Plymouth, Massachusetts, from which the early settlers came (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1981). 

During the Civil War, Union forces occupied the town from May 1862 to April 1864. Between April 17-20, 

1864, 15,000 Confederate soldiers under the command of General Robert Hoke retook the town with the 

assistance of the ironclad ship C.S.S. Ram Albemarle. The Albemarle held the Union Navy on the 

Roanoke River. Three days later, the Union Army and Navy retook Plymouth (Tetterton 1998). 

In the twentieth century, life in Washington County evolved around agriculture, forest management, 

and the forest products industry. 

LAND USE IN THE AREA 

The historic land use in the area depended for the most part by the nature of the land. Hydric soils cover 

97 percent of Tyrrell County, 99 percent of Hyde County, and 86 percent of Washington County. The 

hydric soils remained in forest, pocosin (shrubby plant communities), or marsh until the twentieth century. 

The major historic land uses have revolved around hunting upland game and waterfowl. Native 

Americans and farmers descended from European settlers cultivated crops on the uplands on the 

shoreline of the Albemarle Sound and Lake Mattamuskeet and terraces of streams for centuries. In the 

twentieth century, farmers drained much of the hydric mineral soil and shallow organic soil. 

Tyrrell County: Today, Tyrrell County is 61 percent forested (153,400 acres) and 28 percent 

cropland (69,749 acres). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms increased 35 percent from 54,638 acres to 73,608 acres; the 

average size of farms increased 22 percent from to 661 acres to 809 acres; full-time farm operators 

increased 30 percent from 56 farms to 73 farms; total market value of agricultural products sold 

decreased 18 percent from $35,687,000 to $29,403,000; and average market value of agricultural 

products sold per farm decreased 24 percent from $429,966 to $323,110 (Table 14). 

In 2002, soybeans accounted for 35,753 acres of cropland, the largest of any single crop in the 

county. Corn and wheat have also been important crops in Tyrrell County (Table 15) (USDA 2002). 

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 16). 

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 17) (USDA 2002). 

Washington County: Today, Washington County is 38 percent forested (84,200 acres) and 45 

percent cropland (100,388 acres). 

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms decreased 6 percent from 107,280 acres to 100,388 acres; the 

average size of farms increased 11 percent from 528 acres to 593 acres; full-time farm operators 

increased 13 percent from 126 farms to 143 farms; total market value of agricultural products sold 

decreased 32 percent from $67,555,000 to $46,149,000; and average market value of agricultural 

products sold per farm decreased 28 percent from $332,784 to $239,113 (Table 18). 

In 2002, soybeans accounted for 33,365 acres of cropland, the largest of any single crop in the 

county. Corn, wheat, and cotton have also been important crops in Washington County (Table 19). 

The county produces more than 6 million broiler chickens (USDA 2002). 

On the land surrounding the refuge, the major land use is farming and hunting. There is little 

residential construction in the wetlands surrounding the refuge. The well-drained areas of the county 

have had extensive residential and commercial development. 

DEMOGRAPHICS IN THE AREA 

Tyrrell County: Tyrrell County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 4,149 in 2000 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The county gained 7.6 percent of its population between 1990 and 2000 

(U.S Census Bureau 2000). Columbia, the county seat, is the largest town but the population is 

widely dispersed throughout the unincorporated areas of the county. 

The population is 56.5 percent white, 39.4 percent black, 3.6 percent hispanic, 0.2 percent Native 

American, and 0.7 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the mean family income was 

$21,616, substantially below the State average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 25.7 percent of the 

population, well above the State average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average 

unemployment rate in 2004 was 7.8 percent, well above the State of North Carolina unemployment 

rate of 5.5 percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). 
48 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 14. Tyrrell County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census 

Number of Farms 91 

Acres in Farms 73,608 

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 809 

Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,380,993 

Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,809 

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $257,269 

Total Cropland (Acres) 68,406 

Market Value of All Products Sold $29,403,000 

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $323,110 

Market Value of Crops Sold $21,334,000 

Market Value of Livestock Sold $8,069,000 

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 73 

Operators with Another Occupation as Principal Occupation 18 

Hogs in Inventory 0 

Hogs Sold 0 

Beef Cows in Inventory 214 

Beef Cows Sold 51 

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 35,753 

Land in Corn (Acres) 27,654 

Land in Wheat (Acres) 18,118 

Land in Cotton (Acres) 1,540 

Table 15. Commodity production in Tyrrell County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997 

USDA Census 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1997-2002 Change 

Soybeans (acres) 35,753 27,490 Increased 30% 

Corn (acres) 27,654 18,999 Increased 45% 

Wheat (acres) 18,118 13,065 Increased 39% 

Cotton (acres) 1,540 1,311 Increased 17% 

Hog Inventory 0 39,087 N/A 

Hogs Sold 0 156,539 N/A 

Cattle Sold 51 250 Decreased 80% 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Table 16. Hyde County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census 

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 17. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997 

USDA Census 

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% 
50 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 18. Washington County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census 

Number of Farms 193 

Acres in Farms 114,423 

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 593 

Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,124,786 

Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,924 

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $157,276 

Total Cropland (Acres) 100,388 

Market Value of All Products Sold $46,149,000 

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $239,113 

Market Value of Crops Sold $34,027,000 

Market Value of Livestock Sold $12,122,000 

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 143 

Operators with Another Occupation as Principal Occupation 50 

Broilers 6,051,300 

Hogs in Inventory 0 

Hogs Sold 9,090 

Beef Cows in Inventory 637 

Beef Cows Sold 643 

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 33,365 

Land in Corn (Acres) 28,346 

Land in Cotton (Acres) 26,901 

Land in Wheat (Acres) 15,727 

Land in Peanuts (Acres) 3,016 

Land in Tobacco (Acres) 311 

Table 19. Commodity production in Washington County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 

1997 USDA Census 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1997-2002 Change 

Soybeans (acres) 33,365 40,792 Decreased 18% 

Corn (acres) 28,346 30,734 Decreased 8% 

Cotton (acres) 26,901 7,692 Increased 250% 

Wheat (acres) 15,727 25,381 Decreased 38% 

Peanuts (acres) 3,016 2,785 Increased 8% 

Tobacco (acres) 311 449 Decreased 31% 

Broilers 6,051,300 4,868,100 Increased 24% 

Hog Inventory 0 72,730 N/A 

Hogs Sold 9,090 201,676 Decreased 95% 

Cattle Sold 643 607 Increased 6% 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 is 51 percent; the 

percentage of college graduates is 7 percent. The state averages are 78.1 percent for high school 

graduation and 22.5 percent for college graduation (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Home ownership 

rate is 74.9 percent, above the State average rate of 69.4 percent. There are 2.42 persons per 

household in Tyrrell 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 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000). The county gained 7.7 percent of its population between 1990 and 2000 (U.S 

Census Bureau 2000). Swan Quarter, the county seat, is the largest town but the population is 

widely dispersed throughout the unincorporated areas of the county. 

The population is 62.7 percent white, 35.1 percent black, 2.2 percent hispanic, 0.3 percent Native 

American, and 0.4 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the mean family income was 

$23,568, substantially below the State average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 24.8 percent of the 

population, well above the State average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average 

unemployment rate in 2004 was 7.2 percent, well above the State of North Carolina unemployment 

rate of 5.5 percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). 

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 is 52 percent; the 

percentage of college graduates is 7 percent. The state averages are 78.1 percent for high school 

graduation and 22.5 percent for college graduation (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Home ownership 

rate is 78.4 percent, above the State average rate of 69.4 percent. There are 2.36 persons per 

household in Hyde County, slightly below the State average of 2.49. 

Washington County: Washington County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 

13,723 in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The county lost 2.0 percent of its population between 

1990 and 2000 (U.S Census Bureau 2000). Plymouth, the county seat, is the largest town but the 

population is widely dispersed throughout the unincorporated areas of the county. 

The population is 48.3 percent white, 48.91 percent black, 2.3 percent hispanic, 0.1 percent Native 

American, and 0.3 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the mean family income was 

$27,726, substantially below the State average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 20.5 percent of the 

population, well above the State average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average 

unemployment rate in 2004 was 7.3 percent, well above the State of North Carolina unemployment 

rate of 5.5 percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). 

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 is 56 percent; the 

percentage of college graduates is 9 percent. The state averages are 78.1 percent for high school 

graduation and 22.5 percent for college graduation (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Home ownership 

rate is 73.6 percent, above the State average rate of 69.4 percent. There are 2.52 persons per 

household in Hyde County, slightly above the State average of 2.49. 

EMPLOYMENT IN THE AREA 

Tyrrell County: Agriculture is the largest employer in Tyrrell County, employing 186 of the county’s 

530 employees with an annual payroll of $8.3 million in 2000 (U.S. Department of Commerce, County 

Business Patterns 2000). There is no single large employer in the county (North Carolina Economic 

Security Commission 2002). Refer to Table 20. 
52 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 20. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina Counties 

County Average 

Income1

Poverty 

Rate (%)1

Average 2004 

Unemployment 

Rate (%)2

2000 

Population1 Population Trend1

N. Carolina $35,320 12.6 5.5 +21% since 1990 

Counties in the Vicinity of the Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Hyde $23,568 24.8 7.2 5,826 -37% since 1900 

Tyrrell $21,616 25.7 7.8 4,149 -17% since 1900 

Washington $27,726 20.5 7.3 13,723 Same as 1960 

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 +166% since 1970 

Dare $35,258 8.1 5.1 29,967 +328% since 1970 

Gates $30,087 15.4 4.2 10,516 Same as 1900 

Halifax $24,471 23.6 8.1 57,370 Same as 1950 

Hertford $23,724 23.1 6.0 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 

1

 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of the United States 2

 North Carolina Economic Security Commission, December 2004 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

agriculture, retail trade, manufacturing, construction, finance, lodging, and food service (U.S. Census 

Bureau 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). 

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 support services, and recreation 

(U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census 2000). 

Washington County: Manufacturing is the largest employer in Washington County, employing more 

than 1,000 of the county’s 3,998 employees with an annual payroll of $129.8 million in 2000 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns 2000). This is due in large part to the wood 

products industry (North Carolina Economic Security Commission 2002). 

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

manufacturing, retail trade, health care, agriculture, lodging and food service, transportation, 

wholesale trade, transportation, administrative support, forestry and fishing, and finance (U.S. 

Census Bureau, Economic Census 2000). 

FORESTRY IN THE AREA 

Tyrrell County: Timber had always been a source of wealth for Tyrrell County. However, much of 

the timber was cleared in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops. 

Today, Tyrrell County is approximately 61 percent forested, with 153,400 acres of forestland. In 

contrast, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Fifty-four percent of the county’s forest is in oakgum-cypress, 25 percent is in pine, 19 percent is in oak-pine, and 2 percent is in oak-hickory (USDA 

Forest Service 2002). 

In 2000, private landowners and the Federal Government were the largest forest landowners and 

each owned 34 percent of the county’s forested land. The State owned 19 percent and forest 

industry owned 13 percent (USDA Forest Service 2002). 

Hyde County: Timber had 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 county’s 

forestland. The Federal Government owned 28 percent, forest industry owned 15 percent, and the 

State owned 2 percent (USDA Forest Service 2002). 
54 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Washington County: Timber had always been a source of wealth for Washington County. However, 

much of the timber was cleared in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops. 

Today, Washington County is approximately 38 percent forested, with 84,200 acres of forestland. In 

contrast, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Forty-one percent of the county’s forest is in pine, 

19 percent is in oak-gum-cypress, 18 percent is in oak-hickory, and 11 percent is in oak-pine, and 5 

percent in elm-ash-cottonwood (USDA Forest Service 2002). 

In 2000, private landowners were the largest forest landowners with 54 percent of the county’s 

forestland. Forest industry owned 27 percent, the Federal Government owned 15 percent, and the 

State owned 4 percent (USDA Forest Service 2002). 

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE AREA 

Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Tyrrell, Hyde, and 

Washington Counties have always had an abundance of fish and game, due to its diversity of lands 

and waters. Early in history, sportsmen-established clubs were created in the area for the purpose of 

protecting game and wildlife. Later, as part of a comprehensive wildlife management program, 

Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Pocosin Lakes NWRs were created to conserve and restore habitat 

for native wildlife and migratory birds. In addition to the refuges, there are eight North Carolina state 

game lands, a state park, an area managed by the Conservation Fund, and several parcels protected 

by the Nature Conservancy in the area. 

Recreation in the area is also based on the water in the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds, 

Scuppernong and Alligator Rivers, and Lake Phelps and Lake Mattamuskeet. Boat ramps provide 

access to the rivers and sounds. Numerous outfitters provide boats and guided tours. The North 

Carolina Coastal Plain Paddle Trails Guide lists eighty-nine miles on nine trails in Tyrrell, Hyde, and 

Washington Counties (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 2001). Pettigrew State Park 

has 16,600 acres of water on Lake Phelps, 1,293 acres of land around Lake Phelps, and 3,238 acres 

on the Scuppernong River (including the Nature Conservancy Property which plans to deed the 

Scuppernong River property to Pettigrew State Park. 

The State of North Carolina manages the 1,825-acre Lantern Acres Game Land; 614-acre Pungo River 

Game Land; 5,426-acre Bachelor Bay Game Land; 5,482-acre Van Swamp Game Land; 600-acre J. 

Morgan Futch Game Land; 1,394-acre New Lake Game Land; and 31,057-acre Gull Rock Game Land in 

Tyrrell, Hyde, and Washington Counties for wildlife management and hunting opportunities. 

 

The Partnership for the Sounds is a non-governmental organization that promotes and supports 

ecotourism in the region and has been proactive in publicizing recreation opportunities on the refuge. 

The Partnership’s headquarters is in Columbia at the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s 

visitor center adjacent to the refuge office and visitor center. 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS 

Fish and wildlife are the focuses of the refuge, but they are also important to the local economy. 

First, a commercial fishery is present in both the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds and the Alligator 

River. Blue crab and flounder are the major species harvested. Second, hunting and fishing are 

economically important to local businesses, both directly as the local population spends money and 

indirectly as an attraction that draws sportsmen from outside the county. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources combined 

with wetland clearing and draining, has led to the loss of valuable fishery spawning grounds and the 

loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In the attempt to restore and protect some of these 

resources, Pocosin Lakes NWR serves an important role, not only by providing habitat for a diversity 

of plant and wildlife species, but also as a place where people can go to enjoy these resources, either 

through observation or through hunting or fishing. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service surveyed participants in wildlife-dependent recreation in North Carolina in 

2001. The survey documented an average expenditure of $69 per day by anglers, $74 per day for 

hunters, and $199 per day for wildlife observers and photographers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 

The Partnership for the Sounds had a study done of the economic impact of its facilities. The 

study demonstrated that the average visitor spent $108 per visit, with a range of $63.70 to 

$332.55 per day (Vogelsang 2001). A similar study of visitors at the Chincoteague National 

Wildlife Refuge in Virginia also showed a range of expenditures from $62 to $101 per day (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 1997). 

A study commissioned by the State of New Jersey demonstrated that the average visitor to the 

shorebird migration spent $130 per day (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2000). 

Birdwatchers on eight national wildlife refuges in New Jersey reported a range of expenditures from 

$25 to $41 per day (Kerlinger 1994). 

Ecotourists on Dauphin Island, Alabama, spent an average of $60 per visitor per day (Kerlinger 1999). 

Bird watchers on High Island, Texas, reported an average expenditure of $46 per day; and nonresidents reported $693 per trip (Eubanks, Kerlinger, and Payne 1993). The average visitor to the 

Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail spent $78 per day (Eubanks and Stoll 1999). 

Studies at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas demonstrated a range of 

expenditures from $88 to $145 per day on nature-based tourist activities. The Laguna Atascosa 

National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas reported a range of $83 to $117 per day (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 1997). 

Bird watchers to the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge in California spent an average of $57 per 

day (National Audubon Society 1998). 

When improved access, facilities, and staffing are added, Pocosin Lakes NWR can serve as an important 

role in the economic life of the community. Local officials consider eco-tourism, hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental interpretation elements of 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 IN THE AREA 

Tourism in the area is based on the natural resources and cultural attractions in the area. Boat ramps 

provide access to the rivers, bays, and sounds for fishing, hunting, and boating. Numerous outfitters 

provide boats and guided tours. The Atlantic Ocean attracts swimmers, surfers, sunbathers, and anglers 

to the Outer Banks of Dare County. The Outer Banks attract 7 million tourists per year. 
56 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

More developed tourist attractions based on natural resources include the Mattamuskeet and 

Swanquarter NWRs, Alligator River NWR, Pettigrew State Park, Buckridge National Estuarine 

Research Reserve, and Palmetto Peartree Preserve. 

Pocosin Lakes NWR could serve as an additional attraction to tourists visiting the area. If the Service 

provided better roads and more facilities within the refuge, tourists might stay longer in the area to 

enjoy the opportunities provided for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. 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 counties served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication between almost 

every community in the area. The Scuppernong River, Alligator River, and Albemarle Sound were once 

the major transportation avenues in the area. As the area grew and the railroad arrived, river and boat 

traffic declined. The waterways are still important as sources of income and for recreation. 

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. North Carolina Highway 32 

and U.S. Highway 17 connect the refuge with the Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Chesapeake areas. 

U.S. Highway 64 connects the refuge with Raleigh, North Carolina, and the northeastern United 

States by way of Interstate 95. A number of smaller roads connect the various communities in the 

area. There is an international airport in Norfolk/Virginia Beach 100 miles north of the refuge and a 

regional airport in Greenville 90 miles west of the refuge. 

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 

The local area features cultural activities in small local art galleries, antique shops, and at fairs and 

festivals. 

Virginia Beach is in a major metropolitan area 100 miles north of the refuge that supports a wide 

range of cultural facilities and events. The Virginia Beach Pavilion is a 63,000-square-foot convention 

center that hosts dozens of events annually from craft shows to musical and theatrical performances. 

The Little Theater of Virginia Beach hosts plays throughout the year. The 20,000-seat Virginia Beach 

Amphitheater is the site of live musical performances. The Contemporary Art Center of Virginia 

features changing exhibitions by national and international artists, as well as performing arts 

performances. It attracts 400,000 visitors annually. The Atlantic Wildfowl Museum celebrates the art 

of decoy making that was instrumental in attracting the first settlers to the area. 

The Scope in Norfolk is a 12,600-seat arena that hosts live music performances, as well as sports 

events. The 2,400-seat Chrysler Hall is the site of theatrical performances. The historic Wells 

Theater is the 600-seat home to the Virginia Stage Company. The 675-seat Attucks Theater is 

the site of African-American stage performances. The 1,632-seat Harrison Opera House is home 

to the Virginia Opera. The Chrysler Museum of Art is a venue for 30,000 paintings, sculptures, 

and decorative arts from the world over. The 12,067-seat Harbor Park is home to the Norfolk 

Tides baseball team. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

Congress established the 12,000-acre Pungo National Wildlife Refuge in 1963 by the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The Service established the Pocosin Lakes NWR in 1990 

and made the Pungo Refuge a unit of the refuge. The refuge now includes 110,106 acres. The 

Service did not establish an acquisition boundary before establishment or since, so there is no 

approved acquisition boundary beyond the refuge ownership (Figure 5). 

There are other lands in the area protected by State agencies and non-governmental organizations in 

Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties (Table 21). 

Table 21. Protected lands in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties 

Agency or Organization Name of Property Acreage 

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation Pettigrew State Park Land-4,531

Water-16,600

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Buckridge Coastal Reserve 18,000

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Alligator River Game Land 5,401

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Lantern Acres Game Land 1,825

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Pungo River Game Land 614

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Bachelor Bay Game Land 5,426

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Van Swamp Game Land 5,482

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission J. Morgan Futch 600

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission New Lake Game Land 1,394

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gull Rock Game Land 31,057

Conservation Fund Palmetto Peartree Preserve 9,700

The Nature Conservancy Scuppernong River Preserve 653

Total 92,551
58 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 5. Existing boundary of the Pocosin Lakes NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Visitor Services 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognized six wildlife-dependent 

priority public uses as recreation activities the refuge should support if it had the staff and funding to 

conduct them safely. Those priority public uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

In the FY 2007 Refuge Annual Performance Plan, the staff estimated approximately 65,850 people 

visited the refuge in FY 2006. This estimate was based on observations during daily refuge activities 

and the number of visitors signing the guest registration book at the refuge’s visitor center in 

Columbia (which was open only 24 to 32 hours per week). A good method for measuring the total 

number of actual visitors a year is currently unavailable. Therefore, these estimates are probably not 

accurate. Many visitors to the refuge participate in wildlife observation (up to 20,000) and hunting (up 

to 10,000). Education and outreach efforts away from the refuge at local festivals, events, and field 

days are the leading tools in generating interest in the refuge. Visitation estimates were much higher 

in previous years but have declined since the loss of a visitor services’ specialist position in 2005. 

The refuge’s visitor center/office complex, which opened in 2001, attracts many visitors to the refuge. 

The visitor center, dedicated as the Walter B. Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds (named after a long-time 

North Carolina Congressional Representative), is adjacent to the North Carolina Department of 

Transportation’s Tyrrell County Visitor Center in Columbia. The staff of the Partnership for the Sounds, 

Inc., which operates the visitor center, estimates that over 460,000 people stop for information. 

Therefore, actual refuge visitor numbers may be significantly higher than the estimates above. The 

refuge visitor center offers a range of displays and a gift shop. A video about the refuge and the 

Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem is available for the public to view in the 68-seat auditorium. 

Access 

The location of the refuge headquarters is 205 South Ludington Drive, just south of North Carolina 

Highway 64 in Columbia, North Carolina, at the Walter B. Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds. The 

new headquarters is located on the eastern bank of the Scuppernong River. There the refuge 

maintains a three-quarter-mile interpretive boardwalk and an outdoor classroom. The visitor center 

contains a gift shop and 68-seat auditorium. There is an environmental education classroom located 

in the office complex portion of the center and an outdoor classroom along the Scuppernong River 

Interpretive Boardwalk. 

The refuge maintains a field station for interns and education programs at the former office 

headquarters in Creswell, North Carolina, on the west side of Lake Phelps at 3157 Shore Drive. The 

Pocosin Lakes NWR maintenance facility is located on the southwest corner of the Pungo Unit at 601 

Refuge Road in Pantego, North Carolina. 

The Pungo Unit is accessible from North Carolina Highway 45 in Pantego. The Frying Pan Unit can 

be accessed from North Carolina Highway 94, south of Columbia. Other access points to the refuge 

are North Carolina Highway 94 and Northern Road south of Columbia, Shore Drive in Creswell, and 

New Lake Road. 

The Pungo Unit comprises approximately 12,500 acres of the refuge. This unit includes Pungo Lake, 

which is roughly 2,800 acres, and several impoundments that provide food and a resting place for 

migratory waterfowl in winter. There is an observation tower and Kuralt Trail kiosk located on the 

south side of Pungo Lake (Figure 6). The Kuralt Trail of the refuge is composed of 12 miles of 

designated roads on the Pungo Unit. 
60 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Pocosin Lakes NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

The Frying Pan Unit is approximately 5,700 acres. Trux Road, on this unit, is open to all-terrain 

vehicles during the hunting season. This part of the refuge also offers good fishing opportunities. 

There is a State-maintained boat ramp located on refuge property that provides access to Frying Pan 

Lake and the Alligator River. 

New Lake lacks adequate public access. Most access roads leading to the lake are private. 

Boundary Road, located south of New Lake Road away from the lake, is open to all-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs) during the hunting season. Much of the road runs parallel to the Intracoastal Waterway. 

Most of the interior of refuge is open to public use during daylight hours only. An area that is closed will 

either have a locked gate at the entrance with an “Area Closed” sign or will have the boundary posted 

with “Area Closed” signs. Gates and “No Vehicle” signs indicate when the public cannot drive on a road. 

There are many opportunities to observe wildlife and participate in photographic opportunities 

throughout the refuge. 

The refuge has approximately 250 miles of dirt roads which are accessible to the public. 

Approximately 80 miles of roads are open to public licensed vehicular travel. Horseback riding is also 

allowed on these roads with a special use permit. Another approximately 27 miles of roads are 

designated ATV trails that hunters may use to access remote hunting areas during the hunting 

season. The remaining roads are closed to all motorized vehicles. A person can walk or take a 

bicycle on all of the dirt roads, even those closed to motorized vehicles, unless the area is posted as 

a closed area due to refuge activities. No off-road vehicle travel of any kind is allowed. 

Some refuge lands can be accessed by boat from the northwest and southwest forks of the Alligator 

River, the Intracosatal Waterway, the Scuppernong River, and the Alligator River (Frying Pan Unit). 

Hunting 

State seasons and bag limits apply with the exception of the Pungo Unit. On the Pungo Unit, hunting 

with bow for deer begins on the date the State designates and lasts through the end of November. The 

refuge allows gun hunting for deer on the Pungo Unit by special permit only and accepts applications for 

the 1,125 permits issued. The refuge permit hunts usually consist of four to five 2-day hunts on 

weekends beginning in late September and continuing into October. For the 2007/2008 hunting season, 

the refuge is partnering with the NCWRC in administering the hunt. The NCWRC is now taking 

applications, conducting the lottery and issuing the special permits under their Special Hunt Opportunities

program. The Service does not allow general archery hunting during the 2-day permit hunts although 

archery equipment, as well as muzzleloaders or shotguns, can be used by permitted hunters. 

The service has closed Pungo and New Lakes to all hunting activities. Other areas closed to hunting 

are specified in regulations and on brochures. 

Over 8,000 hunting visits occur on Pocosin Lakes NWR each year. 

Fishing 

The Service allows fishing on the waters of Pungo from March 1 to October 31. All other waters on 

the Pungo Unit are open year-round except during the special 2-day (Friday/Saturday) permit hunts in 

late September and October. Fishing in canals is popular during spring and summer months. 

Primary species caught include black fish, black crappie, several species of sunfish, and catfish. 

Approximately 1,500 anglers use the refuge every year. 
62 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge permits fishing on New Lake except during the wintering waterfowl period 

(November – February), but access is difficult. 

Interpretive and Environmental Education Programs 

The refuge staff gives twelve talks and slide presentations to various groups annually. The 

refuge has also participated in various local festivals and field days, setting up displays and 

presenting educational demonstrations. The new visitor center/office complex provides a 

number of displays, both static and interactive. The gift shop offers a variety of merchandise, 

including field guides, nature books, and other materials. Guided group tours or field trips are 

sometimes available upon request. The staff reached an estimated 200,000 people with 

education, interpretive, or outreach programs in 2004, but that number has dropped 

significantly since the abolishment of the park ranger position. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The majority of the refuge’s 20,000 to 30,000 wildlife observers and photographers generally visit the 

Pungo Unit. This area of the refuge is known for its large concentration of wintering waterfowl and a 

dense population of black bear. The Pungo Unit has an elevated observation platform overlooking 

Pungo Lake, which the Service built in 1977, and replaced in 2004. The unit also contains several 

moist-soil units and impoundments that provide food and a resting place for wintering waterfowl. 

The interpretive trail located on the Scuppernong River in Columbia is another area that may be used 

for observation and photography. Neotropical migratory songbirds and wildflowers are plentiful here 

during the spring and summer. 

Walking/Hiking/Bicycling 

The Service permits walking and hiking anywhere on the refuge unless the area is posted as closed. 

Bicycling is allowed on all established roads and trails (off-road bicycling is not permitted). The 

Service considers these modes of transportation that facilitate the priority public uses. 

Canoeing/Kayaking/Boating 

The Service does not allow boating on Pungo Lake and does not allow boating on New Lake from 

November through February. The parts of the refuge that have access by boat are the north and 

southwest forks of the Alligator River. Other local areas that allow boating include New Lake Fork 

Canal, Alligator and Scuppernong Rivers, and Frying Pan Lake. The Service considers these modes 

of transportation that facilitate the priority public uses. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

The refuge’s current staff is listed in Table 22 below. 

Table 22. Staff of the Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Position Program Employment Status 

Project Leader (GS-0485-13) Refuge PFT 

Deputy Project Leader (GS-0485-12) Refuge PFT 

Wildlife Biologist (GS-0486-11) Refuge PFT 

*Park Ranger (GS-0025-09) Refuge PFT 

Office Assistant (GS-0303-06) 50% Refuge 

50% Fire 

PFT 

*Office Assistant (GS-0303-04) Refuge TFT 

Crane Operator (WG-5725-09) Refuge PFT 

*Maintenance Mechanic (WG-5716-09) Refuge PFT 

Equipment Operator (WG-5716-08) Refuge PFT 

Fire Management Officer (GS-0401-11) Fire PFT 

Equipment Operator (Fire) (WG-5716-08) Fire PFT 

Equipment Operator (Fire) (WG-5716-08) Fire PFT 

Equipment Operator (Fire) (WG-5716-08) Fire PFT 

Forestry Technician (Fire) (GS-0462-06) Fire PFT 

Forestry Technician (Fire) (GS-0462-05) Fire PFT 

Forestry Technician (Fire) (GS-0462-04) Fire PFT 

PFT = permanent full time, TFT = temporary full time, PS = permanent seasonal 

*Since this planning effort began, the Park Ranger, Maintenance Mechanic, and TFT Office Assistant positions have 

been abolished. 
64 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

The Fish and Wildlife Service administers Pocosin Lakes NWR from an office located in Columbia along 

the Scuppernong River near the northeastern-most portion of the refuge. The Service houses the 

maintenance and fire crews at a shop facility on the Pungo Unit in the southwestern corner of the refuge. 

The refuge staff administers 110,106 acres of fee title land in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties, 

North Carolina. Most of the land is wetlands, with much having peat soils that cannot support equipment, 

roads, or buildings. The refuge has an extensive road and drainage ditch system installed by previous 

owners. The principal habitat management activity is water management to provide optimum conditions 

for waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds in managed wetlands on the Pungo Unit and water table 

management throughout the natural habitat on the refuge. The staff conducts prescribed burns 

according to the fire management plan and maintains roads and roadsides as firebreaks to manage wild 

fires. Cooperative farmers manage the refuge cropland. 

Refuge Infrastructure 

Roads and Trails 

There are 250 miles of roads on the refuge that are open to the public. The Service allows use of 

these roads for travel by foot or bicycle for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation. Approximately 80 miles of these roads are open to 

public licensed vehicular travel and another approximately 27 miles of roads are open to all-terrain 

vehicle travel for hunting. The refuge also maintains roads for administrative access for wildlife and 

habitat management and law enforcement. The refuge has a three-quarter-mile interpretive trail on 

the east bank of the Scuppernong River outside the visitor center. 

Communication Systems 

The refuge communications system is currently limited to mobile radios with base stations at the 

headquarters and shop. Cellular phones are also used for communication between the field and office. 

Solid Waste Collection and Disposal 

Presently, there is no solid waste collection and disposal on refuge lands. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations, 

public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of this comprehensive 

conservation plan for Pocosin Lakes NWR. This plan has been written with input and assistance 

from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and state agencies. The 

participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management 

direction for the refuge. The Service, as a whole, and the reuge staff, in particular, are very grateful 

to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process. The staff 

remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so many individuals for the lands and waters 

administered by the refuge. 

Representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service and State wildlife agency personnel attended 

initial planning meetings that included a review of the biological program. At these initial meetings, 

they discussed strategies for completing the comprehensive conservation 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 six public scoping meetings on February 15, 

16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001, in Washington, Plymouth, Columbia, Swanquarter, and Manns Harbor, 

North Carolina. They introduced the audience to the refuge and its planning process and asked them 

to identify their issues and concerns. The Service published announcements giving the location, 

date, and time for the public meeting in the Federal Register and legal notices in local newspapers. 

They also sent press releases to local newspapers and public service announcements to television 

and radio stations. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel placed fifty posters announcing the meeting 

in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The planning teams (Appendix X) expanded the issues and concerns to include those generated by 

the agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. The objectives were 

subjects of discussion at a second round of public meetings on April 25 and 28, 2001, in Plymouth 

and Columbia, North Carolina. The Service published announcements giving the location, date, and 

time for the public meeting as legal notices in local newspapers. Service personnel also sent press 

releases to local newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio stations. 

Service personnel placed seventy-five posters announcing the meetings in local post offices, local 

government buildings, and stores. 

A number of issues and concerns was generated from 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. A Fish and Wildlife Service planning team was assembled 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 fifteen years. 

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Pocosin Lakes NWR 

was released for public review and comment in July 2007. A news release and flyers were prepared 

announcing the deadline for accepting public comments as August 15, 2007. Also, a Federal Register

notice was published announcing the comment period. In addition, two open house meetings were held 

on Wednesday, July 25, at the Vernon James Center in Washington County and on Thursday, July 26, at 

the Walter B. Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds in Tyrrell County. 
66 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Comments were compliled and responses were developed. Some changes were incorporated into 

the plan. Appendix IV includes both scoping and Draft CCP public comments. 

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. These issues provided the basis for developing the 

refuge’s alternative management objectives and strategies, 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 planning meetings. 

HYDROLOGY 

Drainage 

Prior to refuge ownership, the previous landowners dug drainage ditches to facilitate crop production 

and logging. The ditches effectively lower the water table, draining subsurface water in the vicinity of 

the ditch. The drainage affects the plant communities on the refuge by providing habitat for species 

adapted to better drainage close to the ditches and on the tops of spoil piles. When the peat soils dry 

out, they oxidize/degrade. This can lead to heavy metals, such as naturally occuring mercury, 

leaching out of the soil as well as nitrogen and carbon being released. Artificially dry peat soils are 

also more susceptible to wildfire and the soil can burn for long periods of time. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

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. Three threatened or 

endangered animals are thought to use (or could use) Pocosin Lakes NWR: red-cockaded 

woodpecker, red wolf, and American alligator. 

Bald eagles, recently de-listed, travel the river corridor and shoreline of the Sound. The refuge’s 

habitat protection and management activities provide suitable habitat for nesting or wintering eagles. 

The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker currently inhabits Tyrrell County just north of the refuge. 

A December 2003 aerial survey observed six active colonies of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the 

Frying Pan Unit in the northeastern part of the refuge. As the forest ages and pine trees develop 

suitable nesting cavities, the refuge could support additional woodpecker colonies. Sustaining viable 

populations will require proper understory management. 

American alligators reside in Tyrrell and Hyde Counties. They nest in grassy marshes on and around 

the refuge. The American alligator is listed as threatened due to similarity in appearance to other 

threatened crocodilian species. 

The endangered red wolf currently inhabits large areas of habitat on the refuge. Northeastern North 

Carolina has the only wild surviving population of red wolves in the world. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Waterfowl 

The scoping process identified the management of all refuge marshes, managed wetlands (moistsoil units), and forests for waterfowl and expanding waterfowl hunting opportunities as issues. In 

order to meet the refuge’s waterfowl purpose, the refuge must manage the marshes, forests, and 

managed wetlands (moist-soil units) to meet waterfowl habitat needs, including sufficient rest areas 

to provide undisturbed resting and feeding areas for waterfowl. The Service can provide waterfowl 

hunting opportunities as the refuge acquires additional land outside the proclamation boundary 

within which the Service prohibits waterfowl hunting. The core waterfowl rest areas need to remain 

intact to meet the needs of waterfowl. 

The refuge’s waterfowl purpose guides all operation and management actions on the refuge. The 

refuge protects forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and 

resident waterfowl. Staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies and 

organizations conducted a Biological Review of Pocosin Lakes NWR in 1999 and 2000, as part of 

the comprehensive conservation planning process. They identified objectives to meet the minimum 

water, food, and resting/loafing habitat requirements of waterfowl. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds are a species group of special management concern. Providing 

habitat (e.g., forests and marshes) for these birds is one of the refuge’s major objectives. 

Strategic forest management compatible with the refuge’s waterfowl habitat objectives would 

contribute to the forest needs of neotropical migratory birds. Neotropical migratory birds are also 

a major focus of the refuge wildlife observation program as many birders visit the refuge to 

observe nesting, feeding, and loafing birds. 

HABITATS 

Freshwater Marsh and Managed Wetlands 

Participants at the public scoping meetings expressed the expectation that the refuge was 

established to protect and manage the marshes in various locations on the refuge and managed 

wetlands (moist-soil units) on the Pungo Unit. Local interest still exists in managing the refuge. The 

area’s cultural tradition has a strong history of fishing and hunting, and marsh and moist-soil unit 

management is the first step toward maintaining the opportunities for hunting on adjacent lands 

(primarily for waterfowl). 

Pocosin Lakes NWR is near several large marshes in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic 

Zone. Cooperative private-State-Federal partnerships under the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, Partners in Flight, and the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture recommend maintenance 

and stabilization of the marsh. With strategic management, the staff can provide quality marsh 

habitat with the proper water management, prescribed burning, and aquatic weed control. 

Woody Plant Communities 

There is public recognition of the role of the refuge’s pocosins and forests in white-tailed deer, black 

bear, red wolf, and neotropical migratory bird populations and the public use associated with deer 

hunting and wildlife observation. At the public scoping meetings, the public also expressed an 

appreciation for the function of the forest in support of the other aspects of the refuge’s public use 

program. The refuge has not developed a management plan for its forestlands, but does treat insect 
68 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

and disease infestations as they occur and conducts prescribed burning as opportunities present 

themselves. The public and the members of the biological review team encouraged the refuge staff 

to make forest management a higher priority than it has been. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of Federal land 

that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

inhabitation, and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition, or is a roadless island regardless of size; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored through 

appropriate management at the time of review; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

As a part of the planning process, the lands within the Pocosin Lakes NWR boundary were reviewed 

for their suitability in meeting the criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

The Wilderness Review identified 17, 342 acres that meet the criteria for a wilderness study area. 

In examining the nature of the 17,342 acres selected as a wilderness study area more closely, 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 and 

dense understory vegetation allow for very little pedestrian traffic. The nature of the habitat does not 

invite pedestrian traffic and frequent pedestrian traffic would result in habitat destruction. 

Any future land acquisition outside the currently approved acquisition boundary would be 

evaluated independently for possible proposed wilderness designation. The Wilderness Review 

is attached as Appendix IX.

PUBLIC USE 

Visitor Services and Education 

The refuge is in Tyrrell County, North Carolina (2000 population 4,149), Washington County, North 

Carolina (2000 population 13,723), and Hyde County, North Carolina (2000 population 5,826). There 

is a need to promote nature-based tourism in northeastern North Carolina in the rural counties that 

have an abundance of natural resources to attract tourists, but they are dominated by wetlands that 

limit traditional economic development. The Outer Banks attract 7 million tourists per year who pass 

by the refuge on U.S. Highway 64. A few commercial interests guide canoeing and angling 

adventures. The refuge is an important link to other natural areas that together make these 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

experiences possible. Carefully selected and managed staff, programs, and facilities will provide the 

wildlife-dependent environmental education and interpretation programs, as well as recreation 

opportunities visistors have come to expect. 

Hunting 

Hunting is an integral part of rural North Carolina culture. It is not surprising that there is a 

considerable interest from State agencies and local citizens in expanding hunting opportunities. 

The initial refuge strategy must be maintenance of the quality of hunting at existing levels. Any 

additional hunting opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are 

compatible with refuge purposes. The refuge requires additional law enforcement personnel to 

administer additional hunts. In the future, there may be an opportunity to add additional hunting 

opportunities on the refuge. 

Fishing 

Anglers utilize the refuge canals, ditches, impoundments, a pier on the Scuppernong River, and 

State-maintained boat ramps for fishing opportunities. The public expressed an interest in improving 

access to the refuge for fishing. The refuge has the potential to add a boat ramp and expand safe 

access to bank fishing areas. 

Roads and Trails, Interior and Exterior 

The Service limits access to refuge roads when wet conditions limit their use. The public expressed 

an interest in more and better access to the refuge. As resources are available for roads, the staff 

may consider increasing access to the refuge, based on compatibility with refuge objectives. The 

refuge must limit access to areas where wintering waterfowl rest and feed on the Pungo Unit and 

other areas where human disturbance would be detrimental to wildlife and habitat objectives. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Cultural Resources 

Local residents, the refuge staff, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the regional and national office 

are all aware of the potential of the Pocosin Lakes NWR for Native American sites. 

Land Acquisition and Habitat Fragmentation 

When the Service established the Pungo National Wildlife Refuge, it established the refuge as an 

inviolate waterfowl sanctuary for wintering migratory waterfowl and other migratory birds. The 

refuge’s role in providing managed wetlands (moist-soil units) was to provide additional habitat types 

for migratory waterfowl. Establishment of the Pocosin Lakes NWR has added extensive areas of 

habitat that are more important for neotropical migratory songbirds (in support of Partners in Flight) 

and red wolves than they are for wintering migratory waterfowl habitat. These areas also provide 

important breeding habitat for wood ducks. In the biological review, the Service identified private 

properties for acquisition that have value as pine habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker, nonriverine 

swamp forest habitat for songbirds, and cropland for high-energy foods for wintering migratory 

waterfowl and other wildlife species. Those properties are important links in protecting areas along 

the Alligator and Scuppernong Rivers and the Albemarle Sound. To maintain the potential to protect 

these lands, the Service must have the ability and authority to manage and protect (through 

acquisition of fee title interest or conservation easements) the important habitat beyond the refuge’s 
70 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

current acquisition boundary. Also, acquisition of fee title interest in new lands will provide expanded 

public use opportunities when compatible; conservation easements would not. 

Law Enforcement and Refuge Regulation 

The refuge has enforced the applicable laws and regulations through the use of a dual function 

officer, currently the refuge manager, and the assistance of a law enforcement officer from 

Mattamuskeet NWR who covers four refuges. The use of the dual function officer to perform 

enforcement functions utilizes a great deal of the time he could devote to refuge administration and 

support of the biological, public use, and maintenance programs. This is particularly evident during 

hunting season when the law enforcement workload is at its highest. He is also limited in the amount 

of time he can devote to permit monitoring and enforcement of the conditions on the permits. 

Other Resource Protection 

There are other threats to refuge resources that require closer monitoring and management. Pest 

plants and animals, as well as wildlife disease, are all issues which the refuge needs to diligently 

monitor and respond to rapidly in order to prevent degradation of ecological integrity. 

As resources become available, natural hydrology is being restored on large tracts of pocosin habitat 

that were drained prior to refuge ownership. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremeost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge 

management. A requirement of the National Wildlfie 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 abovementioned Act identified hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation as priority wildife-dependent public uses of the refuge system. Each of 

these uses is therefore emphasized in this CCP. 

This chapter describes the CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This management 

direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the refuge vistion. 

 

Four alternatives for managing the refuge were considered in the Draft CCP/EA. These were: 1) 

current management/no action, 2) address highest priority goals/objectives, 3) address all 

goals/objectives, and 4) place in caretaker status. Each of the alternatives was described in the 

Alternatives section of the Draft CCP/EA. The Service chose Atlernative 2 as the preferred 

management direction. 

Implementing the preferred alternative will result in moderate program increases to address the 

refuge’s highest priorities. The refuge will manage its impoundments very intensively by controlling 

water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl. It will also manage 

pine forests and marshes with prescribed fire and will manage the vegetative composition of habitats 

in selected areas. Waterfowl will be surveyed on a routine basis. The staff will develop inventory 

plans for all species and implement them in selected habitats. The staff will develop and implement a 

black bear management plan. The staff will maintain the visitor center with volunteers and 

cooperating agency personnel supplementing refuge personnel. There will be eighteen staff 

members (17.5 full-time equivalents) dedicated to refuge management and eight staff members (7.5 

full-time equivalents) dedicated to fire management. The volunteer program will be expanded to 

recruit volunteers to contribute 4,000 hours of service. Two workamper pads will be built to attract 

volunteers with recreational vehicles. The six priority public uses will be allowed and the staff will 

conduct environmental education and interpretation programs to meet local needs. 

VISION 

The Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge will restore and maintain natural processes and 

biodiversity of a functional pocosin wetland and provide habitat for threatened, endangered, and other 

Federal trust species. On the Pungo Unit, the refuge will provide optimum wintering habitat for 

migratory waterfowl and breeding habitat for wood ducks throughout the refuge on suitable habitats in 

conjunction with other refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The refuge will reduce habitat fragmentation by establishing corridors to other protected areas in the 

central Albemarle - Pamlico Peninsula. The visitor center will be a gateway for visitors to refuges in 

eastern North Carolina. The refuge will serve as a destination for nature-based tourism that will 

contribute to the economic health of rural communities. It will provide opportunities for priority public 

uses. The refuge staff will continue to use partnerships to accomplish goals. 
72 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

GOALS 

Wildlife Populations: Conserve, protect, and maintain healthy and viable populations of migratory 

birds, wildlife, fish, and plants, including Federal and State endangered and trust species. 

Habitat: Restore, protect, and enhance pocosin wetlands and other natural habitats for optimum 

biodiversity. Intensively manage habitats specific to waterfowl on the Pungo Unit. 

Public Use: Develop programs and facilities to increase public use opportunities, including hunting, 

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

Resource Protection: Protect and perpetuate refuge resources by limiting the adverse effects of 

human activities and development on refuge resources. 

Administration: Acquire resources and infrastructure to accomplish the other refuge goals. Support 

local efforts to sustain economic health through nature-based tourism. 

OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies addressed below are the Service's response to the issues, 

concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff, and the public. These 

goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Services' commitment to achieve 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 

Pocosin Lakes NWR. The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies 

during the next 15 years. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

Fish 

Objective: Manage refuge resources to protect species of fish and other aquatic organisms in refuge 

and adjacent waters. 

Discussion: There is little data about the fish and other aquatic resources on the refuge or the effect 

of refuge management on those resources. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has 

conducted species surveys of Lake Phelps, Pungo Lake, and New Lake in the past, but there have 

been no recent quantitative surveys. The plan provides for the Service to perform those surveys and 

cooperate with other agencies, organizations, and universities conducting studies. 

Strategies: 

y Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

y Inventory fishery resources utilizing the technical assistance office fisheries biologist or a 

consultant. 

y Explore management options in consultation with the technical assistance office fisheries 

biologist. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

Invertebrate Species 

Objective: Document presence of invertebrate species.

Discussion: There is little data about the invertebrate species on the refuge or the effect of refuge 

management on those invertebrates. The plan provides for the Service to perform surveys 

systematically in moist-soil units and as opportunities occur on other places on the refuge.

Strategies: 

y Document presence of invertebrate species as they are encountered. 

y Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

Land Birds 

Objective: Provide resting, nesting, and foraging habitat for about 100 speices of land birds. 

Discussion: There is little data about the land birds on the refuge or the effect of refuge management 

on those species. The plan provides for the Service to inventory land birds. The refuge will also 

coordinate management of turkey, quail, and mourning doves with the NCWRC. 

Strategies: 

y Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

y Assist with banding activities as directed. 

y Develop an inventory plan for neotropical migratory songbirds, including migration surveys 

with mist nets, within five years of the date of this CCP and implement the plan on selected 

habitats within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop an inventory plan for raptors within five years of the date of this CCP and implement 

the plan on selected habitats within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Identify priority species for management based on inventory results and status of the species 

found. 

y Correlate land bird inventory results to habitat studies to give direction to habitat 

management. 

y Inventory turkeys, quail, and mourning doves using the protocols used by the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission. 

y Coordinate turkey management with the NCWRC to maintain sustainable populations. 

Mammals 

Objective: Provide suitable habitat for and manage selected mammal populations associated with 

pocosin wetlands. 

Discussion: Data about the mammals on the refuge are limited to white-tailed deer, red wolves, and 

black bears. There is little data on the effect of refuge management on those mammals. The plan 

provides for the Service to monitor selected mammals. 
74 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies:

y Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

y Maintain communication with the Red Wolf Recovery Team and its population monitoring 

efforts. 

y Monitor populations of black bear, white-tailed deer, and up to two other species (based on 

emerging management issues). 

y Adapt management based on an evaluation of the data. 

y Develop and implement a plan for managing black bears based on the results from USGS 

cooperative bear study within ten years of the completion of the study. 

Red Wolves 

Objective: Assist the Red Wolf Recovery Team with red wolf reintroduction. 

Discussion: The Service has established a population of red wolves to reintroduce this endangered 

species to the landscape. There is a Red Wolf Recovery Team headquartered in Manteo, North 

Carolina, that closely monitors the population. The staff assists the team by giving them access to 

the refuge through gates and on roads that are often in poor condition, assisting with outreach and 

hosting workshops for teachers and the general public. The staff is also assisting in the development 

of a small wolf eduation and veterinary care facility on refuge land south of Columbia. 

Strategies: 

y Provide refuge access to Red Wolf Recovery Team. 

y Maintain communication with the Red Wolf Recovery Team and its population monitoring 

efforts. 

y Host workshops for teachers and the general public. 

y Develop, operate, and maintain a wolf education and veternairy care facility in partnership 

with the Recovery Team and others. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Objective: Monitor red-cockaded woodpecker nests and populations to document their presence in 

accordance with the red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan. 

Discussion: There is little data about the red-cockaded woodpeckers on the refuge or the effect of 

refuge management on those birds. The refuge staff has located cavity trees from the air and is 

attempting to cut trails to allow the staff to monitor the cavities from the ground. There are 

woodpecker populations on land surrounding the refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Ecological 

Services’ office and the Conservation Fund are both involved in monitoring those populations. The 

plan provides for the Service to monitor red-cockaded woodpeckers on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Develop and implement a refuge-specific red-cockaded woodpecker management plan based 

on the national recovery plan within five years of the date of this CCP. 

y Survey the refuge aerially for the occurrence of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees 

according to the protocol in the plan. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

y Document the location of cavity trees in a geographic information system (GIS) within three 

years of the date of this CCP. 

y Clear and maintain roads and trails to active cavity trees on the ground by contract within five 

years of the date of this CCP. 

y Monitor existing clusters according to the recovery plan. 

y Band woodpeckers and manage existing cavities. 

y Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Objective: Inventory use of selected sites on selected habitats by reptiles and amphibians. 

Discussion: There is little data about the reptiles and amphibians on the refuge or the effect of refuge 

management on those species. This CCP provides for the Service to inventory reptiles and 

amphibians. 

Strategies: 

y Develop and implement an inventory plan in selected habitats. 

y Conduct two annual alligator surveys during May on selected sites. 

y Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

Shorebirds and Marsh Birds 

Objective: Monitor shorebirds and marsh birds annually to document their populations and evaluate 

habitat management. 

Discussion: The refuge staff has been conducting regular surveys of shorebirds in conjunction with 

waterfowl surveys. This CCP continues that effort and also provides for intensive callback surveys of 

marsh birds. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct weekly surveys during peak migration months (April, May, July, and August). 

y Conduct intensive callback surveys of marsh birds annually in selected habitats. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 

Wading Birds 

Objective: Survey wading birds annually to document their populations and evaluate habitat 

management. 

Discussion: The refuge staff has been conducting regular surveys of wading birds in conjunction 

with waterfowl and shorebird surveys. This CCP continues that effort and also provides for 

surveys of rookeries. 
76 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Conduct surveys annually in conjunction with shorebird and waterfowl surveys. 

y Conduct two surveys annually on all potential rookery sites for rookeries. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 

Waterfowl 

Objective: Monitor waterfowl annually to document their populations and evaluate habitat 

management. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor wintering waterfowl populations annually by conducting 12 aerial surveys performed 

every other week and 12 ground surveys performed every other week throughout the 

wintering waterfowl season. 

y Conduct banding as directed. 

y Assist with banding when requested. 

y Continue supporting banding operations on refuges in eastern North Carolina with grain 

harvested from refuge croplands. 

y Conduct productivity surveys of tundra swans and snow geese when requested. 

y Check up to 100 wood duck boxes for productivity every 35-40 days during peak nesting 

season annually. 

y Band summer wood ducks and other waterfowl as requested. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Pocosin 

Objective: Manage 61,288 acres of pocosin, including forest, shrub, and herbaceous stages, to 

maintain it as a natural community. Depending on locations and timing of oppoturnities, convert 

2,900 acres of herbaceous or shrub stage pocosin to Atlantic white cedar, hardwood swamp forests, 

moist-soil units, and firebreaks. 

Discussion: Altered hydrology has a great impact on the refuge staff’s ability to manage the pocosin 

habitat for wildlife. Previous owners installed ditches and canals to farm and harvest timber in the 

area. When it is drained, the deep, organic soil oxidizes, decomposing and evaporating into the 

atmosphere. The drained soil also burns when wildfires occur. Finally, drained soil will not support 

the healthy hydrophytic plant communities typical of saturated organic soils or the wildlife populations 

that have evolved in those communities. 

Successful maintenance or management of the pocosin will require restoration of hydrology to hold the 

water table at the surface of the soil. The saturated soil profile will sustain the vegetative community and 

allow prescribed burning and management of wildfires to achieve habitat manipulation. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

The plan provides for hydrology restoration, fire management, habitat surveys, development and 

implementation of management plans, and conversion of some pocosin to Atlantic white cedar and 

hardwood swamp forest. 

Strategies: 

y Restore hydrology on areas specified in the hydrology restoration plan by installing 

infrastructure to facilitate water management within the 15-year life of this CCP. 

y Manage hydrology to mimic the natural condition as closely as possible and in accordance 

with the hydrology restoration plan and the forest habitat management plan. 

y Revise the fire management plan. 

y Manage wildfires and prescribed burning as specified in the fire management plan. 

y Initiate studies and surveys to provide baseline information on habitat conditions and use of 

habitat by wildlife within five years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop management plans based on the results of the studies and surveys within two years 

of the completion of studies and surveys. 

y Implement management plans in selected areas. 

y Monitor the effects of implementing the plans and change the plans as needed. 

y Develop a refuge-specific red-cockaded woodpecker habitat management plan after receipt of 

the national plan. Initiate implementation of the plan on habitat around active clusters within 

one year of its development. 

y Restore 700 acres of shrub or grass stage pocosin to Atlantic white cedar forest. 

y Restore 1,500 acres of shrub or grass stage pocosin to bottomland hardwood forest. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 

Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest 

Objective: Manage 3,824 acres (3,124 existing acres and 700 newly restored acres) of functional 

peatland Atlantic white cedar forest habitat to maintain it as a natural community. 

Discussion: The refuge staff currently protects the peatland Atlantic white cedar forest from wildfires 

and conducts no surveys and little management. Researchers from the North Carolina State 

University and Christopher Newport University have conducted research on revegetation and 

community volunteers have planted a small area, known as the Millennium Forest. The plan provides 

for fire management, habitat surveys, development and implementation of management plans, and 

restoration of 700 acres from pocosin. 

Strategies: 

y Revise the fire management plan. 

y Manage wildfires and prescribed burning as specified in the fire management plan. 

y Develop a forest management plan and implement it on selected areas within ten years of the 

date of this CCP. 

y Convert 700 acres of pocosin habitat in the shrub or grass stage to peatland Atlantic white 

cedar forest. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 
78 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Hardwood Swamp Forest 

Objective: Manage 15,545 acres (14,045 existing acres and 1,500 newly restored acres) of healthy, 

functional hardwood swamp forest habitat to maintain it as a natural community. 

Discussion: The refuge staff currently protects the hardwood swamp forest from wildfires and 

conducts no surveys or management. The plan provides for fire management, habitat surveys, and 

development and implementation of management plans. 

Strategies: 

y Revise the fire management plan. 

y Manage wildfires and prescribed burning as specified in the fire management plan. 

y Plant 1,500 acres of pocosin with shallow peat soil in the shrub or grass stage to hardwoods 

to maintain a healthy, functional hardwood swamp forest habitat community. 

y Inventory vegetation and correlate to wildlife occurrence within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop a forest management plan and implement it on selected areas within ten years of the 

date of this CCP. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 

Cypress Gum Swamp 

Objective: Manage 970 acres of healthy, functional cypress/gum swamp habitat to maintain it as a 

natural community. 

Discussion: The refuge staff currently protects the cypress-gum swamp from wildfires and conducts 

no surveys or management. The plan provides for fire management, habitat surveys, and 

development and implementation of management plans. 

Strategies: 

y Revise the fire management plan. 

y Manage wildfires and prescribed burning as specified in the fire management plan. 

y Develop management plans based on the results of the studies and surveys within ten years 

of the completion of the studies and surveys. 

y Inventory vegetation and correlate to wildlife occurrence within ten years of the date of this 

CCP. 

y Implement management plans in selected areas. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 

Marsh 

Objective: Manage 987 acres of healthy, functional marsh habitat to maintain it as a natural community. 

Discussion: The refuge staff currently conducts no surveys or management in the marsh. This CCP 

provides for fire management, habitat surveys, and development and implementation of management plans. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

Strategies: 

y Revise the fire management plan. 

y Manage wildfires and prescribed burning as specified in the fire management plan. 

y Develop management plans based on the results of the studies and surveys within ten years 

of the completion of the studies and surveys. 

y Inventory vegetation and correlate to wildlife occurrence within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Implement management plans in selected areas. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 

Cropland 

Objective: Manage 1,410 acres (1,250 existing and 160 newly acquired acres) of cropland in 

accordance with the cropland management plan. Annually provide 400 acres of grain and 300 acres 

of green browse for wintering waterfowl. 

Discussion: The refuge currently manages 1,250 acres of cropland habitat through the use of the 

cooperative farming program and provides up to 250 acres of standing corn and 200 acres of winter 

wheat for wintering waterfowl annually. The ultimate goal of the program is to provide 400 acres of 

unharvested corn for wintering waterfowl. 

Strategies: 

y Use cooperative farming program, contract farming, force account farming, or acquisition of land 

(fee simple purchase, easement purchase, or cooperative agreements) to provide 400 acres of 

unharvested corn and 300 acres of winter wheat annually. 

y Revise the cooperative farming agreements annually. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

Moist-soil Units (Managed Wetlands) 

Objective: Manage 593 acres (443 existing and 150 newly acquired or converted acres) of moist-soil 

habitat and manage water on 550 acres of other wetlands (hardwood swamp forests, mixed pine 

flatwoods, etc.), to provide wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

land birds and breeding habitat for marsh birds and land birds. 

Discussion: The refuge’s moist-soil units are one of the most intensively managed habitats on the 

refuge. They include the Smartweed, Jones Pond, Marsh A, Hyde Park, Van’s Pond, and Evan’s 

Pond units; however, the Evan’s Pond unit is currently not managed due to a deteriorated dike 

system. The moist-soil units provide plants that produce high-quality seeds and other foods for 

waterfowl in the fall and winter and mudflats that produce invertebrates for shorebird food in the 

spring and late summer. Other managed wetlands include diked and partially diked areas where 

water levels can be managed. 

Strategies: 

y Manage all areas according to the water management plan using a combination of natural 

water sources and pump/well systems. 
80 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

y Manage the moist-soil habitat to achieve a 70 percent cover of moist-soil plants rated as good 

every year. 

y Manage the moist-soil habitat to provide 50 percent of the acreage in mudflats during the 

peak of the spring migration (May). 

y Construct two additional moist-soil habitat units of 150 acres total within ten years of the date 

of this CCP. This will require acquisition of additional prior converted farm land (fee simple 

purchase or cooperative agreements). 

y Install five pump/well systems to provide dependable water supply to existing and proposed 

moist-soil habitat units within five years of the date of this CCP. 

y Maintain dikes and renovate failed dikes. 

y Construct new dikes for existing moist-soil areas without dikes (Hyde Park) and new moist-soil 

areas. 

y Raise existing dikes/roads and manage water to increase the amount of wetlands available for 

wintering waterfowl. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 

Natural Lake Shoreline 

Objective: Manage 446 acres of healthy, functional natural lake shoreline habitat to maintain it as a 

natural community. 

Discussion: The lake shoreline of Pungo Lake has great potential for producing high-quality 

waterfowl food plants, but common reed (Phragmites australis) currently occupies some of these 

areas. The refuge staff is taking actions to manage this invasive species. 

This CCP provides for management of shoreline vegetation with fire and herbicide to reduce the 

encroachment of undesirable vegetation. 

Strategies: 

y Revise the fire management plan. 

y Manage wildfires and prescribed burning as specified in the fire management plan. 

y Manage undesirable vegetation as necessary.

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge.

Open Water 

Objective: Manage water levels to maximize the amount of open water and provide waterfowl food 

plants in the lake margins for wintering waterfowl. 

Discussion: Pungo and New Lakes provide important roosting and loafing habitat for wintering 

waterfowl. Water levels in Pungo Lake fluctuate widely and are often not at optimum levels for the 

wintering waterfowl season. The lake margins of Pungo Lake have great potential for producing highquality waterfowl food plants, but common reed (Phragmites australis) currently occupies some of 

these areas. The refuge is taking actions to manage this invasive species. Fifteen percent of New 

Lake is privately owned. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

Strategies: 

y Manage the water levels to maximize the amount of open water for wintering waterfowl in the 

6,740 acres of lakes. 

y Install a pump/well system and manage the margins of Pungo Lake for foraging habitat for 

waterfowl. 

y Seek partnerships to conserve and manage refuge and private sections of New Lake for 

wintering waterfowl habitat. 

y Assist and cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies 

and investigations on the refuge. 

Roads, Roadsides, and Canals 

Objective: Maintain 80 miles of road surface for public vehicular access, 27 miles for hunting season 

all-terrain vehicle access, and up to 143 miles on a 1- to 3-year cycle for administrative, fire, and nonvehicular public access. Maintain 250 miles of canals to maintain water management capability. 

Manage roads, roadsides, and canals to optimize wildlife habitat. 

Discussion: Roads on the refuge and throughout the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula were created by 

digging canals and using the spoil to create roadbeds. Maintenance of roads built on top of piles of 

organic soil is extremely difficult; driving on these roads is also extremely difficult, especially in wet 

weather. The staff currently tries to maintain 80 miles of road surface for public vehicular access. 

Construction (upgrading) of one all-weather road passing north and south through the refuge and one 

road passing east and west through the refuge is critical to dependable access to the refuge by the 

staff and the public. As the Service restores hydrology on the refuge, the refuge must raise the 

elevation of certain sections of roads to facilitate maintenance in areas that will be saturated to the 

current road surface. The staff will implement early detection and rapid response to invasive species 

during the road raising process. Presence of the exotic Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) 

has increased along roadsides throughout parts of the refuge. Roadsides have the potential to be 

early successional habitat dominated by native grasses and wildflowers when they are managed 

properly with rotational mowing and prescribed fire. 

Strategies: 

y Provide constant and continuous maintenance of road surface to assure passable condition. 

y Provide all weather access on at least one north-south and one east-west road and one auto 

tour route within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Raise the elevation of certain sections of roads as described in the hydrology restoration plan to 

facilitate hydrology restoration and provide continued access within the 15-year life of this CCP. 

y Maintain all roads open to the public to Federal Highway Administration standards. 

y Manage vegetation on 364 acres of roadside to provide early successional habitat for wildlife. 

y Maintain 909 acres of canals according to the hydrology restoration plan. 

y Implement early detection and rapid response to invasive species during the road raising process. 

Wood Duck Nest Boxes 

Objective: Maintain up to 150 wood duck nest boxes in appropriate wood duck habitat annually. 

Discussion: Wood ducks require large trees in flooded areas with cavities in which to nest. Due to 

the harvest of large trees in flooded habitat, the wood ducks need artificial cavities to replace the 
82 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

large trees. These artificial cavities are called wood duck nest boxes. They must be checked 

annually to document their use and evaluate the need to install more as the existing boxes are 

utilized. They also must have old nest material replaced and unhatched eggs removed. The boxes 

must be repaired as weather and black bears damage them. 

Strategies: 

y Check up to 150 wood duck boxes and clean and repair them annually. 

y Erect 50 new boxes within five years of the date of this CCP. 

Firebreaks 

Objective: Manage 1,750 acres of firebreaks on a 3-year rotation according to the fire management 

plan to facilitate wild fire suppression and also provide early successional habitat for wildlife. 

Strategies: 

y Manage vegetation in firebreaks by mechanical means, with herbicides, and with prescribed 

burning. 

y Maintain roads and canals as part of the firebreak system. 

PUBLIC USE 

Access 

Objective: Maintain a level of access to the refuge during daylight hours that is compatible with 

refuge purposes (Figure 7). 

Discussion: The entire refuge is currently open to the public during daylight hours throughout the 

year unless restricted by refuge operations or wildlife activity. The public has access to the Pungo 

impoundment areas during the period when waterfowl are resting and this access results in 

disturbance to the birds. The plan proposes to maintain the current access except for selected areas 

of impoundments when waterfowl are resting to minimize disturbance. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to open the refuge to the public during daylight hours throughout the year unless 

restricted by refuge operations or wildlife activity. 

y Restrict access to Pungo and New Lakes, selected Pungo impoundment areas, and other 

refuge areas as necessary to minimize waterfowl disturbance during the period November 

through February. 

y Restrict access to Pungo Lake during the wood duck breeding season. 

y Restrict access to the firearms range and maintenance and storage areas year-round. 

Hunting 

Objective: Provide 10,000 annual quality daylight hunting opportunities for selected species of game 

animals during the State hunting season on the entire refuge except the Pungo Unit. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Figure 7. Proposed visitor facilities of the Pocosin Lakes NWR 
84 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: The refuge currently provides up to 8,000 hunting opportunities annually. The plan 

provides for 10,000 annual hunting opportunities. It increases opportunities for hunting on the Pungo 

Unit by permit. It also provides consideration of a new bear hunting program based on the results of 

the 2005 black bear study, which demonstrated a bear population density that could sustain a 

conservative hunt. The U.S. Geological Survey (Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at 

Virginia Tech) has conducted a thorough study of the black bear populations on the refuge. The 

results of the study also recommended continued monitoring of the black bear population to 

determine population increases and declines. 

 

The State of North Carolina allows hunting on all the land in the Coastal Plain. Bears currently 

interfere with banding operations on the refuge, destroy wood duck nest boxes, and take deer shot by 

hunters before the hunters can retrieve the deer. There have also been numerous dangerous 

bear/human interactions reported by deer hunters, refuge interns, and other refuge staff. The black 

bears also attract many visitors to the refuge to observe the bears in their habitat. The number of 

incidental observations of bears on the refuge has declined since Hurricane Isabel in 2003. 

 

Strategies: 

y Provide up to 1,200 annual deer hunting opportunities during a permitted hunt with shotguns 

and muzzleloaders on the Pungo Unit. 

y Provide 3,000 annual archery hunting opportunities on the Pungo Unit according to the hunt 

plan. 

y Provide turkey hunting opportunities in coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission. 

y Provide 50 annual night hunting opportunities for raccoon and opossum by permit on the 

entire refuge except the Pungo Unit. 

y Sponsor one youth hunt annually. 

y Revise refuge hunting regulation brochure annually. 

y Adapt hunting program based on the biological and cultural carrying capacity. 

y Consider providing black bear hunting opportunities based on the results of the study 

conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at 

Virginia Tech) within five years of the date of this CCP. 

y Increase law enforcement staffing to enforce regulations during hunts. 

Fishing 

Objective: Provide fishing opportunities for 2,000 visits annually. 

Discussion: The refuge currently provides fishing opportunities for 1,500 visits annually. This CCP 

provides for an increase in opportunities by developing access to Lake Phelps and hosting one 

fishing event annually to publicize the refuge as a fishing destination. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain boardwalk as a fishing pier. 

y Develop a refuge fishing regulation brochure within five years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop boat ramp on the south side of Lake Phelps within five years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop a cooperative agreement with Pettigrew State Park on boat ramp access to the lake 

within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Conduct one fishing event (such as fishing derby or fishing tourmament for youth) annually. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Environmental Education 

Objective: Provide education opportunities for 3,600 users annually. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain four environmental education facilities (auditorium, indoor classroom, outdoor 

classroom, and field station). 

y Develop and provide eighteen planned environmental education programs annually. 

y Participate in three environmental field days annually. 

y Serve as an outdoor classroom for ten college course single day field trips annually. 

y Utilize partners and volunteers to conduct education programs. 

y Equip and develop the classroom/laboratory facility at the Center for the Sounds for use by 

refuge staff and local teachers within five years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop a plan for use of the outdoor classroom facility along the interpretive boardwalk and 

equip the facility within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Continue existing and develop new programs in cooperation with the Partnership for the 

Sounds, Eastern North Carolina 4H Environmental Education Center, Tyrrell County Board of 

Education, Pocosin Arts Center, Pettigrew State Park, North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, and North Carolina Museum of Natural Science. 

Interpretation 

Objective: Provide interpretation opportunities for 400,000 visitors annually. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct ten tours of the refuge by request annually. 

y Relocate the Kuralt trail kiosk to the new northwest Pungo Lake observation platform. 

y Develop and maintain a trail and universally accessible observation platform and boardwalk 

on the northwest side of Pungo Lake within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop two kiosks at the Millennium Forest and Northern Road within the 15-year life of this 

CCP. 

y Maintain seven information kiosks. 

y Maintain the refuge web site. 

y Maintain Scuppernong River interpretive boardwalk and trail. 

y Develop additional and replacement exhibits for the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds as 

needed. 

y Increase the amount of exhibit space in the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds within five 

years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop three videos over the 15-year life of this CCP and utilize the refuge videos as 

interpretive tools. 

y Develop brochures on the refuge, wildlife, interpretive boardwalk, refuge trails, refuge native 

plants, Pungo auto tour route, and the Millennium Forest Trail within ten years of the date of 

this CCP or within two years of facility development. 

y Revise one of the eight refuge brochures (refuge, refuge trails, refuge native plants, Pungo 

auto tour route, Millennium Forest Trail, wildlife brochure, interpretive boardwalk) annually. 

y In cooperation with the Red Wolf Coalition, develop a captive red wolf viewing facility within 

ten years of the date of this CCP. 
86 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

y Develop Millennium Forest Access Trail with signs within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Maintain Millennium Forest Trail and parking lot. 

y Develop a new trail and interpretive boardwalk through the pocosin off of Northern Road 

within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop interpretive material for a new trail and interpretive boardwalk through the pocosin off 

of Northern Road within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Explore the possibility of developing a Vistor Contact Station for the Pungo Unit to be staffed 

by volunteers. 

Wildlife Observation 

Objective: Provide wildlife observation opportunities for 50,000 users annually. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain the southeast Pungo Lake observation platform to facilitate observation. 

y Develop and maintain a trail and universally accessible observation platform and boardwalk 

on the northwest side of Pungo Lake within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Convert and maintain the fire tower on Allen Road to an observation tower within five years of 

the date of this CCP. 

y Provide Kuralt Trail information to encourage use of auto tour route for observation. 

y Develop and maintain a universally accessible boardwalk trail along Northern Road within five 

years of the date of this CCP. 

y Promote the wildlife observation opportunities from the water on the Scuppernong River and 

Northwest Fork of the Alligator River within five years of the date of this CCP. Partner with 

Pettigrew State Park, which is actively purchasing property along the river. 

Wildlife Photography 

Objective: Provide wildlife photography opportunities for 1,500 users annually. 

Strategies: 

y Develop and maintain one photo-blind on north Pungo Lake within ten years of the date of this 

CCP. 

y Maintain interpretive boardwalk and biking trail to facilitate photography continuously. 

y Develop and maintain a trail and observation platform and boardwalk on the northwest side of 

Pungo Lake within five years of the date of this CCP. 

y Convert and maintain the fire tower on Allen Road to an observation tower within five years of 

the date of this CCP. 

y Develop and maintain a universally accessible boardwalk trail along Northern Road within five 

years of the date of this CCP. 

y Provide Kuralt Trail information to encourage use of auto tour route for photography. 

y Develop a brochure for the Pungo auto tour route within three years of the date of this CCP. 

y Develop and maintain one canoe trail and associated signage and wildlife checklists within 

five years of the date of this CCP. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

Outreach 

Objective: Target outreach efforts for an audience of 16 million people in the Atlantic Coast states 

from New York to Georgia. 

Strategies: 

y Participate in Swan Days, Wings over Water, Scuppernong River Festival, Farm City Days, 

International Migratory Bird Day, and the North Carolina State Fair annually. 

y Develop a refuge-based wildlife festival and conduct it annually. 

y Make six presentations to local organizations annually. 

y Develop twelve news releases annually. 

y Develop one traveling refuge exhibit within ten years of the date of this CCP. 

y Conduct an open house every year in conjunction with the Scuppernong River Festival. 

y Develop three videos over fifteen years and utilize the refuge videos as outreach tools. 

Reptile and Amphibian Collection and Harvest 

Objective: Allow collection and harvest of reptiles and amphibians if populations will allow collection 

and harvest. 

Discussion: The refuge does not currently permit collection or harvest of reptiles or amphibians. 

There is traditional use of reptiles and amphibians in the local diet. The actual population size of 

frogs on the refuge is unknown but appears to be plentiful based on staff observations. They tend to 

be concentrated in ephemeral ponds and wet areas. 

Strategies: 

y Permit harvest of bullfrogs or southern leopard frogs by gigging at specified locations under 

special use permits. 

y Permit no collection of turtles, snakes, lizards, toads, salamanders, and other frog species. 

Refuge Support 

Objective: Develop and maintain local support for refuge programs. 

Strategies: 

y Develop a Friends Group to support refuge programs. 

y Work with the Partnership for the Sounds to promote nature-based tourism and public use in 

the region as an economic development strategy with refuges and other conservation lands 

providing the natural resource base. 

y Work with the Red Wolf Coalition to support the red wolf program, the Pocosin Arts Center to 

support restoration efforts on the refuge, and the Conservation Fund to support land 

acquisition and restoration. 
88 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Cultural Resources 

Objective: Avoid all impacts to cultural resources by coordinating with the Regional Office. 

Discussion: The refuge staff currently protects known cultural resource sites and coordinates with the 

Regional Archaeologist when construction is planned. 

Strategies: 

y Evaluate all proposed projects and coordinate with the Regional Office before beginning a project. 

y Protect identified cultural resource sites. 

Interagency Coordination and Cooperative Agreements 

Objective: Facilitate and enhance refuge programs and protect refuge resources by coordinating with 

State, Federal, local, and public and private agencies. 

Discussion: This CCP provides for a continuation of the current level of coordination with other 

agencies and organizations. As the Service adds staff in specialized areas, such as law enforcement 

and environmental education, that coordination will be more effective since the staff will have 

adequate time to follow up after meetings and comply with the terms of agreements. 

Strategies: 

y Review and revise formal cooperative agreements annually. 

y Coordinate with North Carolina Forest Service and other refuges on wildfire suppression 

activities annually. 

Land Protection 

Objective: Develop land protection plans and acquire land from willing sellers. 

Discussion: The refuge currently owns all the land within its approved acquisition boundary. Due to 

the opportunistic nature of former land acquisition, the refuge boundary is extremely irregular and 

does not extend to highways or other means of access. The nature of the boundary makes habitat 

management and law enforcement very difficult. The Service approved the acquisition boundary 

after the land was acquired and did not include valuable habitat such as red-cockaded woodpecker 

cavity trees and riparian corridors along streams, rivers, lakes, and sounds. An expansion of the 

approved acquisition boundary will give the refuge opportunities to conduct more effective wildlife and 

habitat management and law enforcement, and protect important habitat. 

Strategy:

y Develop minor expansion proposals and land protection plans to protect important habitat and 

facilitate habitat management and law enforcement. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Law Enforcement 

Objective: Ensure public safety and protect refuge resources by enforcing refuge regulations. 

Discussion: The refuge currently enforces regulations with a dual function law enforcement officer, 

the refuge manager, and assistance from the full-time officer at Mattamuskeet National Wildlife 

Refuge. The plan provides for the hiring of two full-time officers for the refuge who will substantially 

increase law enforcement visibility, protect visitors, and assist in conducting a safe hunting program. 

Strategies: 

y Post boundaries according to Service policy. 

y Double the amount of regular law enforcement patrols. 

y Implement a law enforcement outreach program. 

y Provide assistance to and coordinate with appropriate State, Federal, and local law 

enforcement agencies to facilitate compliance with their laws. 

y Develop written agreements with and improve cooperation with law enforcement agencies. 

Permits 

Objective: Protect refuge resources by evaluating use proposals on a case-by-case basis, 

developing conditions for the permits, and monitoring compliance with the conditions. 

Discussion: The refuge staff currently has the capacity to review 40 proposals for use of the refuge 

annually. With an increased visibility of the refuge, the staff anticipates an increased number of 

proposals. Part of the duties of the increased staff proposed in this CCP will be the evaluation of 

proposals, development of conditions of the permits, and monitoring compliance with the conditions. 

Strategies: 

y Limit impacts to refuge resources by evaluating up to 80 use proposals per year on a case-bycase basis. 

y Protect refuge resources by developing special conditions for those permitted uses that are 

compatible. 

y Develop standardized special conditions where possible. 

y Monitor permitted activities to ensure compliance and assess the effect of the use on the 

environment. 

Pest Animals 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by monitoring, controlling, or eradicating pest animals 

as necessary. 

Discussion: This CCP proposes to continue the current management. Red wolves currently seem to 

be controling the exotic nutria that damage herbaceous plant communities on the refuge. Feral hogs 

are numerous in the Frying Pan unit, are expanding to other areas on the refuge, and are causing 

significant damage. The refuge staff will maintain vigilance of nutria, feral hogs, coyotes, and other 

selected species that have an impact on refuge resources. As resources become available, staff will 

control the pests as necessary and evaluate the effectiveness of control measures. 
90 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Develop a Pest Animal Control Plan within five years of the date of this CCP. 

y Train the staff to be aware of pest animals and report their occurrence. 

y Monitor selected pest animals on a systematic basis. 

y Implement pest animal control measures with refuge staff, contractors, volunteers, and permit 

holders. 

y Evaluate the effectiveness of control measures. 

Pest Plants 

Objective: Improve plant communities and limit impacts to refuge resources by monitoring, 

controlling, or eradicating pest plants as necessary. 

Discussion: The plan proposes to continue the current management. Phragmites and alligatorweed 

are the most dominant pest plants on the refuge, but others, such as sesbania, Japanese stiltgrass, 

Chinese privet, and Japanese honeysuckle, are highly visible. The refuge staff will maintain vigilance 

of the dominant species that have an impact on refuge resources. Pests will be controlled as 

necessary and the staff will evaluate the effectiveness of control measures. 

Strategies: 

y Develop and implement a Pest Plant Control Plan within five years of the date of this CCP. 

Include specific strategies for controlling phragmites and alligatorweed. 

y Develop a cooperative agreement with the State of North Carolina and other agencies and 

organizations to control alligatorweed in waterways through and adjacent to the refuge. 

y Train the staff to be aware of pest plants and report their occurrence. 

y Monitor selected pest plants on a systematic basis. 

y Implement early detection and rapid response pest plant control measures with refuge staff, 

contractors, and cooperating agencies and organizations. 

y Evaluate the effectiveness of control measures. 

Significant Natural Heritage Areas 

Objective: Limit impacts to the area to retain its natural character. 

Discussion: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has recognized the nature of the vegetative 

communities on the refuge by designating most of the refuge as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. The 

Service has signed a non-binding agreement with the State of North Carolina to manage the areas to 

retain its natural character. The plan continues the current management. The primary management tool 

on the refuge is prescribed fire. The refuge staff establishes the fire frequency to mimic the natural fire 

cycle. The restoration of hydrology will not only maintain the existing vegetative communities, but also 

will ensure their long-term sustainability and facilitate fire management. 

Strategies: 

y Limit impacts to the area to retain the natural character of the area. 

y Revise the fire management plan with fire frequencies on Significant Natural Heritage Areas 

established to mimic natural fire cycles. 

y Manage wildfires and prescribed burning as specified in the fire management plan. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

y Implement a prescribed burning program as data becomes available to guide the program and 

as hydrology is restored. 

y Review the fire management plan and update it to adapt the plan based on the results of 

prescribed fires on the refuge and research being conducted in pocosin habitats. 

y Restore hydrology on the refuge. 

Water Quality 

Objective: Manage the refuge to maintain and monitor water quality. 

Discussion: The Service manages the refuge with little disturbance that would cause erosion and 

sedimentation and few pesticides and nutrients that would pollute water. Cooperative farmers and 

refuge staff use pesticides and fertilizers according to pesticide labels and crop management plans. 

This CCP continues the current management and implements monthly monitoring. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor water quality in selected lakes, canals, and at pump stations quarterly. 

y Cooperate with other agencies and organizations performing water quality sampling on the 

refuge. 

Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by coordinating with Federal, State, and local agencies 

as necessary to monitor and control wildlife disease. 

Discussion: The refuge has not experienced any large-scale wildlife disease outbreaks in the past. With 

high concentrations of wintering waterfowl, the possibility exists that any disease organism that enters the 

wintering population could become a problem. Other wildlife species, such as raccoons and foxes, could 

contract rabies or other canine diseases. The plan continues the current management of training staff, 

maintaining vigilance, and cooperating with agencies and organizations. 

Strategies: 

y Train refuge staff to recognize clinical signs of wildlife diseases and exercise vigilance of 

wildlife disease. 

y Coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies as necessary to monitor and control 

wildlife disease. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

General Administration 

Objective: Obtain resources to meet requirements of budgets, such as making purchases, reporting 

progress, administering travel, maintaining filing system, maintaining computer systems, responding 

to information requests, developing and revising plans, performing compatibility determinations, and 

maintaining relationships with the public, local government officials, and congressional delegations. 
92 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Manage budgets, request funding from various sources, make purchases, report progress, 

and administer travel. 

y Manage filing, computer systems, and databases. 

y Respond to information requests. 

y Develop and revise plans and perform compatibility determinations. 

y Maintain relationships with the public, local government officials, and congressional delegations. 

Capital Property Management 

Objective: Obtain resources to operate, effectively maintain, and dispose of capital property. 

Discussion: The plan improves on the current management by providing for acquisition of all the 

equipment necessary to support refuge programs and replace equipment frequently enough to 

maximize the efficiency of refuge operations. 

Strategies: 

y Acquire minimum equipment necessary to support refuge programs. 

y Conduct a capital property inventory annually. 

y Maintain adequate administrative records on capital and non-capitalized property. 

y Evaluate the operating condition of capital property. 

y Maintain and upgrade capital and non-capital property to ensure safety of staff and the 

general public. 

Columbia Office and Visitor Center 

Objective: Operate and maintain the office space to ensure efficiency of operation, the safety of the 

staff and the public, and an aesthetically pleasing appearance. 

Discussion: The plan improves on the current management by staffing the receptionist and 

maintenance worker functions at the office and visitor center with permanent full-time positions and 

staffing the visitor center full time. 

Strategies: 

y Handle office reception duties with a permanent full-time receptionist. 

y Maintain the visitor center and operate it a minimum of 40 hours per week in cooperation with 

the Partnership for the Sounds and volunteers. 

y Utilize permanent full-time staff for maintenance of the office and visitor center. 

Pungo, Lake Phelps, and Columbia Shop Facilities 

Objective: Operate and maintain the existing field station, house, and workspace in an adequate 

condition to ensure efficiency of operation and the comfort and safety of the staff and the public. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

Discussion: The refuge was originally the 12,500-acre Pungo National Wildlife Refuge that is now 

known as the Pungo Unit in the southwest corner of the existing 110,106-acre refuge. The shop 

facility established to manage the Pungo National Wildlife Refuge is not centrally located to serve the 

entire refuge. Due to the wetland nature of the refuge, construction of a new shop facility in the 

current center of the refuge is not possible. The plan provides for the construction of a new additional 

shop facility near Columbia from which staff could serve the northern and eastern part of the refuge. 

There is a former refuge residence on the shore of Lake Phelps now called the Field Station. Interns, 

volunteers, and emergency firefighters use it as a residence. The building must be maintained to 

provide safe housing for these important personnel. The old office and a small residence (occupied 

by a resident with deeded life-time use of the house and yard) are located next to the Field Station. 

Strategies: 

y Construct a new maintenance facility near Columbia. 

y Replace the old office building on Lake Phelps with a residential building for use by interns, 

volunteers, and emergency firefighters. 

y Take over maintenance and make necessary repairs to small residence on Shore Drive 

between Field Station and old office when the life-time occupant vacates and use it to provide 

employee housing. 

y Operate and maintain all maintenance and other facilities in an adequate condition to ensure 

efficiency of operation, as well as the comfort and safety of the staff. 

Financial Management 

Objective: Develop budget and develop and administer contracts in accordance with Fish and 

Wildlife Service policy. 

Strategy:

y Manage budgets, request funding from various sources, make purchases, report progress, 

administer travel, and maintain databases in accordance with Fish and Wildlife Service policy. 

Personnel Management 

Objective: Recruit, hire, and manage staff at adequate full-time equivalent levels (FTE) to accomplish 

the highest priority refuge goals and objectives (25 FTEs). 

Discussion: This CCP provides for a moderate increase in staff to implement the proposed goals, 

objectives, and strategies. It also proposes to contract intermittent staff functions. Both the 

increased staff and contract employees will require additional personnel management. Service policy 

prescribes the level of management for evaluation, training, recruiting, and hiring. 

Strategies: 

y Provide staff with professional technical and leadership development training in accordance 

with Service policy. 

y Evaluate and manage performance in accordance with Service policy. 

y Recruit and hire additional staff positions in accordance with Service policy. 
94 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Real Property Management 

Objective: Manage resources to adequately maintain buildings, grounds, firebreaks, roads, bridges, 

structures, and public use facilities in a clean and acceptable condition that protects the health and 

safety of the refuge staff and the public. 

Discussion: The plan improves on the current management by providing for not only the 

maintenance of existing facilities, but also the rehabilitation of refuge roads that severely limit access 

for staff and visitors. 

Strategies: 

y Acquire adequate buildings and structures to support refuge programs, as resources are 

available. 

y Conduct one real property inventory annually. 

y Manage all real property according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 

Volunteer Management 

Objective: Recruit, train, support, and manage volunteers in accordance with Service policy. 

Discussion: The refuge currently utilizes up to 2,500 hours of labor donated by volunteers to maintain 

the refuge, conduct biological surveys, and implement environmental education programs. College 

interns contribute the majority of the labor. The interns live in a refuge residence (the Field Station) 

on Lake Phelps and receive a stipend for food. The refuge has attempted to recruit volunteers from 

the community with limited success. The counties in which the refuge is located are some of the 

poorest in the State and residents with time to contribute are scarce. Area refuges have had a great 

deal of success recruiting workampers who contribute their labor in exchange for a pad for their 

recreational vehicle. This CCP proposes to hire a part-time coordinator to recruit, train, and manage 

volunteers and develop recreational vehicle pads to attract workampers. 

Strategies: 

y Employ a part-time coordinator to support designated refuge programs by recruiting, training, 

and coordinating volunteers to donate 4,000 hours of service annually. 

y Develop two pads at the Field Station for recreational vehicles to attract workamper 

volunteers. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service will implement this CCP utilizing existing staff, facilities, and equipment and by acquiring 

additional staff, facilities, and equipment. The tables below outline the strategies from Chapter IV and 

list the existing and new staff, facilities, and equipment required to implement this CCP. Appendix 

VIII contains details of the new staff, facilities, and equipment as Refuge Operation Needs System 

(RONS) Projects or Maintenance Management System (MMS) Projects. The appendix also includes 

the priorities of those projects. MMS projects were recently converted to the Service Asset 

Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). RONS and MMS project lists represent a snapshot in 

time of a dynamic set of projects and priorities. The refuge staff will implement the strategies 

associated with specific projects as the Service funds those projects. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Table 23. Projects supporting fish and wildlife population strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train two biological technicians 

(RONS 00011, 97001, 00005). 

Protect wildlife. Use existing dual function officer and law 

enforcement officer from Mattamuskeet NWR. 

Recruit, hire, and train one law enforcement officers 

(RONS 97009, 03001). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant manager, 

wildlife biologist, fire management officer, and office 

assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train an assistant manager (RONS 

00006) and an office assistant (RONS 99012). 

Apply for flexible funding and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train two biological technicians 

(RONS 00011, 97001, 00005). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment to 

survey and protect wildlife. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 
96 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 24. Projects supporting habitat strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train two biological technicians 

(RONS 00011, 97001, 00005). 

Conduct prescribed burning. Use existing fire management officer, wildlife 

biologist, forestry technicians, and engineering 

equipment operators. 

Protect habitat. Use existing dual function officer and law 

enforcement officer from Mattamuskeet Refuge. 

Recruit, hire, and train one law enforcement 

officers (RONS 97009, 03001). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, wildlife biologist, fire management 

officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train an assistant manager 

(RONS 00006) and an office assistant (RONS 

99012). 

Apply for flexible funding and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. Recruit, hire, and 

train two biological technicians (RONS 00011, 

97001, 00005) 

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 97

Table 25. Projects supporting public use strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Plan, design, and conduct programs and 

outreach. 

Use existing park ranger (public use) position that 

was recently lost and recruit, hire, and train a park 

ranger (environmental education) (RONS 99012), 

park ranger (volunteer coordinator) (RONS 01001), 

and recreation aid (visitor center). 

Maintain education, interpretation, wildlife 

observation, and photography facilities. 

Use existing maintenance staff and volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, and train two equipment operators and 

one maintenance worker. 

Protect visitors. Use existing dual function officer and law 

enforcement officer from Mattamuskeet Refuge. 

Recruit, hire, and train one law enforcement officer 

(RONS 97009, 03001). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant manager, 

park ranger, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train a new assistant manager 

(RONS 00006) and office assistant (RONS 99012). 

Apply for flexible funding and other grants. Use existing refuge manager, assistant manager, 

wildlife biologist, and park ranger (public use). 

Recruit, hire, and train new park ranger 

(environmental education) (RONS 99012), and 

recreation aid (visitor center). 

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). 
98 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 26. Projects supporting resource protection strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Maintain cooperation with agencies, 

organizations, and permit holders. 

Review permits and develop conditions for 

uses allowed by permits. 

Monitor pest animals and plants and 

permitted uses. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant manager, 

and wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train an assistant manager 

(RONS 00006) and two biological technicians 

(RONS 00011, 97001, 00005). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing maintenance staff and volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, and train two equipment operators, 

and one maintenance worker. 

Enforce regulations. Use existing dual function officer and law 

enforcement officer from Mattamuskeet Refuge. 

Recruit, hire, and train one law enforcement officer 

(RONS 97009, 03001). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant manager, 

fire management officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train an assistant manager 

(RONS 00006) and an office assistant/receptionist 

(RONS 99012). 

Apply for flexible funding and other grants. Use existing refuge manager, assistant manager, 

and wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train an assistant manager 

(RONS 00006) and two biological technicians 

(RONS 00011, 97001, 00005). 

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 99

Table 27. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, assistant manager, fire 

management officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train an assistant manager (RONS 

00006) and an office assistant/receptionist (RONS 

99012). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing maintenance staff. 

Recruit, hire, and train two equipment operators one 

maintenance worker. 

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 

Periodic upgrading of facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility and to support staff and 

management needs. The staff has identified funding and staffing needs for several projects, 

including additional facilities and equipment to support refuge operation and maintenance. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Until recently, the Service had approved a staff of 7.5 full-time equivalent permanent positions for the 

refuge (the park ranger and maintenance mechanic positions were aboloished after becoming 

vacant). There are 7.5 full-time equivalent positions 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 more staff. The proposed 

staffing plan (Table 28) would enable the refuge to achieve the plan objectives and strategies of this CCP 

within a reasonable time. The annual cost (including salaries and benefits) would be $2,151,000. 
100 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 28. Proposed staff for the Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Position Program Employment Status 

Management Staff 

Project Leader (GS-0485-13)* Refuge PFT 

Deputy Project Leader (GS-0485-12)* Refuge PFT 

Assistant Manager (Restoration) (GS-0485-9)** Refuge PFT 

Office Assistant (GS-0303-07)* 50% Refuge 

50% Fire 

PFT 

Office Assistant/Receptionist (GS-0303-04)** Refuge PFT 

Biological Staff 

Wildlife Biologist (GS-0486-11)* Refuge PFT 

Biological Technician (GS-0404-9)** Refuge PFT 

Biological Technician (GS-0404-7)** Refuge PFT 

Visitor Service Staff 

Park Ranger (GS-0025-09)* Refuge PFT 

Park Ranger (Environmental Education)(GS-0025-07)** Refuge PFT 

Refuge Aid (Visitor Center)(GS-0189-03)** Refuge PFT 

Maintenance Staff 

Crane Operator (WG-5725-09)* Refuge PFT 

Maintenance Mechanic (WG-5716-08)* Refuge PFT 

Equipment Operator (WG-5716-08)* Refuge PFT 

Equipment Operator (WG-5716-09)** Refuge PFT 

Equipment Operator (WG-5716-09)** Refuge PFT 

Maintenance Worker (WG-5716-08)** Refuge PFT 

Law Enforcement Staff 

Law Enforcement Officer (GS-0025-9)** Refuge PFT 

Fire Management Staff 

Fire Management Specialist (GS-0401-11)* Fire PFT 

Equipment Operator (Fire) (WG-5716-08)* Fire PFT 

Equipment Operator (Fire) (WG-5716-08)* Fire PFT 

Equipment Operator (Fire) (WG-5716-08)* Fire PFT 

Forestry Technician (Fire) (GS-0462-06)* Fire PFT 

Forestry Technician (Fire) (GS-0462-05)* Fire PFT 

Forestry Technician (Fire) (GS-0462-04)* Fire PFT 

* Existing Positions, ** Proposed Additional Positions 

PFT = permanent full time, TFT = temporary full time, PS = permanent seasonal 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

VOLUNTEERS 

The refuge currently uses 2,000 hours of volunteer service annually. College interns contribute the 

majority of the volunteer service. The interns reside at the field station on Lake Phelps and receive a 

stipend for their meals. The plan projects an increase of volunteer service to 4,000 hours. The 

refuge will increase recruiting of college interns and volunteers from the community. The refuge will 

also construct pads for recreational vehicles to facilitate the recruitment of workampers, who 

volunteer on the refuge in exchange for the recreational vehicle pad. 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this CCP is to establish partnerships with local volunteers, landowners, private 

organizations, and State and Federal natural resource agencies. In the immediate vicinity of the 

refuge, opportunities exist to establish partnerships with sporting clubs, elementary and secondary 

schools, and community organizations. At regional and State levels, the Service might establish 

partnerships with organizations such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North 

Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Partnership for the 

Sounds, North Carolina Coastal Reserve Program, Pettigrew State Park, National Audubon Society, 

and the National Wildlife Federation. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. 

Before the refuge staff can implement some of the strategies and projects, it 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 plans will 

be developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the 

identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to their 

implementation. 

Habitat Management Plan (Develop). This plan will describe the overall desired future habitat 

conditions needed to fulfill refuge purpose and objectives. The plan will include sections on 

management for moist-soil and water-management units, forest habitat, croplands, and other habitat 

types. The staff will develop the procedures, techniques, and timetables for achieving desired future 

conditions into an overall plan. 

Moist Soil/Water Management Section of Habitat 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. 

Forest Habitat Section of Habitat Management Plan (Develop). This plan will describe strategies 

for meeting refuge forest management objectives. It will include direction on reforestation, stand 

improvement, and harvest. Also, the plan will address scrub/shrub habitat management. 

Fire Management Plan (Update). This plan will describe wild and prescribed fire management 

techniques that the refuge will employ. Wildfire control descriptions will include initial attack 

strategies and cooperative agreements with other agencies. 
102 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan (Develop). This plan will describe inventory and monitoring 

techniques and time frames. The refuge staff will inventory all plant communities and associations in 

the refuge; all trust species (migratory birds, including songbirds, neotropical passerines, and 

waterfowl); listed species (Federal and State threatened, endangered, and species of concern); and 

key resident species. It will monitor population trends. These data are essential to guide wildlife 

habitat management. 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (Develop and Update). 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). This plan will 

include nutria and feral hog control. 

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. 

Visitor Services Plan (Develop). This plan will describe the refuge’s wildlife-dependent recreation 

programs. It will address specific issues or items, such as facility requirements, site plans, and 

handicapped accessibility. The environmental education and interpretation, fishing, hunting, and sign 

plans will be sections of this plan. 

Environmental Education Section of Visitor Services Plan (Develop). This plan will reflect the 

objectives and strategies of the CCP and address environmental education guidelines following 

Service standards. 

Fishing Section of Visitor Services Plan (Update). This plan will address specific aspects of the 

refuge’s fishing program. It will define fishing areas, methods, handicapped accessibility, facilities 

needed, and refuge-specific regulations. 

Hunting Section of Visitor Services Plan (Update). This plan will address specific aspects of the 

refuge’s hunting program. It will define species to be hunted, season structures, hunt areas, 

methods, all-terrain vehicle use, handicapped accessibility, facilities needed, and refuge-specific 

hunting regulations. 

Sign Section of Visitor Services Plan (Update). This plan will describe the refuge’s strategy for 

informing visitors via signage. It will incorporate Service guidelines. 

Law Enforcement Plan (Develop). This plan will provide a reference to station policies, procedures, 

priorities, and programs concerning law enforcement. 

Land Protection Plan (Develop). This plan will propose to expand the boundaries of the approved 

acquisition boundaries to include land between irregular boundaries and roads, and important 

habitats (red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and riparian areas). The plan will facilitate habitat 

management (prescribed fire and water), law enforcement, and the protection of important habitats. 

As stated earlier in the plan, no acquisition boundary was identified when the refuge was established. 

 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

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 

implemented within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions and 

assumptions outlined within a CCP. 

To apply adaptive management, the staff would adopt specific survey, inventory, and monitoring 

protocols for the refuge. It would evaluate habitat management strategies systematically to 

determine management effects on wildlife populations, and utilize 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 non-target species and/or communities, then the refuge 

would alter management projects. Subsequently, the staff would revise this CCP. 

The Service would describe specific monitoring and evaluation activities in the step-down 

management plans.
104 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 105

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 mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

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 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. 
106 Pocosin Lakes 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 action in which no property right is 

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 107

Environmental Health It is the composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, 

and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, 

including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment. 

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 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 and supported by an environmental 

assessment that briefly presents why a federal action will have 

no significant effect on the human environment and for which an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared. 

Floodplain Woods Bottomland Hardwood Forests. Consists of hardwoods (old 

growth and mid-succession age timber) and cypress tupelo 

stands found on low ridges that drain slowly and are subject to 

flooding. Species include overcup, willow, water oaks, 

sweetgum, and green ash, and old growth - typically exceeding 

120 years of age. Red oaks were removed in the 1940s. Midsuccession - logged timber that may need restoration to improve 

wildlife habitat; missing several key oak species. 
108 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

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 These are the composition, structure, and functioning of 

ecosystems resulting from natural processes that we believe, 

based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to 

substantial human-related changes to the landscape. 

Habitat The place where an organism lives. The existing environmental 

conditions required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. 

Indicator Species A species of plants or animals that is assumed to be sensitive to 

habitat changes and represents the needs of a larger group of 

species. 

In-holding 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. 

National Environmental Policy Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the 

planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate 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. 
Appendices 109

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 An objective is 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 This is the alternative determined by the decision maker to best 

achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. 

Purpose of the Refuge The purpose of the refuge is 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 and refuge unit. 

Refuge Operating Needs System This is a national database that contains the unfunded 

operational needs of each refuge. Projects included are those 

required to implement approved plans and meet goals, 

objectives, and legal mandates. 

Refuge Purposes 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. 
110 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Seral Forest A forest in the mature stage of development, usually dominated 

by large, old trees. 

Sink A habitat in which local mortality exceeds local reproductive 

success for a given species. 

Sink Population A population in a low-quality habitat in which birth rate is 

generally less than the death rate and population density is 

maintained by immigrants from source populations. 

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 the habitat elements 

required by migrants for long-term survival or reproduction. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are the six priority 

general public uses of the system. 
Appendices 111

Appendix II. References and Literature Cited 

Barick, F.B. and T.S. Critcher. 1975. Wildlife and land use planning with particular reference to 

coastal counties. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC. 168 pp. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Stackhole Books, 

Harrisburg, PA. 544 pp. 

Buell, M.F., and R.L. Cain. 1943. The successional role of white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) 

in southeastern North Carolina. Ecology 24:85-93 

Chapman, J. A., G. A Feldhamer. 1987. Wild Mammals of North America. p. 1059 – 1076. 

The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. 

Christensen, N. L. 1981. Fire regimes in southeastern ecosystems. p. 112-136.In: H. A. Mooney 

et al. (eds). Fire regimes and ecosystem properties. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report. WO-26, Washington, DC. 

Christensen, N. L., R. B. Burchell, A. Liggett, and E. L. Simms. 1981. The structure and 

development of pocosin vegetation. p. 43-61. In: C. J. Richardson (ed.). Pocosin wetlands: 

an integrated analysis of Coastal Plain freshwater bogs in North Carolina. 

Hutchinson Ross. Stroudsburg, PA. 

Christopher Newport University. 1997. Proceedings of Symposium: Atlantic white cedar: ecology 

and management. Aug. 6-7, 1997, Newport News, VA. 

Collins, J. 2005. Tent Caterpillars. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, 

Department of Entomology. Accessed website on October 5, 2005. 

www.uky.edu/agriculture/entomology/entfacts/trees/ef424.htm. 

Cowardin, L. et. al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pgs. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. Laroe. 1995. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological 

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. 

Davis, K. N. ,B. Henderson and S. Daniels. 1997. Inventory of Atlantic white-cedar remnant stands 

in North Carolina. U. S. Air Force, BPA No. F31610-95-AV026 

Dolman, J. D. and S. W. Buol. 1968. Organic soils on the Lower Coastal Plain of North Carolina. 

Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 32: 414-418. 

Drayton, E. R. III and D. D. Hook. 1988. Water management of a baldcypress-tupelo wetland for 

timber and wildlife. p. 54-58. In: D. D. Hook and R. Lea (eds). Proceedings of Symposium - 

The Forested Wetlands of the Southeastern United States, 12-14 July 1988. Orlando, FL 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Clemson University, North Carolina State University, 

The Man and the Biosphere Program. 
112 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Eubanks, Ted, Paul 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. 

Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowen and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and trends of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States: 1950's to 1970's. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 32pp. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1988. Waterfowl Use of Forested Wetlands of the Southern 

United States: An Overview. Pages 307-323 in M.W. Weller, editor. Waterfowl in Winter. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Frost, C.C. 1987. Historical overview of Atlantic white cedar in the Carolinas. p. 257-264. In: A. D. 

Laderman (ed). Atlantic white cedar wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 

Frost, C. C. 1995. Presettlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. p. 

39-60. In: S. I. Cerulean and R. T. Engstrom (eds). Fire in wetlands: a management 

perspective. Proceedings 19th Tall Timbers Research Conference, Tall Timbers Research 

Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Frost, C. C., H. E. LeGrand, Jr., and R. E. Schneider. 1992. Regional inventory for critical natural 

areas, wetland ecosystems and endangered species habitats of the Albemarle-Pamlico 

estuarine region : phase 1. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and 

Recreation; Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 

Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study No. 90-01. 441 pp. 

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature 

Conservancy and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

Atlanta, Georgia. 

Hefner, J.H. and J.D. Brown. 1984. Wetland trends in the southeastern United States. 

Wetlands 4:1-11. 

Hinesley, L.E. 1999. Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Forest Habitat Management Plan. 

North Carolina State University. 80 pp. 

Hinesley , L. E. and A. M. Wicker. 1996. Atlantic white cedar wetland restoration project, Pocosin Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge: report for 1st year of 319 Demonstration Project. North Carolina State 

University., Raleigh, NC, and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC. 30 pp. 

Hinesley , L. E. and A. M. Wicker. 1997. Atlantic white cedar wetland restoration project, Pocosin 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge: report for 2nd year of 319 Demonstration Project. North 

Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC. 38 pp. 

Hinesley , L. E. and A. M. Wicker. 1998. Atlantic white cedar wetland restoration project, Pocosin 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge: report for 3rd year of 319 Demonstration Project. North 

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Raleigh. NC, 16 pp. 
Appendices 113

Hinesley, L. E. and A. M. Wicker. 1999. Atlantic white cedar wetland restoration project, Pocosin 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge: report for 4th year of 319 Demonstration Project. North 

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC. 17 pp. 

Hinesley, L. E., L. K. Snelling, G. A. Pierce, and A. M. Wicker. 1998. Effect of peat amendments, 

shade and seedling size on growth of Atlantic white cedar transplants. Southern Journal of 

Applied Forestry 23: 5-10. 

Hinesley, L. E. , L. K. Snelling, G. A. Pierce, and A. M. Wicker. In press. Effect of peat amendments, 

shade and seedling size on growth of Atlantic white cedar transplants. 

Southern Journal of Appled Forestry. 

Hughes, J. 1995. Weyerhaeuser Company is helping with the effort to restore Atlantic white cedar in 

coastal North Carolina. Paper presented at workshop titled Current Developments with 

White-cedar Management. Sponsored by North Carolina Forest Service, Aug. 1-3, 1995. 

Washington, NC No published proceedings. 

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. 

Hunter, W.C., L.H. Peoples, and J.A. Collazo. 2001. South Atlantic Coastal Plain Partners in Flight 

Bird Conservation Plan. 

Kerlinger, P. 1994. The Economic Impact of Birding Ecotourism on Communities Surrounding Eight 

National Wildlife Refuges. 

Kerlinger, P. 1999. Birding Tourism and Dauphin Island. 

Kologiski, R. 1977. The phytosociology of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. North Carolina 

Agricultural Experiment Station technical Bulletin No. 250. 

LeGrand, Jr., H. E., C. C. Frost, J. O. Fussell, III. 1992. Regional inventory for critical natural areas, 

wetland ecosystems and endangered species habitats of the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine 

region: phase 2. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, 

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 

Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study No. 92-07, 506 pp. 

Lynch, J. M. and S. L. Peacock. 1982a. Natural areas inventory of Hyde County, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program Rpt. No. 28. 

Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC. 

Lynch, J. M. and S. L. Peacock. 1982b. Natural areas inventory of Washington County, North 

Carolina. North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program Report No. 30. 

Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC. 

Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow. 2000. The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium. 

Matoon, W. R. 1915. Southern cypress. USDA Bulletin 272. 74 pp. 
114 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

McDonald, C. B. and A. M. Ash. 1981. Natural areas inventory of Tyrrell County, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program Report No. 8. Department of Natural 

Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC. 

McManus, M., N. Schneeberger, R. Reardon, G. Mason,. 1989, revised 1992. Forest Insect and 

Disease Leaflet. USDA, United States Forest Service. Accessed website on 10/5/2005. 

www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/fidls/gypsymoth/gypsy.htm. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 

New York, New York. 722 pp. 

National Audubon Society. 1998. Campaign on HR 3267. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2000. Wildlife-Associated Recreation 

on the New Jersey Delaware Bayshore. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2002. Largest Employers by County. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2004. Unemployment Rates by County. 

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 2001. North Carolina Coastal Plain 

Paddle Trails Guide. 

Odum, H. T. 1984. Summary: cypress swamps and their regional role. p. 416-443. In: C. E. 

Katherine and H. T. Odum (eds). 1984. Cypress swamps. University Presses of Florida, 

Gainsville, FL. 

Pinchot, G. and W. W. Ashe. 1897. Timber trees and forests of North Carolina. M. I. & J. C. 

Stewart, North Carolina Geological Survey Bulletin No. 6, 227 pp. 

Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. 

The University of North Carolina Press, Chapell Hill, NC, 1183 pp. 

Richardson, C. J. 1991. Pocosins: An ecological perspective. Wetlands 11: 335-354. 

Richardson, C. J., R. Evans, and D. Carr. 1981. Pocosins: an ecosystem in transition. p. 3-19. In: 

 C. J. Richardson (ed). Pocosin wetlands: an integrated analysis of coastal plain freshwater 

bogs in North Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg, PA. 

Riggs, S.R. and D.K. Belknap. 1988. Upper Cenozoic processes and environments of continental 

margin sedimentation: eastern United States, p. 131-176 in Sheridan, R.E., and J.A. Graw, 

eds. The Geology of North America, Vol. 1-2, the Atlantic Continental Margin, 

U.S. Geological Society of America. 

Robison, T.M. 1977. Public water supplies of North Carolina, Northern Coastal Plain. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, pp. 49-50. 

Roman, C. T., R. E. Good, and S. Little. 1990. Ecology of Atlantic white cedar swamps in the New 

Jersey pinelands. p. 163-173. In: D. F. Whigham, R. E. Good, J. Kvet, and N. F. Good 

(eds). Wetland ecology and management: case studies. (Tasks for vegetation science 25). 

Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. 
Appendices 115

Ruffin, E. 1839. “Jottings Down in the swamps”. Farmers Register III: 698-733. 

Edmund Ruffin, Publisher, Petersburg, VA. 

Ruffin, E. 1861. The origin and manner of geological formation of the great swamps of the Atlantic 

Coast. p. 155-249. In: Agricultural, geological and descriptive sketches of lower North 

Carolina and the similar adjacent lands. North Carolina Agricultural and Geological Survey, 

Raleigh, NC. Printed at the Institution for the Deaf & Dumb & the Blind, Raleigh, NC. 

Schafale, M.P. and Weakely, A.S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina. 

Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC. 325 pp. 

Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of Phragmites australis into North 

America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 99(4): 2445-2449. 

Tetterton B. and G. Tetterton. (1998) North Carolina County Fact Book. Vols. I and II. 

Broadfoot’s of Wendell, Wendell, NC. 

Townsend, L., Rieske-kinney, L. 2000. Southern Pine Beetle Biology. University of Kentucky, 

College of Agriculture, Department of Entomology. Accessed website on October 5, 2005. 

www.uky.edu/agriculture/entomology/entfacts/trees/ef423.htm. 

Tuedten, S. accessed website on 10/5/2005. The Best Control (second ed). Fire Ant-Factoids. 

Biology and Identification of Fire Ants. www.safe2use.com/pests/fireants/factoids.htm. 

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. 1991. Forest Statistics for North Carolina 

Counties - 1991. Resource Bulletin SE-120, Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. 

Soil Survey of Hyde County, North Carolina. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1988. Soil Survey of Tyrrell County, 

North Carolina. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Soil Survey of Washington County, 

North Carolina. 

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. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General Profile, 

Hyde County, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Economic Census, Hyde County, North 

Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
116 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program. 2000. Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimates for Hyde County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General Profile, 

Tyrrell County, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Economic Census, Tyrrell County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program. 2000. Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimates for Tyrrell County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General Profile, 

Washington County, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Economic Census, Washington 

County, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program. 2000. Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimates for Washington 

County, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: 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, NC. 139 pp. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation - North Carolina.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. 444 pp.

Vogelsang, Hans, 2001. Assessing the Economic Impact of Ecotourism Developments on the 

Albemarle/Pamlico Region.

Weakely, A. S. and M. P. Schafale . 1991. Classification of pocosins of the Carolina coastal plain. 

Wetlands 11: 355-374. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. 

Whitehead, D. R. 1972. Development and environmental history of the Dismal Swamp. 

Ecological Monograph 42: 301-305. 

Whitehead, D. R. and R. Q. Oaks, Jr. 1979. Developmental history of the Dismal Swamp. p. 25-43. 

 In: P. W. Kirk (ed). The Great Dismal Swamp. University Press of Virginia, 

Charlottesville, VA. 
Appendices 117

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 land 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. 

Pocosin Lakes NWR 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 Pocosin Lakes NWR 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. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. 
118 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

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 Refuge 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 conserve 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. 

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. 
Appendices 119

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 with 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 thereunder. 

 

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. 

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 conserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains. 
120 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

Historic Preservation Acts include: 

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 archaeological 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. 

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). 
Appendices 121

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 decisionmaking 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 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 
122 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife 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 in 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 is 

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) 

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 
Appendices 123

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. 

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. 
124 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 125

Appendix IV. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING 

The Service invited these agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in six public 

scoping meetings on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001, in Washington, Swan Quarter, Plymouth, 

Columbia, and Manns Harbor, North Carolina. The staff introduced the audience of 176 citizens to the 

refuge and its planning process and asked them the attendees to identify their issues and concerns. 

The Service published announcements giving the location, date, and time for the public meetings in the 

Federal Register and legal notices in local newspapers. Press releases were also sent to local 

newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio stations. Service personnel 

placed fifty posters announcing the meeting in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The planning teams 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, which was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Pocosin Lakes NWR. 

The objectives were subjects of discussion at a second round of public meetings on April 25 

and 28, 2005, in Plymouth and Columbia, North Carolina. The Service published 

announcements giving the location, date, and time for the public meetings as legal notices in 

local newspapers. Press releases were also sent to local newspapers and public service 

announcements to television and radio stations. Service personnel placed seventy-five posters 

announcing the meetings in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The issues raised at the meetings are on the next pages, followed by worksheets the workshop 

participants completed at each workshop. 

DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSES 

The following summarizes all comments that were received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Pocosin Lakes NWR. Public comments on the 

Draft CCP/EA were accepted from July 11 to August 15, 2007. 

Approximately 70 copies of the Draft CCP/EA were sent out to individuals who placed their name on 

the mailing list during the scoping phase. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were also distributed to the 

Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington County libraries, as well as several individuals who requested a copy. 

Notice of the availability of the Draft CCP/EA and the comment period was sent to five area 

newspapers (Coastland Times, Washington Daily News, Scuppernong Reminder, Roanoke Beacon, 

Virginia Pilot) and posted in the Hyde, Tyrrell, and Washington County libraries and at the Walter B. 

Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds in Columbia, North Carolina. In addition, notification was sent via 

email to all the refuge manager’s contacts, many of whom, in turn, distributed the notification further. 

A total of 12 people submitted comments on the Draft CCP/EA, either in writing or at public forums 

held on July 25 and July 26, 2007. 
126 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

POCOSIN LAKES NWR 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN SCOPING MEETINGS 

FEBRUARY 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 2001 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Wildlife-General Continue surveys. In plan. 

Conduct surveys. In plan. 

Consider non-game species in 

management. 

In plan. 

Share data with other agencies. In plan. 

Wildlife-Invertebrates Investigate the occurrence of 

butterflies. 

In Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Wildlife-Mammals Bear populations too high. Completed black bear study with 

Virginia Tech. Results may justify 

hunting for bear. 

Prevent deer and bear from 

damaging neighbors’ crops. 

Currently conducting population 

survey. Results may justify 

hunting for bear. Deer hunting in 

plan. 

Evaluate deer predation by red 

wolves. 

Being evaluated by red wolf 

recovery team. 

Keep red wolves on the refuge. Not practical. 

Increase cooperation between red 

wolf biologists and private 

landowners. 

Recommendation forwarded to 

Red Wolf Recovery Team. 

Investigate the occurrence of bats. In Alternative 3. 

Wildlife-Reptiles and 

Amphibians 

Evaluate pygmy rattlesnake 

populations. 

Inventory plan fully implemented 

in Alternative 3. 

Wildlife-Waterfowl Control tundra swan and snow 

goose populations that are too 

high. 

Control by hunting is a State 

responsibility in cooperation with 

migratory bird program. 

Increase Tundra swan bag limits 

to control populations. 

Control by hunting is a State 

responsibility in cooperation with 

migratory bird program. 

Increase waterfowl bag limits. Control by hunting is a State 

responsibility in cooperation with 

migratory bird program. 
Appendices 127

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Habitat-General Allow natural species to dominate. Basis of plan. 

Utilize species natural 

requirements to manage habitats. 

Basis of plan. 

Consider natural processes in 

management. 

Basis of plan. 

Cooperate with State to ensure 

that natural processes take place. 

Refuge has no control over State 

activities (fire control, pest control, 

etc.) beyond refuge boundaries. 

Develop restoration objectives 

that enable self-maintenance. 

Basis of plan. 

Cooperate with the State to 

develop cooperative management 

plans. 

State has been involved in plan 

development and will be involved 

in step-down plan development. 

Cooperate with Pettigrew State 

Park to improve water quality in 

Phelps Lake. 

Can manage refuge land to 

improve water quality from refuge 

lands. The refuge cannot affect 

pollution from private land. 

Cooperate with Pettigrew State 

Park to reduce the threat of 

flooding to Tyrrell County. 

Can manage refuge land to 

improve the conveyance of water 

from refuge land to natural 

streams and water 

Create corridors between refuges 

to connect habitat. 

Will be addressed in land 

protection plan. 

Develop and evaluate landscape 

level inter-relationships. 

Will be addressed in land 

protection plan. 

Manage habitats for non-game 

species. 

Refuge managed for all species. 

Create more habitat types across 

the refuge. 

Service policy is to manage 

natural habitats, not create 

artificial habitats. 

Restore hydrology. Basis of plan. 

Restore hydrology for 

anadromous fish. 

Water control structures for 

hydrology restoration will be 

adapted as best as they can for 

fish passage. 
128 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Manage existing water control 

structures. 

Basis of plan. 

Improve water management. Hydrology restoration planned for 

wetlands, pumps and wells 

planned for waterfowl 

management areas. 

Design and install additional water 

control structures. 

Water control structures for 

hydrology restoration are planned. 

Remove roads and ditches that 

are no longer used. 

Current roads and ditches serve 

as firebreaks as much as access 

or drainage conduits. 

 

Establish quail habitat. Potential is minimal in wetland 

habitat. 

Evaluate the use of controlled 

burns to create quail habitat. 

Emphasis in plan is on managing 

natural habitats. 

Plant species that attract wildlife. Potential is minimal in wetland 

habitat. 

Habitat-Cropland Protect cropland adjacent to 

refuge. 

Cropland cannot realistically be 

protected from predation from 

waterfowl. 

Develop cropland in the refuge 

interior to attract wildlife away 

from private land. 

Service policy does not allow for 

converting wetlands to cropland. 

Habitat-Nonriverine Wet 

Hardwood Forest 

Increase hardwood planting. In Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Habitat-Open Water Improve fish habitat in Lake 

Phelps. 

Can manage refuge land to 

improve water quality from refuge 

lands. The refuge cannot affect 

pollution from private land. 

Refuge does partner with 

Pettigrew State Park on fish 

projects. 
Appendices 129

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Public Use-General Cooperate more with partners in 

providing public use opportunities. 

Refuge does cooperate with 

several partners. Cooperation will 

increase if park ranger is rehired. 

Cooperate more with communities 

in providing public use 

opportunities. 

Refuge does cooperate with 

schools and partners from the 

communities. Cooperation will 

increase if park ranger is rehired. 

Make public aware of priority 

public uses. 

New refuge brochure available 

since 2001. 

Consider public comments in 

decision-making. 

Required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act for major 

decisions. 

Revise proposed appropriate use 

policy to eliminate the need for an 

activity not to be possible in the 

area to be appropriate on the 

refuge. 

Appropriate use policy dictated by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

national headquarters. 

Public Use-Hunting Coordinate with state to change 

hunting regulations. 

Coordination on the refuge in 

plan. 

Increase waterfowl bag limits. State responsibility in cooperation 

with migratory bird program. 

Provide access for disabled 

hunters. 

Disabled hunter access is 

provided and covered in stepdown plan. 

Increase law enforcement 

presence during hunting season. 

Full time law enforcement officer 

planned in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Establish safety buffers or nohunting zones adjacent to 

neighbors. 

 Several such buffers have been 

established. 

Public UseEnvironmental Education Educate the public more on the 

effects of management practices. 

Will be incorporated into 

environmental education stepdown plan. 

Educate the public more on 

ecosystem functions across all 

habitats. 

Will be incorporated into 

environmental education stepdown plan. 

Educate the public more on the 

relationship between habitat and 

public use. 

Will be incorporated into 

environmental education stepdown plan. 
130 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Public Use-Interpretation Improve access to view the full 

array of habitats on the refuge. 

Access will improve as funds 

become available to improve 

roads. 

Develop list of plant species 

utilized by migratory birds. 

Will be incorporated into 

interpretation step-down plan; lists 

available in fact sheets and 

books.. 

Public Use-Wildlife 

Observation 

Allow more access for wildlife 

observation. 

Access will improve as funds 

become available to improve 

roads. 

Provide access for disabled 

wildlife observers. 

Not all facilities will be accessible, 

but Scuppernong Trail and Pungo 

Lake platform are accessible. 

Public Use-Access Establish one good north-south 

road and one good east-west 

road. 

Access will improve as funds 

become available to improve 

roads. 

Restrict public access to the 

refuge during hunting season. 

Access not restricted due to use 

for wildlife observation, but users 

urged to be cautious. 

Restrict access to large trucks 

during hunting season. 

Access dependent on road 

condition. 

Public Use-Non-Wildlife 

Dependent Public Use 

Allow horseback riding on existing 

public access roads. 

Horseback riders may apply for 

special use permits. 

Allow uses that are compatible 

with local community objectives. 

Priority is given to the six priority 

public uses. Manager does have 

authority to approve special use 

permits. 

Allow manager to make decisions 

on public use. 

Manager does have authority to 

approve special use permits. 

Public Use-Visitor 

Protection 

Increase visibility of law 

enforcement officers. 

Full time law enforcement officer 

in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Patrol the refuge on weekends. Full time law enforcement officer 

in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Establish a hotline to report 

violations. 

The North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission has a 

hotline. 
Appendices 131

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Resource ProtectionLand Protection Acquire land from willing sellers. In land protection step-down plan. 

Consider corridor development in 

land protection planning. 

In land protection step-down plan. 

Consider uses of and public uses 

on adjacent land in land protection 

plans. 

In land protection step-down plan. 

Resource Protection-Law 

Enforcement 

Increase law enforcement activity. Full time law enforcement officer 

in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Eliminate bear poaching. In plan. 

Establish, monitor, and enforce a 

hunter sign-in area. 

Not practical due to the number of 

hunters, multiple access points, 

and shortage of staff. 

Develop a permit system to 

regulate hunter activity. 

Would not be more effective than 

the current system. 

Require hunter safety card. State hunter safety certification 

adequate. 

Develop a refuge hunter safety 

certification. 

State hunter safety certification 

adequate. 

Make hunters accountable for 

their actions. 

Increased law enforcement should 

enable the refuge to hold more 

hunters accountable. 

Create buffer zone between 

refuge and private property to 

minimize trespass onto private 

property. 

Will be considered in the law 

enforcement step down plan. 

Educate public on their rights 

concerning defense from red wolf 

damage. 

Will be considered in the law 

enforcement step down plan. 

Enforce poaching regulations on 

private lands from refuge rights-ofway. 

Trespassing is the responsibility of 

county law enforcement officials; 

poaching is the responsibility of 

state wildlife officials. 

Resource ProtectionPest Animals Allow trapping to control pest 

animals. 

Trapping will be considered in 

pest animal control step-down 

plan. 
132 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Resource ProtectionWilderness Designate wilderness areas. No wilderness study areas are 

proposed, but certain areas will 

not be managed intensively due to 

site restrictions and the nature 

and condition of the habitat. 

Resource ProtectionWilderness Do not designate wilderness 

areas. 

No wilderness study areas are 

proposed, but certain areas will 

not be managed intensively due to 

site restrictions and the nature 

and condition of the habitat. 

Evaluate the limits on use of 

adjacent land by designating 

wilderness. 

No wilderness study areas are 

proposed, but certain areas will 

not be managed intensively due to 

site restrictions and the nature 

and condition of the habitat. 

Clarify approved uses in 

wilderness to the public before the 

designation. 

No wilderness study areas are 

proposed, but certain areas will 

not be managed intensively due to 

site restrictions and the nature 

and condition of the habitat. 

Consider the impacts of 

wilderness designation on 

prescribed fire. 

Prescribed fire can be designated 

as a minimum management tool. 
Appendices 133

POCOSIN LAKES 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 58% 8% 34% 0%

Shorebird Survey and Management 46% 15% 31% 8%

Land Bird Survey and Management 46% 8% 31% 14%

Reptile/Amphibian Survey and 

Management 

43% 7% 35% 15%

Fish Survey and Management 20% 13% 67% 0%

Endangered Species Survey and 

Management 

35% 14% 43% 8%

Black Bear Management 34% 8% 50% 8%

White-tailed Deer Management 55% 9% 36% 0%

WILDLIFE HABITAT ACTIVITIES 

Water Management 

(Farming, Moist Soil Management) 

30% 20% 40% 10%

Prescribed Burning 50% 10% 10% 30%

Forest Thinning 34% 8% 50% 8%

Mechanical Vegetation Management 

(Mowing, Disking) 

60% 0% 30% 10%

Chemical Vegetation Management 70% 20% 0% 10%

Shoreline Maintenance 50% 17% 25% 8%

Planting, Seeding, Clearing for Habitat 

Improvement 

45% 0% 55% 0%

Habitat Restoration 

(Hydrology, Reforestation) 

29% 7% 64% 0%
134 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

POCOSIN LAKES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PLANNING ISSUES WORKSHEET 

ACTIVITY 

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

Keep the Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

Wildlife Management 36% 0% 64% 0%

Insect and Disease Management 33% 22% 45% 0%

Exotic and Invasive Species Eradication 15% 7% 78% 0%

Special Protection Status (Wilderness) 13% 37% 50% 0%

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES

Fishing 50% 0% 50% 0%

Hunting 50% 13% 37% 0%

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES (Cont’d)

Environmental Education 

(School Students) 

33% 0% 67% 0%

Environmental Education 

(School Teachers) 

35% 0% 65% 0%

Wildlife Interpretation (Formal Programs) 55% 0% 45% 0%

Wildlife Interpretation (Printed Material) 40% 0% 60% 0%

Wildlife Interpretation (Walking Trails) 36% 0% 64% 0%

Wildlife Interpretation (Canoeing Trails) 45% 0% 55% 0%

Wildlife Interpretation (Buildings, Kiosks) 45% 10% 45% 0%

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES 

Wildlife Interpretation 

(Interpretative Signs) 

40% 10% 50% 0%

Wildlife Photography Opportunities 41% 0% 59% 0%

Wildlife Observation Opportunities 45% 0% 55% 0%

Vehicle Parking Lots 63% 0% 37% 0%
Appendices 135

POCOSIN LAKES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PLANNING ISSUES WORKSHEET 

ACTIVITY 

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

Keep the Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

Access for Fishing, Boating, Canoeing 22% 0% 78% 0%

LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Visitor Protection 40% 0% 60% 0%

Wildlife Protection 14% 0% 86% 0%

Trespass Violations 17% 0% 83% 0%

Littering/Dumping Violations 0% 0% 100% 0%

Hunting and Fishing Compliance Checks 20% 0% 80% 0%

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Canal Maintenance 33% 0% 67% 0%

Road and Firebreak Maintenance 50% 0% 50% 0%

Facilities Maintenance (Signs, Buildings) 60% 0% 40% 0%

Dike and Trail Maintenance 40% 0% 60% 0%

Water Control Structures, Pump Stations 40% 0% 60% 0%

Boundary Posting 50% 0% 50% 0%

PUBLIC FORUMS 

During the July 11 – August 15, 2007 public review period, the refuge and planning staffs hosted 

two public forums, one on July 25 at the Vernon James Center (Tidewater Research Station) in 

Washington County and one on July 26 at the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sound (the refuge’s 

visitor center) in Tyrrell County. Each forum began at 5 p.m. and concluded at 7 p.m. The forums 

were an open house style with the refuge staff available to discuss the Draft CCP/EA and refuge 

operations with the attendees. Several posters and an unmanned power point presentation were 

displayed to assist the public in understanding the document. A clipboard with a comment sheet 

was offered to each person to solicit written comments. Refuge staff also collected oral 

comments and transcribed them after the forums. A total of 12 people attended and five offered 

comments during these two public forums. 
136 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

AFFILIATIONS OF RESPONDENTS 

 

The table below identifies the names and affiliations of respondents who commented on the Draft 

CCP/EA, either in writing or at the two public forums. The State of North Carolina has many agencies 

with interests in the Albermarle/Pamlico Peninsula. The refuge has close relationships with those 

agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations that have been instrumental in protecting the 

lands of the peninsula and promoting ecotourism in the area. 

Name of Respondent Affiliation 

Stephen Rynas 

North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources, Division of Coastal 

Management 

Bill Pickens North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources, Forest Service 

Sid Shearin North Carolina State Parks, Pettigrew State Park 

Isaac Harrold North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 

Raleigh, NC 

Andrew Page The Humane Society of the United States, 

Washington, DC 

B. Sachau Concerned Citizen, Florham Park, NJ 

Emily and Blake Scott Star Trak Recording, Washington, NC 

Brian Roth Mayor, Plymouth, NC 

Gus Shad Adjacent landowner and Concerned Citizen, Hyde 

County, NC 

Doris Morris Concerned Citizen, Plymouth, NC 

Marco Gibbs Concerned Citizen, Engelhard, NC 

Frances Armstrong Concerned Citizen, Bath, NC 

The number of affiliations represented in the above table can be summarized as follows: state 

agencies: 4; local government: 1; public citizens (general public): 5; non-governmental organizations: 

1, and businesses: 1. 

Other organizations that were represented at the public forums, but did not provide comments, 

included the Town of Columbia, NC; the Town of Plymouth, NC; Tyrrell County, NC; and the 

Washington County No-OLF group. 

COMMENT MEDIA 

The types of media used to deliver the comments received by the refuge and planning staffs are 

categorized as follows: oral (given at the two public forums): 4; written: 8. 
Appendices 137

GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF RESPONDENTS 

The geographic origins of the individual respondents who submitted comments are North Carolina: 

12; Washington DC: 1; New Jersey: 1. 

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS AND THE SERVICE’S RESPONSES 

The public comments received and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s responses to each are included 

below. 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (Comments submitted by Stephen Rhynas)

Comment 1: 

Response: 

Comment noted. 

Comment 2: 

Response: 

The Federal Consistency Determination for the Pocosin Lakes NWR Draft CCP/EA was submitted to 

the Division of Coastal Management for review on August 23, 2007. The refuge’s review concluded 

with the 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. 
138 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment 3: 

Response: 

It’s unclear to us from this comment how the Pocosin Lakes Draft CCP/EA raises “substantial questions” 

about how the Service is preparing CCPs. It is also unclear to us what questions are raised. 

The staff at Pocosin Lakes NWR is committed to working cooperatively with all State and Federal 

agencies to ensure full compliance with laws, regulations, and policies. The Federal Consistency 

Determination for the Pocosin Lakes NWR Draft CCP/EA was submitted to the Division of Coastal 

Management for review on August 23, 2007. The refuge’s review concluded with the 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. 

The manager at Roanoke River NWR informs us that a Consistency Determination on its Draft 

CCP/EA was sent in August 2005 and CD05-042 was issued on September 6, 2005. The Roanoke 

River NWR refuge manager can be reached at 252/794-3808 for more information on that CCP. 

Comment 4: 

Response: 

The Federal Consistency Determination for the Pocosin Lakes NWR Draft CCP/EA was submitted to 

the Division of Coastal Management for review on August 23, 2007. The refuge’s review concluded 

with the 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. 
Appendices 139

We have confirmed that Division of Coastal Management Federal Consistency Division is included with 

the mailing addresses to receive, upon completion, a copy of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Pocosin Lakes NWR, to include this appendix addressing all comments received. 

Comment 5: 

Response: 

At this point, the Navy has not completed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

(Draft SEIS) for the Outlying Landing Field (OLF) site and therefore has not made a final decision on 

the location of the proposed OLF. Recent congressional actions seem to be moving towards 

rescinding authorization and appropriations for an OLF at Site C (the one near the refuge). In 

addition, the Navy is reportedly looking at alternative sites suggested by officials in Virginia and North 

Carolina. Therefore, it is far from certain that an OLF will be established near the refuge and thus 

detailed planning for an OLF seems to be premature. 

At the request of the Navy, the Service assisted with the development of the Draft SEIS as a 

Cooperating Agency. The Navy concluded in its Draft SEIS that the impact of an OLF at Site C on 

waterfowl at Pocosin Lakes NWR would be relatively minor. The Service disagrees with this 

conclusion and believes the potential for substantial negative impacts to be higher than does the 

Navy. Since we do not know exactly how the OLF will affect how the birds use the refuge, we will 

have to take an adaptive approach to managing the situation if it occurs. The CCP is a general 

planning document that establishes broad goals and objectives and general direction for 

management of the refuge. As a result of the CCP, there will be a number of step-down plans written 

for the purpose of achieving those broad goals and objectives. These step-down plans will be 

prepared at the level of detail necessary to address complex management needs, such as would be 

created by the construction and operation of an OLF at Site C. 

Comment 6: 
140 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Response: 

Comment noted. 

It is stated in Section B, Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences, page 151, that these initial 

disturbances to wildlife and habitat due to construction would be temporary. It is also stated that the 

refuge would monitor the impacts of activities and adjust as needed to limit disturbances to 

acceptable thresholds. All projects or groups of projects on the refuge are planned and designed to 

minimize disturbance to wildlife and habitat. 

Comment 7: 

Response: 

Comment noted. 

Text in the CCP was revised to include that the presence of the refuge provides many outdoor 

recreational opportunities, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife photography, wildlife observation, and 

interpretation and outreach. This would benefit local economies by providing opportunities for 

ecotourism and business infrastructures to support these activities. 

Comment 8: 

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 collaborate effort. The text was revised in the 

CCP to include the North Carolina Coastal Reserve Program as a state partner. 

Comment 9: 

Response: 

The Federal Consistency Review submitted on August 23, 2007, includes a review of the Coastal 

Area Management Act, the State’s Dredge and Fill Law, and the Tyrrell, Washington and Hyde 

Counties Land Use Plans. 
Appendices 141

Comment 10: 

Response: 

The Federal Consistency Determination for the Pocosin Lakes NWR Draft CCP/EA was submitted to 

the Division of Coastal Management for review on August 17, 2007. The refuge’s review concluded 

with the 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. 

North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, Bill Pickens, Staff Forest-Conifer Silviculture

Comment 1: 

“The NC Division of Forest Resources (NCDFR) has reviewed the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan proposed for the Pocosin Lakes NWR (PLNWR). Our comments concerning that 

document and the long-term objectives and strategies for the refuge follow. 

NCDFR supports the overall vision and goals listed in the CCP for PLNWR. The habitat and 

resource protection goals complement the Divisions mission to protect, manage, and develop the 

forest resources in North Carolina. 

Response: 

Comments noted. 

Comment 2: 

We concur with the selection of Alternative 2 as the preferred management alternative. It is well 

suited to meet the strategies and objectives of the CCP. 

We specifically support the following Habitat Management objectives and strategies, and, when 

possible, offer our continued cooperation and technical assistance to implement them. 

• Restoration of hydrology in specific areas to mimic natural conditions and to coordinate the 

 forest habitat plan with the hydrology. 

• Restore 700 acres of Atlantic white cedar. 

• Restore 1,500 acres to a bottomland hardwood forest. 

• Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies on the 

 refuge. 

• Develop a forest management plan and implement it on selected areas. 

• Revise the fire management plan. 

• Manage firebreaks to facilitate wild fire suppression. 

Response: 

Comments noted. 
142 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment 3: 

The Division is pleased that the biological review team encouraged the refuge staff to place a higher 

priority on forest management. We hope that adequate funding will be allocated for the personnel, 

equipment, and supplies to meet that priority and allow implementation of forest management and 

forest restoration projects. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed CCP and look forward to continued 

cooperation between our agencies. 

Response: 

Pocosin Lakes NWR also looks forward to continued cooperation and partnership between our 

agencies. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and 

management of fish, wildlife, forest habitats, and other natural resources throughout North Carolina 

and the United States. 

Pettigrew State Park, Park Superintendent Sidney Shearin

Comment 1: 

After reviewing the draft of Pocosin Lakes’ Comprehensive Plan, I have many comments particularly 

because Pettigrew State Park shares many similarities in resources and objectives. 

On Table 6, I noticed some water bodies that may be misnamed: The Bee Tree Trail and Bonana 

Creek. Their names could be Bee Tree Canal and Bonarva Canal. Old Canal is more commonly 

known as Transportation Canal. 

Response: 

Text in Table 6 was revised to correct the names. 

Comment 2: 

Most of the draft’s data was written several years ago and Pettigrew State Park has since increased 

its boundaries. The Park is acquiring any available property on the Scuppernong River and linking up 

to refuge property. The objective would be to preserve one of North Carolina’s last undeveloped 

rivers and have a wildlife corridor. The Nature Conservancy has given the park most of its river 

property and eventually will deed Pettigrew all river property. 

The current estimates for the park property are: 

16,600 acres Lake Phelps 

 1,293 acres around Lake Phelps 

 3,238 acres on Scuppernong River (including Nature Conservancy Property) 

21,131 total acres 

By the time this comprehensive plan is completed, Pettigrew should have added over 1,000 acres. 

The park is also actively seeking any lake shore property on Lake Phelps. Corrections should be 

made on pages 21, 50, 54 and maybe other paces. 

On page 50, in listing “Outdoor Recreation in the Area” it leaves out outdoor recreation which our 

Park provides such as hiking, picnicking, and camping. Opportunities for outdoor recreation are 

increasing as we construct facilities on the Scuppernong River. 
Appendices 143

On page 53, the state park system is completely left off “More developed tourist attractions based on 

natural resources....” The North Carolina State Park System has always had the philosophy that 

state parks are natural areas that are unique and need preserving for future generations. 

Response: 

The text was revised on pages 20, 22, 23, 50, 54, and 99 of the Draft CCP/EA to indicate correct 

acreages, and partnership and ecotourism opportunities for Pettigrew State Park. 

Comment 3: 

I was delighted to see on page 81 that the refuge developed a cooperative agreement for a ramp on 

the south side of Lake Phelps. The Division of Parks and Recreation would need to lease the 

property from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Pettigrew would be in charge of construction, 

patrolling, and maintaining the facility. This project has been discussed for years and the only 

problem has been that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife does not want to lease the property. Pettigrew has 

to lease the land in order for its staff to legally enforce any laws or regulations. Even though refuge 

personnel have stated that they could patrol it, Pocosin Lakes NWR shares two law enforcement 

officers with other refuges. They do not have the staff to check the ramp every Saturday, Sunday, 

holiday, and evening, especially during peak seasons. The refuge staff would not able to empty trash 

on weekends and holidays or do weekly mowing. I strongly suggest that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service lease a small area on the refuge next to Lake Phelps for a boating access. 

Response: 

The details of individual construction projects are beyond the scope of this CCP. Following the 

completion of the CCP, the refuge staff will develop more detailed step-down plans. The details for 

the construction and operation of the boat launch would be addressed in the Visitor Services Stepdown Plan. 

Comment 4: 

Pettigrew State Park has some cooperative projects that need to be mentioned. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service installed a fish ladder in the Bee Tree Canal to let the anadromous herring reach 

Lake Phelps. Repairs are still being made. Pettigrew sponsors the annual Audubon Christmas Bird 

Count where the search circle includes Lake Phelps and Pungo Lake. Pettigrew also hosts the 

annual butterfly count in the summer. Both agencies have been doing environmental programs 

together like the Scuppernong River Festival. 

Response: 

Although not specifically named, some of these projects have already been referred to in general 

terms in the CCP. In addition, the text of the CCP has also been changed to mention some of these 

projects. Pettigrew State Park does an excellent job of managing habitat on the park and 

coordinating various wildlife surveys. The refuge looks forward to continuing the partnership and 

coordination efforts to mutually benefit fish, wildlife, habitat, and other natural resources for North 

Carolina and the United States of America. 

Comment 5: 

On page 24, it states that there is no documented existence of Atlantic white cedars south of Lake 

Phelps. I saw a few Atlantic white cedars before the Allen Road fire. The Roper Lumber Company 

timbered the cedars in the early 1900s, and with the changing hydrology and massive fires, none of 

the original trees has survived. There should be a way to confirm the cedars existence. 
144 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Response: 

The text on page 24 states that Dr. Hinsely’s Forest Habitat Management Plan (1999) indicates that the 

vegetation south of Phelps Lake on present-day refuge land was mostly pond pine pocosin and continues 

that there was no other reference in Hinsely’s Plan documenting the existence of Atlantic white cedar in 

the last 150 years. Above this statement, the CCP provides a reference from Dr. Courtney Hackney 

(personal communication) stating that the woody material throughout the peat is Atlantic white cedar. 

Text was added to the CCP to include Park Superintendent Sid Shearin’s observation of Atlantic white 

cedars located south of Lake Phelps along Allen Road, prior to the 1985 wild fires. 

Comment 6: 

Page 35 lists the Waccamaw killifish existing in the area. D.N.A. analysis indicates that the killifish in 

Lakes Waccamaw and Phelps evolved separately and are now considered separate species. There 

is a Lake Phelps killifish here and not the Waccamaw killifish. 

Response: 

The Waccamaw killifish was removed from text on page 35. 

Comment 7: 

I question the identification of some of the trees and shrubs listed. I have not seen any black willows 

in the area but the coastal plain willow is quite common. I have not seen any red bays (Persea 

borbonia) but swamp bay (Persea palustris) is very common. The silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) 

is listed but it probably should be the swamp dogwood (Cornus stricta). I have not seen the 

Toothache Tree (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis) west of Dare County but the devil’s walking stick (Aralia 

spinosa) is very common. 

Response: 

Comment noted. Text in the plant section in Appendix VI was reviewed and revised based on 

information from field guides, expert opinions including observations made by refuge staff, and the 

above comments. 

Comment 8: 

A species of note is the rough leaf dogwood (Cornus aspirifolia) discovered by the park staff on the 

banks of the Scuppernong River. This is a disjuct population that previously was known only to exist 

in North Carolina near Wilmington. 

Response: 

Text in the plant section in Appendix VI was revised to include the rough leaf dogwood (Cornus 

aspirifolia) 

Comment 9: 

The park also keeps species lists of plants and animals that have been observed on Petigrew. More 

than likely these plants and animals exist on the refuge. I will be glad to meet with the biologist and 

discuss the list because I question whether several more exist on the refuge. 

Response: 

Comment noted. 
Appendices 145

Comment 10: 

We are thankful we have Pocosin Lakes NWR as a neighbor and we look forward to the future of 

working together to protect North Carolina’s natural resources. 

Response: 

Pocosin Lakes NWR also looks forward to a continued cooperation and partnership between our 

agencies. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and 

management of fish, wildlife, forest habitats, and other natural resources throughout North Carolina 

and the United States. 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Isaac Harrold, Section Manager WRC State and 

Private Lands Programs

 

Comment 1: 

Appropriate staff with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has reviewed the 

Draft Pocosin Lakes NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. We 

offer the following comments and recommendations: 

 

The Plan is well written, very thorough, and addresses alternatives to reach refuge management 

goals. 

Response: 

Comment noted. 

Comment 2: 

WRC supports the modest increase in active habitat management and baseline biological monitoring 

identified in the preferred alternative (Alternative 2). 

 

Response: 

Comment noted. 

Comment 3: 

Page 54: Add Alligator River Game Land: 5,401 acres. 

Response: 

Text on page 54, Table 21 was revised to include Alligator River Game Land: 5,401 acres. 

Comment 4: 

Page 57: Update the text that refers to deer hunts on the refuge to state that these hunts are 

administered by the WRC through the Special Hunts Opportunity Program. 

Response: 

Text on page 57 under Hunting was revised to include the above comment. 

Comment 5: 

Page 67: WRC supports the Service’s interest in acquiring lands for endangered species and to 

prevent habitat fragmentation. 

Response: 

Comment noted. 
146 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment 6: 

Page 70: Land Birds – We suggest the Service provide wild turkey hunting opportunities where 

available and we offer the WRC Special Hunts Opportunity Program as a possible means of 

implementation. 

Response: 

Comment noted. The last sentence of the discussion section under Land Birds (dealing with staffing 

constraints limiting management by permit hunting) was apparently misplaced as hunting is not 

considered a management tool for turkey, quail, and mourning doves on the refuge; instead, it’s 

considered a public use activity. This statement has been deleted under Land Birds. Under Public Use: 

Hunting (page 80), the CCP includes providing turkey hunting opportunities (in coordination with the 

Commission) as a strategy for meeting the refuge hunting objective. As with all other strategies in the 

plan, a turkey hunting program will be considered in detail when resources allow for such a program. 

The Humane Society of the United States, Andrew Page, Campaign Manager, Hunting

Comment 1: 

Response: 

Comments noted. 

Comment 2: 

Response: 

Opposition to the plan noted. Obviously, we disagree with the contention that the Draft CCP/EA 

represents “a continuing violation of federal law.” 
Appendices 147

Comment 3: 

Response: 

Comments noted. The Improvement Act lists six priority public uses the Service should consider and 

allow if compatible with the purposes of the refuge. One of these six uses is hunting. 

Comment 4: 

Response: 

The Hunt Plan for Pocosin Lakes NWR was developed in the early 1990s, soon after establishment 

of the refuge. A compatibility and funding statement was signed by the refuge manger at that time. A 

draft Compatibility Determination for Hunting on Pocosin Lakes NWR at current levels, which includes 

a determination that adequate funding exists to administer the use, is included in the Draft CCP/EA, 

Appendix V. 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 regard to 

species and the type of hunting pressure that would be allowed. In addition, the refuge will consult 

with professional wildlife biologists with the NCWRC before adding species to the hunting program. 

The first and foremost goal is to provide healthy wildlife populations with recreational opportunities 

being subordinate to that goal. 
148 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment 5: 

Response: 

Comments noted. Considering the cumulative impacts of hunting to refuges “throughout the 

Refuge System” is beyond the scope of the Pocosin Lakes NWR CCP. Likewise, the Refuges 

2003 Plan is beyond the scope of the Pocosin Lakes NWR CCP. 

Comment 6: 
Appendices 149

Response: 

Comment noted, but we disagree that an EIS on hunting at refuges across the nation needs to be 

completed before the Pocosin Lakes NWR CCP can be finalized. 

Comment 7: 

Response: 

Comments noted. 

Comment 8: 
150 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 151
152 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Response: 

Comments noted. 

Comment 9: 

Response: 

Pocosin Lakes NWR was opened for hunting in the early 1990s. 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 regard to species and the type of hunting pressure that 

would be allowed. In addition, the refuge will consult with professional wildlife biologists with NCWRC 

before adding species to the hunting program. The first and foremost goal is to provide healthy 

wildlife populations, with recreational opportunities being subordinate to that goal. 

B. Sachau, concerned citizen

Please send me a paper copy so I can comment more fully. I oppose hunting in a refuge. This is not 

a compatible use. Wildlife watchers over spend gun wackos 20-1 so encouraging their use of this 

area would benefit tax payers nationally who support this area thru tax dollars. 

Response: 

Comments noted. As per this request, a copy of the Draft CCP/EA was mailed to B. Sachau. 

Emily and Blake Scott, concerned citizens

Comment 1: 

We are concerned about continued protection of the waterfowl when the boardwalk and observation 

tower are built on the west end of Pungo Lake. 

Response: 

Temporary initial disturbances to wildlife and habitat would occur during the construction of the 

boardwalk and observation platform on the west end of Pungo Lake. The construction would not be 

conducted during critical times that would cause substantial wildlife disturbances, such as during the 

wintering migratory waterfowl season. During and following construction, the staff would monitor the 

impacts of activities and adjust as needed to limit disturbances to acceptable thresholds. All projects 
Appendices 153

or groups of projects on the refuge are planned and designed to minimize disturbance to wildlife and 

habitat to the maximum extent possible. 

Comment 2: 

We are concerned about refuge violations occurring on the Pungo Unit “when no one is around.” 

Response: 

Upon completion of the CCP, the staff will develop and update, as needed, a Law Enforcement Stepdown Plan. This plan will provide a reference to station policies, procedures, priorities, and programs 

concerning law enforcement. The plan’s preferred Alternative 2 provides for a full-time law 

enforcement officer for Pocosin Lakes NWR. This will provide additional law enforcement to patrol 

the refuge and enforce refuge policies and laws.

Brian Roth, Mayor of Plymouth, North Carolina

Comment 1: 

The CCP looks good! 

Response: 

Comment noted. 

Comment 2: 

There is interest in starting a Friends Group for Pocosin Lakes NWR, utilizing the momentum from 

the NO OLF issue. 

Response: 

Comment noted. Pocosin Lakes NWR would welcome the presence of a Friends Group for the 

refuge. 

Gus Shad, adjacent landowner and concerned citizen 

Comment 1: 

Mr. Gus Shad, owner of the former All Star Farms land located adjacent to the refuge, would like the 

refuge to include part of his land its Watershed 2 hydrology restoration work. 

Response: 

Comment noted. Pocosin Lakes NWR would be glad to discuss restoring the natural hydrology of the 

adjacent pocosin wetlands with any landowner. 

Doris Morris, concerned citizen

Comment 1: 

Would like to have a Welcome/Educational Center at Pat’s Road. 

Response: 

The Service’s preferred alternative (2) provides for additional staffing, building expansion, and exhibit 

replacements for the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds (refuge visitor center) located in 

Columbia, N.C. The CCP also provides for development and maintenance of a captive red wolf 

facility located in Tyrrell County. Because of their location (along a primary route to the Outer Banks), 

these strategies have the potential for reaching many people and are therefore high priorities. 

However, with the increasing popularity of the Pungo Unit following the proposed Navy OLF 
154 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

controversy, a visitor contact station for the unit may become necessary in the future to deal with 

higher levels of visitation. A strategy was added under interpretation to address this issue.

Comment 2: 

Schedule tours on a regular calendar FY. 

Response: 

The details of individual programs are beyond the scope of the CCP, which is a general planning 

document. Following the completion of the CCP and when resources become available, the staff will 

develop more detailed step-down plans to address program management at this level of detail. The 

Service’s preferred alternative (2) calls for a park ranger, environmental educator, and refuge aid to 

support the visitor services’ program. 

Comment 3: 

Provide walking trails and horse trails. 

Response: 

 The Service’s preferred alternative (2) provides for an increase in the refuge’s visitor services’ program. 

This increase includes the construction of a boardwalk and observation platform to be located on the 

west side of Pungo Lake. It also includes the development of a trail through the pocosin habitat from 

Northern Road, as well as other projects. At this time, the Scuppernong River Interpretive Boardwalk, 

located behind the Walter B. Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds (Refuge Visitor Center) in Columbia, N.C., 

is open for wildlife observation and photography. Existing administrative roads are also available as 

hiking trails to support wildlife-dependent recreation to the extent that these opportunities do not 

materially interfere with, or detract from,the achievement of wildlife conservation or refuge operations. 

The refuge has determined that the use of horses to access the refuge for certain wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities is appropriate and compatible with certain limitations. These limitations are 

administered through issuance of special use permits and include how many horses are in a group, how 

many horses are on the refuge at one time, the locations where the horses can be used, and the time of 

year when the use of horses must be restricted to avoid conflicts with other user groups and wildlife 

needs. As the refuge’s visitor services’ program develops, the staff would continue to assess and adjust 

the program to avoid negative impacts on refuge resources. 

Comment 4: 

Install safety railing on side walk at Welcome Center. 

Response: 

The Scuppernong River Interpretive Boardwalk (SRIB) was designed to provide refuge visitors with an 

opportunity to observe wildlife and habitat in a natural setting. While the SRIB meets all Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Fish and Wildlife Service safety guidelines, railings 

and other visual obstructions were intentionally minimized to maximize the visitor’s experience. 

Marco Gibbs, concerned citizen

Comment 1: 

I looked through the Draft CCP/EA for Pocosin Lakes NWR, but I did not see anything on trapping of 

furbearers. Trapping has always been a necessary wildlife management tool and I would like to see 

a trapping program on Pocosin Lakes NWR to manage furbearers. It would also allow another 

recreational activity to many sportsmen, biologists, and young people wanting to learn something 

different, and providing a benefit to wildlife at the same time. 
Appendices 155

Trapping on Pocosin Lakes NWR would furnish some great photography, beautiful scenery, and 

peace and quiet for someone wanting to trap. 

Response: 

The Service’s preferred alternative (2) has determined that trapping as a management tool is an 

appropriate use for certain furbearers, including beaver, raccoon, nutria, and feral hog. These 

species are at sufficiently high levels on the refuge to adversely affect ecosystem functions (see the 

draft Compatibility Determination at Appendix V). The Service will issue special use permits to 

administer a trapping program for the management of these species consistent with sound biology, 

refuge purposes, and conservation of ecosystem functions. 

Frances Armstrong, concerned citizen 

Comment 1: 

The Draft CCP/EA is very thorough and comprehensive. Also I was able to get the answers that I 

needed at the Public Meeting on July 26, 2007, at the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds 

(Pocosin Lakes NWR Office) in Columbia, NC. It was nice to have an informative meeting on the 

proposed plan. 

I want to put in writing some of the suggestions that I gave at the public meeting. 

1. Since Alternative 2 is the proposed alternative, I think a prioritized list of other activities from 

Alternative 3 – (Substantial Increase) would be a good idea in case funds are available to do 

more than the activity list of Alternative 2. I think this is especially important since this is a 

long-term 15-year plan. 

Response: 

Comment noted. Alternative 2 represents the most feasible and prudent approach for achieving 

national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific purposes, goals, and objectives. 

1. In Alternative 3 the Wildlife Drive along Northern Road is an activity which is not in Alternative 

2. I think the Wildlife Drive would give visitors the opportunity to see more of the refuge habitat 

and wildlife, and would especially be good for summer visitors when it is hot and buggy and 

not desirable for hiking. 

Response: 

Comment noted. Alternative 2 represents the most feasible and prudent approach for achieving 

national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific purposes, goals, and objectives. 

3. The endangered red wolves need added protection on the Albemarle/Pamlico Peninsula. The 

Red Wolf Recovery Team manages coyotes on the peninsula in the area inhabited by red 

wolves. A law must be passed to outlaw the hunting of coyotes in the area inhabited by red 

wolves because of the likelihood of shooting an endangered red wolf by mistake. At this time 

this area on the peninsula is east of State Highway 32, which includes the following five 

counties: Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, Washington and Beaufort. 

Response: 

Comment noted. Red wolves are protected under the Endangered Species Act and other laws on 

the refuge. Providing protection for wolves outside the refuge is beyond the scope of the CCP. 
156 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

1. The veterinary care facility for the red wolf is a very good idea. I would like to see it expanded to 

give care to other endangered species on the refuge. 

Response: 

Comment noted. 

1. I think abundant grain crops and winter wheat in the area near and surrounding Pungo Lake are 

very important for the migratory birds and the red wolves. The migratory birds feed off the grain 

and the winter wheat and the red wolves find prey in these fields. For the red wolves to thrive, the 

red wolf territory needs expansion. I would like to have the farmers in the area have a strong 

incentive to cultivate grain crops and winter wheat and desire migratory birds and red wolves in 

these fields as well. 

Response: 

Comment noted. 

1. I think a plan to tap into the Castle Haynes Aquifer for extra water is very important. With the 

changing weather patterns that are leading to periods of drought, Pungo Lake and the 

impoundments will benefit if there is a water supply to replenish the lake and impoundments when 

necessary. 

Response: 

Comments noted. 

1. A new wildlife observation platform on the North Side of Pungo Lake is very important. It should 

be screened off from the lake so as not to disturb the waterfowl resting on Pungo Lake. The 

existing wildlife observation platform at Pungo Lake should also be screened off. 

Response: 

We agree that the proposed boardwalk and observation platform on the west side of Pungo Lake 

should be screened in some manner to limit disturbance to resting waterfowl. The platform would be 

carefully designed and constructed to minimize disturbance to wildlife and habitat. During and 

following construction, the refuge staff would monitor the use of the facility and make adjustments as 

needed to limit wildlife disturbance to acceptable levels. 

1. With the increased interest in the Pungo Unit of the refuge because of the preferred Site C 

location for a Navy Outlying Landing Field next to Pungo Lake, extra special actions will need to 

be taken to protect the waterfowl from intentional and unintentional harassment. I have witnessed 

intentional harassment by very low-flying military aircraft numerous times at the Pungo Unit. 

Response: 

Comment noted. Alternative 2 proposes additional law enforcement protection. 

1. Also because of the increased interest in the Pungo Unit for winter viewing of migratory birds, an 

additional Visitor Information Center near Pungo Lake is necessary. 

Response: 

The Service’s preferred alternative (2) provides for additional staffing, building expansion, and exhibit 

replacements for the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds (refuge visitor center) located in 

Columbia, N.C. The CCP also provides for development and maintenance of a captive red wolf 

facility located in Tyrrell County. Because of their location (along a primary route to the Outer Banks) 
Appendices 157

these strategies have the potential for reaching many people and are therefore high priorities. 

However, with the increasing popularity of the Pungo Unit following the proposed Navy OLF 

controversy, a visitor contact station for the Pungo Unit may become necessary in the future to deal 

with higher levels of visitation. A strategy was added under interpretation to address this issue. 

1. I like the red wolf on the cover but would also like some other photos to show the diversity of 

Pocosin Lakes NWR. For example: waterfowl, birds, black bears, red-cockaded woodpeckers, 

bald eagles, refuge habitats. The red wolf or red wolves could be the feature but include some 

other photos. The background of the cover could be eliminated with a collection of photos. 

Response: 

Comment noted. 

1. I know you are short of staff. I wish that Pocosin Lakes NWR could find a way to hire local people 

that have grown up in the area and have knowledge and experience with the wildlife in the area, 

the refuge habitats, and the surrounding land. If this is possible, I know someone that I would 

highly recommend. 

Response: 

Comment noted. 
158 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 159

Appendix V. Decisions and Approvals 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 
160 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 161
162 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, 

we will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still 

determine if these uses are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We consider take of wildlife under such 

regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the activity is 

compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

The appropriateness of following uses are considered below: The following uses were considered for 

compatibility determination reviews: 1) access for public uses; 2) trapping of selected furbearers and 

feral hogs for nuisance animal management; 3) refuge resource research studies; 4) cooperative 

farming program; 5) commercial photography; 6) commercial tours and guiding; 7) wood and reed 

gathering and cutting; 8) berry picking; 9) pine straw gathering; 10) bee keeping; and 11) meetings of 

non-service agencies and organizations. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Administration Act). This law 

provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the 

authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. The Administration Act does not authorize any 

particular use, but rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are 

compatible and “under such regulations as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain 

public uses that, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. 

The law states “. . . it is the policy of the United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System . . .compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive 

priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and . . . when the Secretary determines 

that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity 

should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . ensure that priority general public uses of the System 

receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in planning and management within 

the System . . . .” The law also states “in administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to 

take the following actions: . . . issue regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the 
Appendices 163

standards set in the Administration Act by providing enhanced consideration of priority general public 

uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability to provide quality, wildlifedependent recreational uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k (Recreation Act). This law authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to “. . . administer such areas [of the System] or parts thereof for public recreation when 

in his judgment public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use.” While the 

Recreation Act authorizes us to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use 

is an “appropriate incidental or secondary use,” the Improvement Act provides the Refuge System 

mission and includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the Refuge System. 

Other statutes that establish refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, and 3101 - 3233; 43 

U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. We must comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we designate areas as open or closed to offhighway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among 

the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or 

rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Furthermore, E.O. 

11989 requires us to close areas to off highway vehicles when we determine that the use causes or 

will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic 

resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use 

A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions: 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 

Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section 1.11. 

Native American 

American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including Aleuts, Eskimos, 

and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use 

A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 
164 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Quality 

The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use 

As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 
Appendices 165

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF REFUGE USES 

Use: Access for Public Uses

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate____ Appropriate X 
166 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Trapping of Selected Furbearers and Feral Hogs for Nuisance Animal Management

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X 
Appendices 167

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Refuge Resource Research Studies

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X 
168 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Cooperative Farming Program

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X 
Appendices 169

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Commercial Photography

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X 
170 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Commercial Tours and Guiding

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X 
Appendices 171

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Wood and Reed Gathering and Cutting

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate ____ Appropriate X 
172 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Berry Picking

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate X Appropriate ____ 
Appendices 173

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Pine Straw Gathering

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate X Appropriate ____ 
174 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Bee Keeping

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate X Appropriate ____ 
Appendices 175

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Use: Meetings of Non-Service Agencies and Organizations

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

 Not Appropriate ______ Appropriate X 
176 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 177

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determination 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: 1) hunting; 2) 

fishing; 3) wildlife observation and photography; 4) environmental education and interpretation; 5) 

access for public uses; 6) trapping of selected furbearers and feral hogs for nuisance animal 

management; 7) refuge resource research studies; 8) cooperative farming program; 9) commercial 

photography; 10) commercial tours and guiding; 11) wood and reed gathering and cutting; and 12) 

meetings of non-service agencies and organizations. A description and the anticipated biological 

impacts for each use are addressed separately in this compatibility determination. 

Refuge Name: Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: 1963 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929), 16 U.S.C. Sec 3901 (b) 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986), and 16 

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

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, as reflected in the 

refuge’s authorizing legislation, is to protect and conserve migratory birds, and other wildlife 

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

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

birds... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929); 

...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. 3583 (Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act of 1986); 

...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); and

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

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restriction or affirmative 

covenant or condition of servitude... 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f (a) (4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

The refuge’s purpose and importance to migratory birds, particularly waterfowl, is: To conserve 

wintering habitat for waterfowl and wintering and production habitat for wood ducks to meet the 

habitat goals presented in the Ten-Year Waterfowl Habitat Acquisition Plan and the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan.
178 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

1997, is: 

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

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

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

future generations of Americans.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

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) 

Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

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 use listed were considered separately. Although the preceding 

sections (from Uses through Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies) are only written once 

for brevity, they are part of each descriptive use and become part of that compatibility determination if 

considered separately. 
Appendices 179

Use: Hunting 

Description of Use: The refuge is a mixture of pocosins (shrub wetlands), forest blocks of pine and 

hardwoods, marshes, managed wetlands (moist-soil areas), and interconnected streams and ditches. 

The pocosins have bay species (red bay, sweetbay, loblolly bay), gallberry, sweet gallberry, sweet 

pepperbush, fetterbush, river cane, and pond pine. The forests have a great variety of tree species 

that includes bald cypress, tupelo gum, oaks, black gum, elm, Carolina ash, and willow. This rich 

forested wetland provides good habitat for a number of game species, including white-tailed deer, 

black bear, squirrel, raccoon, woodcock, 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. The refuge has permitted hunting since 1970 on the Pungo Unit, when the Service first 

approved hunting on that part of the refuge. Hunting has been allowed on the Pocosin Lakes part of 

the refuge since 1991, soon after establishment. The administration, as well as special regulations 

for hunting, has changed over time but the majority of the program has remained unchanged. 

This use includes the take of big game (deer), migratory birds (ducks, geese, tundra swans, mourning 

doves, woodcock, rails, and snipe) and upland game (quail, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, fox, 

beaver, and nutria) in accordance with state and refuge regulations. Feral hogs, an invasive species 

like nutria, appear to be increasing in number. The hunting/take of feral hogs is also included in this 

use. All hunts will fall within the framework of the State’s open seasons and follow State regulations 

(except for minor variances for special refuge permit-only hunts that are coordinated with the State). 

Refuge-specific regulations are more restrictive than State regulations to ensure compatibility. The 

staff reviews refuge-specific regulations annually and incorporates them into the refuge hunting 

brochure. The comprehensive conservation plan will increase law enforcement presence during 

hunting seasons; will evaluate the hunt program annually; and will modify seasons, hunt areas, or 

regulations, if necessary. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer this use at its current level. A 

permanent, full-time law enforcement officer and public use specialist are needed to assist with the 

hunting program administration and visitor services. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The deer herd has expanded and increased substantially since the 

refuge was established. Prior to refuge establishment, this portion of Tyrell, Washington, and Hyde 

Counties was subject to heavy deer hunting pressure with pursuit hounds and moderate poaching activity 

that maintained the deer herd at low levels. Following refuge establishment and initiation of an effective 

wildlife law enforcement program, the deer herd has increased substantially in and around the refuge. 

The refuge’s pocosin, marsh, and forest habitats, combined with commercially harvested forests and 

agricultural fields adjacent to the refuge, provide ideal habitat conditions for white-tailed deer. 

Harvest management of big game (white-tailed deer) is the art of combining wildlife science and 

landowner objectives for the attainment of a specific management goal. Refuge hunt plan objectives 

should determine harvest management strategies. A complete analysis of biological data should 

determine the objectives. Specific harvest objectives allow the setting of hunting regulations. The refuge 

staff will thoroughly evaluate the results of each hunting season to ensure that the harvest management 

program remains dynamic and responsive to an evolving management environment (Bookhout 1994). 
180 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Harvest management of upland small game and furbearers (squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, and 

beaver) is considerably different from that of both big game and migratory birds. Current literature 

suggests that user take (<50 percent of total mortality) of most upland game is compensatory; that 

factors, such as immigration from adjacent areas and density-dependent production, operate in most 

upland game populations; and that hunting does not significantly impact populations. Hunting is 

substituted for natural mortality. Production of large, annual surpluses of young allows for lengthy 

seasons and generous bag limits with little concern for over-harvest and minimal chance of 

population impacts in most areas (Bookhout 1994). 

Harvest management of migratory birds (ducks, woodcock) is more difficult to assess. Migratory bird 

regulations are established at the Federal level each year following a series of meetings involving 

both State and Federal biologists. Harvest guidelines are based on population survey data with 

regulations that are subject to change each year, including bag limits, season lengths, and framework 

dates (Bookhout 1994). Schmidt (1993) states, “In general, all studies have demonstrated a high 

degree of compensation of hunting mortality by other ‘natural’ mortality factors for harvest levels 

experienced to date.” He also reports, “The proportion of waterfowl populations subject to hunting on 

refuges is very low, thus hunting is not likely to have an adverse impact on the status of any 

recognized waterfowl population in North America.” 

The refuge’s great variety and abundance of high-quality wetland areas provide outstanding habitat 

for a variety of wading birds. Primary species include the great blue heron, little blue heron, green 

heron, cattle egret, snowy egret, great egret, American bittern, Virginia rail, and king rail. Similar to 

wading birds, the area’s habitat for neotropical migratory birds is outstanding. Neotropical migratory 

birds use the interior hardwood forested areas and edges. Disturbance to these birds will be minimal 

and temporary as the staff will alter habitat slightly for the betterment of these species. 

Based on available information, biologists have not documented any threatened or endangered species, 

other than the red-cockaded woodpecker, red wolf, and bald eagle, on Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge. It is anticipated that the current levels and expected future levels of hunting or other wildlifedependent recreation activities will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact any listed, proposed, or 

candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Data gathered from future biological surveys 

regarding the importance or potential importance of the refuge to threatened or endangered species or 

critical habitat (or proposed threatened, endangered, or critical habitat) could result in changes to public 

use activities across time; however, these changes will have no effect on listed species. 

Incidental taking of other wildlife species, either illegally or unintentionally, may occur with any 

consumptive use program. At current and anticipated public use levels, incidental take will be small and 

will 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 comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

summarizes the public comments. 
Appendices 181

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 

State of North Carolina regulations and licensing requirements. An Environmental Assessment is on 

file at the refuge headquarters as part of the Hunting Plan. Upon completion of the comprehensive 

conservation plan, the staff will update the Hunting Plan. The following stipulations are necessary to 

ensure the refuge hunting program is compatible with refuge purposes. 

y Migratory bird hunting is prohibited on the Pungo Unit. 

y No hunting disturbance is allowed on the Pungo Unit during the wintering waterfowl season. 

y Vehicles are restricted to designated refuge roads and parking lots. 

y Firearms, bows, and other weapons are prohibited except during designated hunting seasons. 

y Hunting deer with dogs is not allowed on the refuge due to disturbance to non-target species. 

All hunts are designed to provide quality user opportunities based upon known wildlife population levels 

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 additional data and develops a long-range hunt plan, 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 the program, or to provide for public safety. 

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 the hunting of deer and other species as 

management tools to protect the diverse ecosystem. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2023_________ 
182 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Fishing 

Description of Use: Sport fishing is a common public use on the State waters, such as creeks, 

rivers, bays, and sounds. Fishing on the refuge includes fishing in these waters from the shorelines 

located on the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and in lakes, canals, and impoundments on 

the refuge. Fish creel limits, boating safety, and license requirements are in accordance with State of 

North Carolina regulations. The State maintains public boat ramps for small boats on streams 

adjacent to the refuge. Development of more public access to the water on and adjacent to the 

refuge will allow the public to utilize these important fishery resources. As identified in the 

comprehensive conservation plan, the refuge will provide additional access to the banks, conduct 

creel surveys, and perform water quality analyses in order to provide a quality fishing experience. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Recreational fishing 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 will not negatively impact wetland values 

on the refuge. If the refuge identifies wildlife disturbance at these sites as a problem in future years, it 

will close the areas during sensitive seasons to eliminate this concern. 

Improvement of access will create some disturbance to the natural environment during construction 

and lead to increased public use on the State and refuge waters. The refuge will carry out all 

construction activities with appropriate permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and after 

State Historic Preservation Officer review of cultural resources. Engineers will incorporate soil 

stabilization features into the design of access points to minimize any future soil erosion potential and 

contractors would use sediment retention barriers during access improvement. Public use of the 

waters will increase as a result of improved access, but the level of use will not be 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 comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
Appendices 183

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Conflicts between fishermen and hunters or 

other visitors using the refuge for non-consumptive wildlife recreation 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-sized fish, open fires, and littering. Upon 

completion of the comprehensive conservation plan, the refuge staff will update the Fishing Plan. 

The following stipulations will help ensure the refuge fishing program is compatible with refuge 

purposes: 

y All fishing tackle will have to be attended at all times. 

y Leaving boats on the refuge overnight will be prohibited. 

y Fishing will be allowed during daylight hours only. 

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. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2023_________ 

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Description of Use: Non-consumptive wildlife observation uses, such as bird watching, auto tour routes, 

hiking, and nature photography, are popular due to the area’s abundant wildlife and proximity to the 

Tidewater Area of Virginia, the Outer Banks of North Carolina, and the availability of access and facilities. 

 It is estimated that 27,000 visits per year are attributed to wildlife observation and related activities. 

The refuge staff anticipates that an increase in non-consumptive 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 80 miles of refuge roads minimally maintained for licensed public vehicle travel. The 

refuge maintains the 0.75-mile interpretive boardwalk trail for pedestrians on the east bank of the 

Scuppernong River, adjacent to the refuge office and visitor center. There is an observation platform 

on the south side of Pungo Lake. Additional infrastructure to support wildlife observation and 

photography is also planned, including additional trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, etc. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

will be adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography activities could result in 

some disturbance to wildlife, especially if visitors venture too close to bald eagle nests, colonial 

nesting bird rookeries, or resting waterfowl during migration. The staff will prohibit visitors from 

traveling in areas around nests, rookeries, and managed wetlands at critical times for wildlife. The 

refuge will locate refuge road systems, foot trails, boardwalks, and wildlife observation platforms open 

to pedestrian use by the public to minimize disturbance that could occur in these sensitive areas. If 

the refuge identifies unacceptable levels of disturbance at any time, it will close sensitive sites to 

public entry. Some minimal trampling of vegetation could occur. 
184 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and upgrading refuge roads will alter 

small portions of the natural environment. 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. Visitors cause other potential 

negative impacts by violating refuge regulations, such as littering or illegally taking plants or wildlife. 

Use of refuge roads by the public does result in added maintenance costs. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

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 visitors participating in 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. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are important and preferred public uses on 

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 1997 National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified wildlife observation and photography as priority 

public recreational uses refuges should facilitate. It is through permitted, compatible public uses such 

as this, that the public becomes aware of and provides support for our national wildlife refuges. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2023_________
Appendices 185

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Description of Use: 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. This use includes 

participating in programs provided by refuge staff, volunteers, and others and receiving information 

from panels and other static and interactive exhibits. Environmental education programs are 

presented at various locations, including the Visitor Center, Indoor Classroom, Outdoor Classroom, 

and Field Station. Interpretation is provided along the Scuppernong River Interpretive Boardwalk, at 

kiosks, and other sites. 

The refuge’s environmental education and interpretation activities have served thousands of users 

annually. Interpretive and outreach programs reach most of those individuals, but systematic 

education programs have been largely nonexistent. The refuge staff plans to develop this program 

with structured activities conducted by refuge staff or trained volunteers. Refuge staff will develop 

and provide curriculum and support materials to area teachers for use both on and off the refuge. 

They will also develop informational kiosks and interpretive panels at key refuge entrance points and 

along trails, and construct wildlife observation platforms as part of the environmental education and 

interpretation program. In addition, a small building to house special red wolf education activities, as 

well as to provide wolf health care activities, is also being developed. 

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. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Construction of facilities, such as board walks, kiosks and 

observation platforms, will alter small portions of the natural environment on the refuge. Proper 

planning and placement of facilities will ensure that wetlands, threatened or endangered species, or 

species of special concern are not negatively impacted. 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 comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
186 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2023_________ 

Use: Refuge Access for Public Uses 

Description of Use: The public gains access to the refuge in a number of ways to participate in the 

six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation) and compatible secondary uses. Most visitors utilize licensed fourwheeled motor vehicles and walk from their vehicles to off-road destinations. There are some visitors 

who utilize all-terrain vehicles, boats, bicycles, wheelchairs, and horses on refuge roads. The refuge 

allows access by all the means listed above with limitations on location and season of use. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

will be adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Providing access for public uses might result in some disturbance 

to wildlife, especially if visitors venture too close to bald eagle nests, colonial nesting bird rookeries, 

or resting waterfowl in migration. The staff will prohibit visitors from traveling in areas around nests, 

rookeries, and managed wetlands during critical periods for wildlife. The refuge will locate refuge 

road systems, all-terrain vehicle trails, boat ramps, foot trails, boardwalks, and wildlife observation 

platforms open to pedestrian use by the public to minimize disturbance that could occur in these 

sensitive areas. If the refuge identifies unacceptable levels of disturbance at any time, it will close 

sensitive sites to public entry. Some minimal trampling of vegetation could occur. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and upgrading refuge roads will alter 

small portions of the natural environment. 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. Visitors cause other potential 

negative impacts by violating refuge regulations, such as littering or illegally taking plants or wildlife. 

Use of refuge roads by the public will incur added maintenance costs. 
Appendices 187

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Access should be limited to that necessary to 

facilitate priority and compatible secondary uses. Driving, ATV riding, boating, bicycling, horseback 

riding, etc., solely for recreational purposes (such as racing, water skiing, personal watercraft, air 

boats, etc.,) should be prohibited. 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 

roads, trails, and heavily used pedestrian areas to document any negative impacts. If any negative 

impacts occur, the Service will take corrective action to reduce or eliminate the effects on wildlife. 

Prior to construction of boardwalks, foot trails, and wildlife observation platforms, 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. 

There are specific stipulations that should apply to specific means of access: 

y Limit all access when necessary to protect nesting bald eagles, colonial nesting birds, resting 

waterfowl from disturbance, or for other management purposes. 

y Limit access by licensed motorized vehicles to the 80 miles of public use roads when gates 

are open. 

y Limit access by wheelchair to the 250 miles of dirt roads, boardwalks, and trails that have 

been hardened to support wheelchair traffic. 

y Limit access by bicycle to the 250 miles of dirt roads. 

y Limit access by foot (walking or hiking) to anywhere on the refuge except areas that are closed 

for nesting bald eagles, colonial nesting birds, resting waterfowl, or other management purposes. 

y Limit access by all-terrain vehicles to 27 miles of refuge dirt roads that are designated allterrain vehicle trails during the hunting season to transport hunter and game and about 5 

miles of road designated for disabled hunter access with a permit. 

y Limit access by boat to New Lake from March 1 until October 31. No access should be 

allowed on New Lake from November 1 until February 28, or on Pungo Lake at any time. 

Small boats can be allowed in roadside canals year-round except for areas that are closed to 

prevent wildlife disturbance. 

y Limit access for wildlife observation and wildlife photography by groups of one to six 

horseback riders to the 80 miles of public use roads, except for roads that are in areas open 

to big game hunting with firearms and for roads that are closed to prevent wildlife disturbance. 
188 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

y Limit access for wildlife observation and wildlife photography by groups of seven to thirty 

horseback riders to the 80 miles of public use roads when the gates are open. A group of 

seven to thirty horses should be considered a trail ride and require a special use permit. No 

trail rides should be allowed on the Pungo Unit during the wintering waterfowl season or in 

any areas open to big game hunting with firearms. Prohibit groups of horseback riders larger 

than 30 to prevent wildlife disturbance. 

y Access by horse will not be permitted during hunting seasons for white-tailed deer or other 

large game or during special hunts on the refuge. 

Justification: The public must have access to the refuge to participate in the public uses on Pocosin Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. It is through permitted, compatible public 

uses that the public becomes aware of and provides support for our national wildlife refuges. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2018_________

Use: Trapping of Selected Furbearers and Feral Hogs for Management 

Description of Use: This use includes the take of certain furbearers (raccoon, beaver, and nutria) 

and feral hogs by the use of traps. These species are at sufficiently high levels on the refuge to 

adversely affect ecosystem functions. Excessive numbers of raccoons can have negative effects on 

the reproduction of forest breeding birds and wood ducks. The nutria is an exotic animal that 

consumes great quantities of marsh grass and burrows into dikes of managed wetlands (moist-soil 

units). Feral hogs damage habitat by rutting the ground when grubbing for food. Beavers block 

culverts and water control structures, impairing wetland management operations and the drainage of 

adjacent landowners. Protection and management of habitat and improvements in game and 

nongame populations are central components of the comprehensive conservation plan. To this end, 

trapping and/or hunting remain the only viable methods to reduce population levels of raccoon, 

beaver, nutria, and feral hogs. The Service will issue special use permits to administer a trapping 

program consistent with sound biology, refuge purposes, and conservation of ecosystem functions. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Targeted removal of raccoon, beaver, nutria, and feral hogs 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 and beaver management will protect marsh 

grass, dikes of managed wetlands (moist-soil units), roads, and drainage rights. Feral hog control will 

reduce habitat damage in pocosin habitat. 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. 
Appendices 189

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

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 staff should 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 should modify the program as needed to maintain compatibility. 

Trappers should carry out all trapping activities under a refuge special use permit. The staff should limit 

trappers by number, area, and season in order to target problem areas and minimize any negative 

impacts. The staff should require each trapper to report the number and location of all traps and all 

wildlife taken. The implementation of a trapping program, under controlled conditions, should provide an 

essential population control management tool and is compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 

Justification: The purposes of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge emphasize conservation of 

wetlands and migratory birds. Trapping is a wildlife population management tool used to regulate the 

population of certain wildlife species when those species are disrupting ecosystem functions. There is 

documentation that raccoons cause negative impacts to forested wetlands and nesting birds. Nutria are 

exotic animals that cause negative impacts on marsh grass and the dikes of managed wetlands (moistsoil units). Beavers negatively impact water control structures and drainage. When these negative 

impacts become significant on the refuge, wildlife managers need trapping as a management tool to 

control the level of damage. Certainly, the native raccoons and beavers are important components of the 

ecosystem, but when their populations and negative impacts become significant, wildlife managers need 

a regulated trapping program to reduce their populations to acceptable levels. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2018_________ 

Use: Refuge Resource Research Studies 

Description of Use: This activity involves university students and professors, non-governmental 

researchers, and governmental scientists access to the refuge’s natural environment to conduct both 

short-term and long-term research projects. The outcome of this research should result in better 

knowledge of our natural resources and improved methods to manage, monitor, and protect refuge 

resources. The refuge will support Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey research of 

neotropical migratory birds, waterfowl, bottomland hardwood restoration, amphibians and reptiles, 

forest bats, yellow-crowned night herons, and other studies. The refuge will make efforts to expand 

partnerships with North Carolina State University and other area universities to conduct research on 

the refuge associated with neotropical migratory songbirds. 
190 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Availability of Resources: The refuge needs no additional fiscal resources to conduct this use if it 

is the university or agency conducting the research. The existing staff could administer permits and 

monitor use as part of routine management duties. Research initiated by the refuge will require 

funding through the Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS), Flex Fund Grants, USGS Research 

Grants, or other sources. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: There should be no significant negative impacts from scientific 

research on the refuge. The knowledge gained from the research will provide information to improve 

management techniques and better meet the needs of trust resource species. Impacts, such as 

trampling vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife, will occur, but should not be significant. 

Researchers may collect a small number of individual plants or animals for further study. These 

collections should have an insignificant effect on refuge plant and animal populations. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

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 should examine each request for use 

of the refuge for research on its individual merit. It should ask questions of who, what, when, where, 

and why in order to determine if the requested research will contribute to the refuge purposes and if 

the researchers will conduct it on the refuge without significantly affecting the resources. If so, the 

refuge should issue a special use permit to the researcher, which will likely include special conditions 

necessary to ensure compatibility. The staff should monitor the progress and require the researcher 

to submit annual progress reports and copies of all publications derived from the research. 

Justification: The benefits derived from sound research will provide a better understanding of 

species and the environmental communities present on the refuge. These benefits far outweigh any 

short-term disturbance or loss of individual plant and animals that could occur. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2018_________
Appendices 191

Use: Cooperative Farming Program 

Description of Use: Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge manages cropland to provide highly 

nutritious annual grain crops and browse for waterfowl, songbirds, and mammals. The crops provide 

grain for geese, swans, and black bear; wheat browse for geese and white-tailed deer; and food and 

cover for mammals and neotropical migratory songbirds from perennial grasslands. 

The crops are produced by local farmers working on the refuge under a cooperative farming agreement. 

The farmers till, plant, and harvest the crops. In lieu of paying rent for use of the refuge land, the farmers 

leave a percentage of the crop in the field where it is available for use by refuge wildlife. The cooperative 

farming agreement specifies crops to be planted, dates of planting, crops to be left in the field unharvested, pesticides to be used, and pesticide application techniques to be used. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding for the staff to administer the cooperative farming program. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: It is anticipated that cropland management will supplement the 

natural habitats on the refuge (Ringelman 1990). The refuge will direct cooperative farming 

operations at providing the types of grain and the proper balance of grain to browse from crops that 

meet the food cover requirements of the wildlife species of concern. The staff will monitor 

cooperative farmers’ compliance with the annual cooperative farming agreement. 

The operations will include tillage and the applications of nutrients and pesticides that enhance crop 

production, but that could cause non-point source pollution. Tillage performed in accordance with a 

conservation plan developed by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, should not 

cause erosion that will result in sedimentation into aquatic ecosystems or carry nutrients or pesticides 

into those ecosystems. Nutrient management in accordance with soil test reports specifying the 

rates, timing, and formulations of nutrients should not cause runoff or percolation of nutrients. Pest 

management in accordance with an integrated pest management plan should result in scouting to 

assess pest problems and consideration of mechanical, cultural, and chemical techniques to control 

pests. Application of approved chemical pesticides in accordance with label directions should 

minimize the drift, runoff, and percolation of pesticides into the environment. 

The minimum short-term impacts from cooperative farming operations will include soil disturbance by 

disking, and the loss of standing cover of weed species by mowing, disking, and herbicide 

application. The sown crops quickly cover the soil disturbed by tillage and produce grain and browse 

selected to supplement natural habitats. Rotating crops throughout the cropland acreage will 

minimize the need for fertilizer and pesticides and alternates the heavy residue-producing crops (e.g., 

corn) with poor residue-producing crops (e.g., soybeans). 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

summarizes the public comments. 
192 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The refuge should carry out the cooperative 

farming program in accordance with national and regional policy and a management plan that 

specifies crops, crop rotation, tillage, nutrient management, and pest management. The refuge 

should direct cooperative farming operations at supplementing natural habitats found throughout the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain. It should evaluate the impacts of the cropland, revise cropland 

management agreements, and carry out cropland management operations in a manner that would 

accomplish the refuge’s cropland management objectives for migratory birds and resident wildlife. 

Justification: The cooperative farming actions proposed in the comprehensive conservation plan for 

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge are in accordance with Service guidelines for the protection, 

management, and enhancement of habitats for wildlife populations on the refuge. Adherence to the 

Cropland Management Plan supplements the natural habitats for both migratory birds and resident 

wildlife species; protects cultural resources; and provides opportunities for public recreation and 

environmental education. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2018________

Use: Commercial Photography 

Description of Use: Commercial photography includes capturing still photos and video for commercial 

gain. Commercial photography is a popular enterprise on the refuge due to the scenic natural habitats 

and abundant wildlife in an area. The area’s proximity to the Tidewater Area of Virginia and the Outer 

Banks of North Carolina attracts several commercial photographers annually. Where commercial 

photography is beneficial because it expands public appreciation and understanding of wildlife, natural 

habitats, and the mission of the refuge system, it may involve vehicular and other access to areas that 

are otherwise closed. Infrastructure developed for visitors participating in recreational wildlife observation 

and photography could be used for commercial photography. 

The refuge staff anticipates that an increase in commercial photography will occur over the next few 

years as the refuge gains visibility and areas of natural habitat in the area decrease. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Commercial wildlife photography activities could result in some 

disturbance to wildlife, especially if photographers venture too close to bald eagle nests, colonial 

nesting bird rookeries, or resting waterfowl in migration. The staff will prohibit photographers from 

traveling in areas around nests, rookeries, and managed wetlands during critical times for wildlife. 

The refuge will locate refuge road systems, foot trails, boardwalks and wildlife observation platforms 

open to use by photographers to minimize disturbance that could occur in these sensitive areas. If 

the refuge identifies unacceptable levels of disturbance at any time, it will close sensitive sites to 
Appendices 193

public entry. Some minimal trampling of vegetation could occur. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and upgrading refuge roads will alter 

small portions of the natural environment. 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. Visitors could cause other 

potential negative impacts by violating refuge regulations, such as littering or illegally taking plants or 

wildlife. Use of refuge roads by photographers will incur added maintenance costs. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Law enforcement patrol of public use areas 

should continue to minimize violations of refuge regulations. The staff should close refuge roads to 

photographers during nesting seasons and migratory waterfowl seasons to minimize wildlife 

disturbance. The refuge should monitor use for commercial photography to document any negative 

impacts. If any negative impacts become noticeable, the refuge should take corrective action to 

reduce or eliminate the effects on wildlife. Specifically, commercial photography should be subject to 

the following stipulations: 

y Manage commercial photography under special use permits that will stipulate the dates, 

times, and general locations that could be photographed and any special access that might be 

allowed. 

y Consider requests for special use permits that include special access only if they demonstrate 

a means to enhance education, appreciation, and/or understanding of the natural resources 

and the Refuge System. 

y Require commercial photographers to give proper credit to the refuge and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service in special use permits. 

Justification: Commercial photography has the potential to inspire and educate the public about the 

Refuge System, natural habitats, and wildlife. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2018_________
194 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial Tours and Guiding 

Description of Use: Commercial tours and guiding include tours to observe and photograph wildlife, 

educate the public about wildlife, and guided fishing and hunting trips. As the visibility of the refuge 

increases and the amount of land in the area available for outdoor recreation and education 

decreases, there will be an increased demand for recreation and education on the refuge. The 

demand for visitor services may exceed the refuge staff’s ability to provide them. Some individuals 

and groups may want services on a timetable that meets their schedule and does not necessarily 

match the availability of the staff. 

The refuge will manage commercial tours and guides through the review and issuance of 

special use permits. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

will be adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use. The existing 

management, biological, and public use staff will review, approve, and enforce conditions on special 

use permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Commercial tours and guided experiences could result in some 

disturbance to wildlife, especially if customers venture too close to bald eagle nests, colonial nesting 

bird rookeries, or resting waterfowl in migration. The staff will prohibit the commercial tours and 

guided hunters and anglers from traveling in areas around nests, rookeries, and managed wetlands 

during critical times for wildlife. The refuge will locate refuge road systems, foot trails, boardwalks, 

and wildlife observation platforms open to use by customers to minimize disturbance that could occur 

in these sensitive areas. If the staff identifies unacceptable levels of disturbance at any time, 

sensitive sites will be closed to public entry. Some minimal trampling of vegetation could occur. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and upgrading refuge roads will alter 

small portions of the natural environment. 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. Customers could cause other 

potential negative impacts by violating refuge regulations, such as littering or illegally taking plants or 

wildlife. Use of refuge roads by customers will result in added maintenance costs. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
Appendices 195

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Law enforcement patrol of public use areas will 

continue to minimize violations of refuge regulations. The staff will close refuge roads to commercial 

tours and guided hunters and anglers during nesting seasons and migratory waterfowl seasons to 

minimize wildlife disturbance. The staff will monitor use for commercial tours and guided experiences 

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. Prior to construction of trails, 

boardwalks, and observation platforms, the refuge will obtain permits from local, State, and Federal 

regulatory agencies to reduce the possibility of negatively impacting wetlands, cultural resources, or 

protected species. Specifically, commercial tours and guided experiences are subject to the following 

stipulations: 

y Commercial tours and guided experiences should be managed under special use permits that 

stipulate the size of groups; type and number of vehicles or canoes and kayaks; frequency of 

tours; and the dates, times, and general locations that could be visited. At any one time, no 

more than one tour group, on one bus or three vans, should be allowed on the Pungo Unit 

during the wintering waterfowl season. 

y Requests for special use permits should only be considered if they demonstrate a means to 

facilitate the priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation) of the Refuge System. 

y Commercial tour leaders and guides should be required to give proper credit to the refuge and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service in the special use permit. 

y All guides should be required to possess valid State and Federal licenses, where applicable. 

y Guide permit applicants that have serious criminal histories or a history of repeated local, 

State, or Federal fish or game violations should not be allowed. 

y Guides should be required to maintain a minimum level of liability insurance adequate for local 

considerations, type of activity, etc. The insurance policy should have to contain an 

endorsement that the insurance company would notify the refuge before and upon 

cancellation of the policy. 

y Guides should provide harvest information to the refuge, at least to the level of detail as 

reported by the public at harvest check stations. 

Justification: Commercial tours and guides have the potential to facilitate the Refuge System’s priority 

public uses beyond the ability of the refuge staff. They can also accommodate larger groups than the 

Service can handle and schedule tours and guided experiences to match the public’s availability. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2018_________

Use: Wood and Reed Gathering 

Description of Use: Wood and reed gathering includes the gathering of dead and blown down trees 

and cutting vegetation from roads, road shoulders, firebreaks, ditch and canal banks, and other areas 

where vegetation is periodically maintained. The public gathers wood for personal firewood, personal 

net stakes (for commercial and recreational fishing), personal hunting blinds, or other personal uses. 

The public cuts the stems of common reed (Phragmites australis) and other exotic species for 

personal hunting blind concealment material. 

The refuge manages these uses through the review and issuance of special use permits and 

enforcement of the conditions on the permits. 
196 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is 

adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use. The existing management, biological, 

and law enforcement staff will review, approve, and enforce conditions on the special use permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wood and reed gathering and cutting could result in some 

disturbance to wildlife, especially if permit holders venture too close to bald eagle nests, colonial 

nesting bird rookeries, or resting waterfowl in migration. The refuge will prohibit the permit holders 

from operating in areas around nests, rookeries, and managed wetlands during critical periods for 

wildlife. If the refuge identifies unacceptable levels of disturbance at any time, sensitive sites will be 

closed to public entry. Some minimal trampling of vegetation could occur. 

Impacts, such as trampling vegetation and wildlife disturbance by permit holders, do occur, but are 

presently not significant. Upgrading refuge roads will reduce soil erosion associated with the current 

dirt roads and trails. Permit holders could cause other potential negative impacts by violating refuge 

regulations, such as littering or illegally taking plants or wildlife. Use of refuge roads by permit 

holders will result in added maintenance costs. 

Gathering of dead wood will reduce the fuel available to wildfires that are a threat to the refuge 

habitat and the organic soil on which the habitat depends. The tendency of the wood and reed 

gatherers to collect wood and reeds along refuge roads will minimize the fuel available to be ignited 

by cigarettes thrown from vehicles. It also will reduce the workload on the staff that maintains 

roadsides. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Law enforcement patrol of public use areas 

should continue to ensure compliance with permit conditions. The staff should close refuge roads to 

wood and reed gatherers and cutters during nesting seasons and migratory waterfowl seasons to 

minimize wildlife disturbance. The staff should monitor wood and reed gathering and cutting to 

document any negative impacts. If any negative impacts were to occur, the Service should take 

corrective action to reduce or eliminate the effects on wildlife or habitats. 

Specifically wood and reed cutters and gatherers should be subject to the following stipulations: 

y Wood and reed gathering and cutting should be managed under special use permits that 

stipulate that the wood and reeds can be gathered for personal use only and give the dates 

and general locations where wood and reeds could be gathered and cut. 

y Wood gathering and cutting should be limited to dead woody stems that are on the ground in 

natural habitat, or woody stems that are on the ground and leaning over roadsides, ditches, or 

canals. 
Appendices 197

y Wood gathering and cutting should not include any live trees or standing dead trees in natural 

habitat. 

y Reed cutting should be limited to common reed (Phragmites australis). 

Justification: Wood and reed cutting and gathering have the potential to reduce wildfire potential 

and maintenance on the refuge and reduce the refuge workload. Common reed is an exotic species 

the refuge wishes to control. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2018_________

Use: Meetings of Non-Service Agencies and Organizations on the Refuge 

Description of Use: Meetings of non-Service agencies and organizations include the meetings of 

government agencies, such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina 

Division of Forest Resources, North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, and non-government 

organizations, such as the Partnership for the Sounds and the American Red Cross, that cooperate with 

the refuge in natural resource conservation, environmental education and interpretation, employee 

training, or other functions beneficial to the refuge. These meetings occur in the conference room, visitor 

center auditorium, indoor classroom, outdoor classroom, field station, and other facilities. 

The refuge manages meetings through the review of requests for meeting purpose, scheduling 

facilities, and monitoring participants for compliance with requirements. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is 

adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use. The existing management, 

biological, and law enforcement staff will review, approve, and enforce conditions on special use permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Hosting meetings by non-Service agencies and organizations 

could result in utility bills slightly larger than normal in order to provide electricity and water required 

for the meetings. The meetings may also cause slightly more maintenance in the rooms utilized. 

Hosting meetings will foster goodwill with our partners who support the refuge management program, 

provide education and interpretation opportunities, and train staff. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; 

and news releases to area newspapers. The Scuppernong Reminder printed releases on July 20 and 

July 25, 2007, and the Coastland Times printed releases on July 19 and July 24, 2007. Appendix IV 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
198 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The use of refuge meeting space should be 

limited to meetings that contribute to the mission of the refuge, the Refuge System, and the Service 

or to the conservation of natural resources. The refuge should close areas of buildings and grounds 

not required for the meetings to minimize maintenance. The staff should monitor meeting rooms to 

document any negative impacts. If any negative impacts were to become noticeable, the Service 

should take corrective action to reduce or eliminate the effects on refuge buildings and grounds. 

Refuge staff should clearly articulate requirements for use and enforce compliance by monitoring 

meeting participants. 

Justification: Hosting meetings by non-Service agencies and organizations will have no significant 

impact on refuge buildings or grounds and will foster goodwill with cooperating agencies and 

organizations. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ________04/22/2018_________

Literature Cited 

Bookhout, T.A.. 1994. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth edition. 

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD 740pp. 

Ringelman, J.K. 1990. Managing agricultural foods for waterfowl. In Laubhan, M.K., and D. Hamilton. 

Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO 

Schmidt, P.R. 1993. Memorandum - Information request regarding impacts of hunting on national 

wildlife refuges. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory 

Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 7pp. 
Appendices 199

Approval of Compatibility Determination 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the comprehensive 

conservation plan. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the 

comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature becomes part of that determination. 
200 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 201

Appendix VI. Refuge Biota 

ANIMALS

BIRDS 

Total Species - 187, Breeding Species - 60 

A = Abundant, C = Common, U = Uncommon, O = Occasional, R = Rare 

*species with confirmed breeding records 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

Avocet, American R 

Bittern, American* U U U U 

Bittern, Least* U U 

Blackbird, Brewer’s R 

Blackbird, Red-winged* A A A A 

Blackbird, Rusty O 

Bluebird, Eastern* O O O O 

Bobolink O O 

Bobwhite, Northern* A A A A 

Bufflehead C C 

Bunting, Indigo* U U 

Bunting, Snow R 

Canvasback O O 

Catbird, Gray* C C C U 

Cardinal, Northern* C C C 

Chat, Yellow-breasted O O O 

Chickadee, Carolina* C C C C 

Chuck-will’s Widow O O 

Cormorant, Double-crested C U C C 

Coot, American C O C A 

Cowbird, Brown-headed* C C C C 
202 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

Creeper, Brown O O 

Crow, Common* A A A A 

Crow, Fish* C C C C 

Cuckoo, Black-billed R R 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed* U U 

Dove, Ground R 

Dove, Mourning* C C C C 

Dove, Rock O O O O 

Dowitcher, Long-billed O O R 

Dowitcher, Short-billed R R R 

Duck, American Black* U U A A 

Duck, Ring-necked C C 

Duck, Ruddy C C 

Duck, Wood* A A A A 

Dunlin R 

Eagle, Bald (Threatened) O R O O 

Eagle, Golden R 

Egret, Cattle O U O R 

Egret, Great U U U U 

Egret, Snowy U O O U 

Falcon, Peregrine O O 

Finch, House U 

Finch, Purple U 

Flicker, Common* C C C C 

Flycatcher, Acadian* U U 

Flycatcher, Great Crested* U U 
Appendices 203

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

Gadwall U A A 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray* O O O O 

Goldeneye, Common R 

Goldfinch, American O O 

Goose, Canada* U U C C 

Goose, Snow A A 

Goose, White-fronted R R 

Grackle, Boat-tailed U U U U 

Grackle, Common* A A A A 

Grebe, Pied-billed U U C C 

Grosbeak, Evening O O 

Gull, Bonaparte’s R 

Gull, Great Black-backed R R 

Gull, Herring C O C O 

Gull, Laughing C O O R 

Gull, Ring-billed C C C C 

Harrier, Northern O C C 

Hawk, Broad-winged O 

Hawk, Cooper’s O O O O 

Hawk, Red-tailed* C C C C 

Hawk, Sharp-shinned* C U C C 

Heron, Great Blue* C C C C 

Heron, Little Blue U U U 

Heron, Green-backed* C C U 
204 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

Heron, Black-crowned Night U U U U 

Heron, Tri-colored O O O 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night R R 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated* U U 

Ibis, Glossy O O 

Ibis, White O 

Jay, Blue* U U U U 

Junco, Dark-eyed U U C 

Kestrel, American C C C 

Killdeer* U U U O 

Kingbird, Eastern* C C U 

Kingbird, Western R 

Kingfisher, Belted C C C C 

Kinglet, Golden-crowned O O 

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned O O 

Lark, Horned R 

Loon, Common R R 

Mallard* U U A A 

Martin, Purple* C C O 

Meadowlark, Eastern* A A C A 

Merganser, Hooded O O 

Merganser, Red-breasted R R U U 

Merlin O O C 

Mockingbird, Northern* A A A A 

Moorhen, Common U U R R 

Nighthawk, Common U U 
Appendices 205

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

Nuthatch, Brown-breasted* U U U U 

Nuthatch, Red-breasted R R 

Nuthatch, White-breasted* U U U R 

Oldsquaw R 

Oriole, Northern R 

Oriole, Orchard* U 

Osprey* O O O 

Ovenbird O 

Owl, Barred* U U U U 

Owl, Common Barn* U U U U 

Owl, Eastern Screech* U U U U 

Owl, Great Horned* U U U U 

Owl, Long-eared R 

Owl, Saw Whet R R R R 

Phoebe, Eastern U U R C 

Pintail, Northern U A A 

Pipits, Water U 

Plover, Black-bellied R O R 

Plover, Golden R 

Plover, Semipalmated O U 

Rail, Black R R R 

Rail, King* U U U U 

Rail, Virginia* U U 

Rail, Yellow U 

Redhead O O 

Redstart, American C C 
206 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

Robin, American* A A A A 

Sandpiper, Least O O O 

Sandpiper, Pectoral R R 

Sandpiper, Semipalmated O U 

Sandpiper, Solitary R R 

Sandpiper, Spotted U U U 

Sandpiper, Upland O 

Sandpiper, Western R U 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied U U U 

Scaup, Lesser O O 

Shoveler, Northern U A A 

Shrike, Loggerhead O O O O 

Siskin, Pine U U 

Sora O O O 

Snipe, Common U U U 

Sparrow, Chipping U U U U 

Sparrow, Clay-colored R 

Sparrow, Dark-eyed U U C 

Sparrow, Field U U U U 

Sparrow, Fox U U U 

Sparrow, Grasshopper O 

Sparrow, House R R R R 

Sparrow, Le Conte’s R 

Sparrow, Lincoln’s U 

Sparrow, Savannah U U C 

Sparrow, Seaside ? ? ? ? 
Appendices 207

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

Sparrow, Sharp-tailed R R 

Sparrow, Song U U C 

Sparrow, Swamp U U C 

Sparrow, Vesper O 

Sparrow, White-crowned U U 

Sparrow, White-throated U C C 

Starling, European* A A A A 

Stilt, Black-necked R 

Swallow, Bank O O 

Swallow, Barn U U 

Swallow, Northern Rough-winged U U 

Swallow, Tree* C C C U 

Swan, Tundra R R A A 

Swift, Chimney O O 

Tanager, Summer U U 

Teal, American Green-winged U A A 

Teal, Blue-winged U U U 

Tern, Black R R 

Tern, Caspian O O 

Tern, Common O 

Tern, Forster’s R R 

Tern, Royal R 

Thrasher, Brown* C C C C 

Thrush, Hermit U U U 

Thrush, Swainson’s O O 

Thrush, Wood* C C U 
208 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

Titmouse, Tufted* U U U U 

Towhee, Rufous-sided* C C C C 

Vireo, Red-eyed* U U 

Vireo, Solitary R 

Vireo, White-eyed U U U 

Vireo, Yellow-throated R U 

Vulture, Black* U U U U 

Vulture, Turkey* C C C C 

Warbler, Black-and-white R R 

Warbler, Hooded* U U 

Warbler, Magnolia R 

Warbler, Northern Parula O O 

Warbler, Orange-crowned R 

Warbler, Palm R R 

Warbler, Pine* U O U U 

Warbler, Prairie* U U 

Warbler, Prothonotary* U U 

Warbler, Swainson’s O O 

Warbler, Worm-eating R 

Warbler, Yellow* O O 

Warbler, Yellow-rumped C A A 

Warbler, Yellow-throated* U U 

Waterthrush, Northern R R 

Waxwing, Cedar O O O 

Wigeon, American U A A 

Whip-poor-widow O O O O 
Appendices 209

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (continued) 

BIRDS (continued) 

Willet U O O 

Woodcock, American O O U C 

Woodpecker, Downy U U U U 

Woodpecker, Hairy* U U U U 

Woodpecker, Pileated* U U U U 

Woodpecker, Red-bellied U U U U 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded* U U U U 

Woodpecker, Red-headed* O O O O 

Wood-pewee, Eastern U U U 

Wren, Carolina* U U C C 

Wren, House* U U U 

Wren, Marsh* U U U U 

Wren, Sedge U U 

Wren, Winter O 

Yellow-throat, Common* C C U U 

Yellowlegs, Greater U U U 

Yellowlegs, Lesser O O O 

ANIMALS (CONTINUED) 

MAMMALS 

Bat, Big Brown Eptesicus fuscus 

Bat, Eastern Big-eared Corynorhinus rafinesquii 

Bat, Evening Nycticelus numeralis 

Bat, Hoary Lasiurus cinereus 

Bat, Red Lasiurus borealis 

Bat, Silver-haired Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Bear, Black Ursus americana 
210 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (CONTINUED) 

MAMMALS (CONTINUED) 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Deer, White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus 

Fox, Gray Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Fox, Red Vulpes fulva 

Mink Mustela vison 

Mole, Eastern Scalopus aquaticus 

Mole, Star-nosed Condylura cristata 

Mouse, Cotton Peromyscus gossypinus 

Mouse, Eastern Harvest Reithrodontomys humilis 

Mouse, Golden Ochrotomys nuttalli 

Mouse, House Mus musculus 

Mouse, White-footed Peromyscus leucopus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethica 

Myotis, Southeastern Myotis austroriparius 

Nutria (Exotic) Myocastor coypus 

Opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Otter, River Lutra canadensis 

Pipistrelle, Eastern Pipistrellus subflavus 

Rabbit, Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Rabbit, Marsh Sylvilagus palustris 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Rat, Hispid Cotton Sigmodon hispidus 

Rat, Norway Rattus norvegicus 

Rat, Rice Oryzomys palustris 

Shrew, Carolina Short-tailed Blarina carolinensis 
Appendices 211

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

ANIMALS (CONTINUED) 

MAMMALS (CONTINUED) 

Shrew, Dismal Swamp Southeastern (Threatened) Sorex longorostris fisheri 

Shrew, Least Crytotis parva 

Shrew, Short-tailed Blarina brevicauda 

Shrew, Southeastern Sorex longirostris 

Squirrel, Gray Sciurus carolinensis 

Squirrel, Southern Flying Glaucomys volans 

Vole, Meadow Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Weasel,, Long-tailed Mustela frenata 

Woodchuck Marmota monax 

Wolf, Red (Endangered) Canis rufus 

FAUNA

TURTLES

Cooter, Florida Chrysemys floridana floridana 

Mudturtle, Eastern Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum 

FAUNA A (continued)

TURTLES A (continued)

Turtle, Eastern Box Terrapeme carolina carolina 

Turtle, Eastern Musk Sternotherus odoratus 

Turtle, Eastern Painted Chrysemys picta picta 

Turtle, Snapping Chelydra serpentina 

Turtle, Spotted Clemmys guttata 

Turtle, Yellow-bellied Chrysemys scripta scripta 

FAUNA (continued)

SNAKES

Copperhead, Southern Agkistrodon contortrix 

Cottonmouth, Eastern Agkistrodon piscivorus 
212 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FAUNA (continued)

SNAKES (continued)

Rattlesnake, Pygmy Sistrusus miliarius barbouri 

Rattlesnake, Timber Crotalus horridus 

Snake, Banded Water Nerodia fasciata fasciata 

Snake, Black Rat Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta 

Snake, Black Swamp Elaphe obseleta obselata 

Snake, Brown Pseudonaja textilis 

Snake, Brown Water Natrix taxispilota 

Snake, Corn Elaphe guttata guttata 

Snake, Eastern Garter Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis 

Snake, Eastern Hognose Heterdon platyrhinos 

Snake, Eastern King Lampropeltis getulus getulus 

Snake, Eastern Mud Farancia abacura abacura 

Snake, Eastern Ribbon Thamnophis sauritus sauritus 

Snake, Glossy Crayfish Regina rigida 

Snake, Northern Brown Storeria dekayi dekayi 

Snake, Northern Ringneck Diadophis punctatus edwardsii 

Snake, Northern Water Natrix sipedon sipedon 

Snake, Pine Woods Rhadinae flavilata 

Snake, Rainbow Farancia erythrogram 

Snake, Red-Bellied Storeria occipitomaculata 

Snake, Red-Bellied Water Natrix erythrogaster erythrogaster 

Snake, Rough Green Opheodrys aestivus 

Snake, Southern Ringneck Diadophis punctatus punctatus 

Snake, Worm Carphophis vermis 

Snake, Yellow Rat Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata 
Appendices 213

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FAUNA (continued)

SALAMANDERS

Amphiuma, Two-toed Amphiuma means 

Mudpuppy, Dwarf Necturus punctatus 

Newt, Eastern Notophthalmus viridescens 

Salamander, Dwarf Eurycea quadridigitata 

Salamander, Eastern Mud Pseudotriton montanus montanus 

Salamander, Mabee’s Amybstema mabeei 

Salamander, Many-Lined Stereochilus marginatus 

Salamander, Marbled Ambystoma opacum 

Salamander, Redback Plethodon cinereus 

Salamander, Slimy Plethodone glutinosus glutinous 

Salamander, Southern Dusky Desmognathus auriculatus 

Salamander, Spotted Ambystoma muculatum 

Salamander, Three-lined Eurycea quttolineata 

Salamander, Two-lined Eurycea bislineata 

Siren, Greater Siren lacertina 

FAUNA (continued

LIZARDS

Anole, Green (Carolina Anole) Anolis carolinensis 

Lizard, Eastern Fence Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus 

Lizard, Eastern Glass Ophisaures ventralis 

Lizard, Slender Glass Ophisaures attenuatus 

Racerunner, Six-Lined Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

Skink, Broad-Headed Eumeces laticeps 

Skink, Ground Leiolopisma laterale 

Skink, Five-Lined Eumeces fasciatus 

Skink, Southeastern Five-Lined Eumeces inexpectatus 
214 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FAUNA (continued

FROGS AND TOADS 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Frog, Brimley's Chorus Pseudarcris brimleyi 

Frog, Carpenter Rana virgatipes 

Frog, Gray Tree Hyla chrysoscelis (diploid form) 

Frog, Green Rana clamitans melanota 

Frog, Green Tree Hyla gratiosa 

Frog, Little Grass Limnaoedus ocularis 

Frog, Ornate Chorus Pseudacris ornata 

Frog, Pickerel Rana palustris 

Frog, Pine Woods Tree Hyla femoralis 

Frog, Southern Chorus Pseudacris nigrita 

Frog, Southern Cricket Acris gryllus gyrllus 

Frog, Southern Leopard Rana utricularia 

Frog, Squirrel Tree Hyla squirella 

Peeper, Northern Spring Hyla cinera cinera 

Spadefoot, Eastern Scaphiopus holbrooki holbrooki 

Toad, Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Toad, Fowler’s Bufo woodhousei fowleri 

Toad, Oak Bufo quercicus 

Toad, Southern Bufo terrestris 

FLORA

TREES

Ash, Carolina Fraxinus caroliniana 

Ash, Green Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 
Appendices 215

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued

TREES (continued

Bay, Loblolly Gordonia lasianthus 

Bay, Sweet Magnolia virginiana 

Birch, River Betula nigra 

Cedar, Atlantic White Chamaecyparis thyoides 

Cedar, Eastern Red Juniperus virginiana 

Cherry, Black Prunus serotina 

Dogwood, Flowering Cornus florida 

Dogwood, Rough leaf Cornus aspirifolia

Dogwood, Swamp Cornus strictaCornus stricta 

Elm, American Ulmus americana 

Hickory, Mockernut Carya tomentosa 

Hickory, Pignut Carya glabra 

Hickory, Water Carya aquatica 

Holly, American Ilex opaca 

Locust, Black Robinia pseudo-acacia 

Maple, Red Acer rubrum 

Mulberry, Red Morus rubra 

Oak, Cherrybark Quercus pagodafolia 

Oak, Laurel Quercus laurifolia 

Oak, Southern Red Quercus falcata 

Oak, Water Quercus nigra 

Oak, Willow Quercus phellos 

Pecan Carya illinoensis 

Persimmon, Common Diospyros virginiana 

Pine, Loblolly Pinus taeda 

Pine, Pond Pinus serotina 
216 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued

TREES (continued

Poplar, Yellow Liriodendron tulipifera 

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 

Tree, Toothache Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 

Tupelo, Swamp Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora 

Tupelo, Water Nyssa aquatica 

Walking stick, Devil’s Aralia spinosa 

Willow, Black Salix nigra 

Wilow, Coastal Plain, Ward’s, Swamp Salix caroliniana 

Wilow, Sandbar Salix exigua 

FLORA (continued 

SHRUBS 

Alder, Common Alnus serrulata 

Bayberry, Northern Myrica pennsylvanica 

Blackberry, Serrate Leaf Rubus argutus 

Blackberry, Sand Rubus cuneifolius 

Blueberry, Black Highbush Vaccinium atrococcum 

Blueberry, Elliott's Vaccinium elliotti 

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 

Dewberry, Prickly Rubus flagellaris 

Dogwood, Silky Cornus amomum 

Elder, Marsh Iva imbricata 

Elderberry, American Sambucus canadensis 

Fetterbush, Swamp Leucothoe racemosa 

Gallberry, Sweet or Large Ilex coriacea 

Groundsel Tree, High Tide Bush Baccharis halimifolia 
Appendices 217

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued) 

SHRUBS (continued) 

Holly, Yaupon Ilex vomitoria 

Huckleberry, Squaw Vaccinium stamineum 

Inkberry, Bitter Gallberry Ilex glabra 

Oak, Dwarf Quercus prinoides 

Oak, Scrub Quercus marilandica 

Pepperbush, Sweet Clethra alnofolia 

Possumhaw Viburnum nudum 

Redbay, Swamp Persea palustris 

Pawpaw, Common Asimina triloba 

Privet, Chinese (Exotic) Ligustrum chinense 

Rose, Swamp Rosa palustris 

Shadbush, Serviceberry Amelanchier candensis 

Sumac, Winged Rhus copallina 

Sweetspire, Virginia Itea virginica 

Titi Cyrilla racemiflora 

Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera 

FLORA (continued)

WOODY VINES

Creeper, Virginia Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Grape, Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Grape, Pigeon Vitis cinerea var. floridana 

Greenbrier, Cat Smilax gluca 

Greenbrier, Common Smilax rotundifolia 

Greenbrier, Ear-leaf Smilax auriculata 

Greenbrier, Laurel-Leaf Smilax laurifolia 

Greenbrier, Saw Smilax bona-nox 
218 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued)

WOODY VINES (continued)

Honeysuckle, Coral Lonicera sempervirens 

Honeysuckle, Japanese (Exotic)l Lonicera japonica 

Ivy, Poison Rhus radicans 

Trumpetcreeper Campsis radicans 

Vine, Pepper Ampelopsis arborea 

Wisteria (Exotic) Wisteria chinensis 

FLORA

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS)

Alligatorweed (Exotic) Alternanthera philoxeroides 

Arrow Arum Peltandra virginica 

Arrowhead, Awl-leaf Sagittaria subulata 

Arrowhead, Broadleaf Sagittaria latifolia 

Arrowhead, Bulltongue Sagittaria lancifolia 

Aster, Bushy Aster dumosus 

Bean, Trailing Wild Strophostyles helvola 

Bedstraw, Catchweed Galium aparine 

Beggarticks, Smooth Bidens laevis 

Bladderwort Utricularia spp. 

Buttercup, Celery-Leaf Ranunculus sceleratus 

Buttonweed Diodia spp. 

Cactus Opuntia compressa 

Camphor Weed Pluchea purpurascens 

Centella Centella asiatica 

Cherry, Ground Physalis visocosa ssp. maritima 

Chickweed, Mouse-Ear Cerastium vicosum 

Clover, Crimson (Exotic) Trifolium incarnatum 
Appendices 219

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued)

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) (continued)

Clover, White (Exotic) Trifolium repens 

Cocklebur, Rough Xanthium strumarium 

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum 

Cranesbill, Carolina Geranium carolinianum 

Cress, Bitter Cardamine hairsuta 

Cucumber, Creeping Melothria pendula 

Cudweed, Narrow-Leaf Gnaphalium purpureum var. falcatum 

Daisy Fleabane Erigeron canadensis 

Daisy, False Eclipta alba 

Dandelion, Dwarf Krigia virginica 

Dock, Curly Rumex crispa 

Dock, Water Rumex verticillatus 

Dog Fennel, Small Eupatorium capillifolium 

Dropwort, Water Oxypolis rigidior 

Duckweed, Greater Spirodela polythiza 

Duckweed, Minute Lemna perpusilla 

Elephant's Foot Elephantopus nudatus 

Feather, Parrot Myriophyllum brasiliense 

Fimbry, Forked Fimbristylis dichotoma 

Fleabane Pluchea pupurascens 

Frogbit Limnobium spongia 

Frogfruit Lippia lanceolata 

Goldenrod, Anisescented Solidago odora 

Goldenrod, Rough-leaved Solidago rugosa 

Goldentop, Slender Euthamia tenuifolia 

Goldenrod, Sweet Euthamia graminifolia 
220 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued)

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) (continued)

Grasswort, Carolina Lilaeopsis carolinensis 

Grasswort, Eastern Lilaeopsis chinensis 

Grounsel, Wooly Senecio tomentosus 

Hemlock, Poison Cicuta maculata 

Hempweed, Climbing Mikania scandens 

Horehound, Water Lycopus virginicus 

Hyssop, Water Bacopa monnieri 

Ironweed, Tall Vernonia gigantea 

Jessamine, Yellow Gelsemium sempervirens 

Jimsonweed (Exotic) Datura stramonium 

Lespedeza, Sericea (Exotic) Lespedeza cuneata 

Lettuce, Wild Lactuca canadensis 

Lobelia, Downy Lobelia puberula 

Loosestrife, False Ludwigia alternifolia 

Mallow, Seashore Kosteletzkya virginica 

Mallow, Swamp Rose Hibiscus moscheutos 

Marigold, Nodding Bur Bidens cernua 

Medic, Black (Exotic) Medicago lupalina 

Milfoil, Eurasian (Exotic) Myriophyllum spicatum 

Milfoil, Water Myriophyllum exalbescens 

Monarda, Dotted Monarda punctata 

Morningglory, Saltmarsh Ipomoea sagittata 

Mudflower, Shade Micranthemum umbrosum 

Mudwort, Awl-leaf Limosella subulata 

Nettle, Horse Solanum carolinense 

Niad Najas quadalupensis 
Appendices 221

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued)

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) (continued)

Pea, Partridge Cassia fasciculata 

Pearlwort, Trailing Sagina decumbens 

Pennywort, Water Hydrocotyle umbellata 

Pennywort, Floating Hydrocotyle ranunculoides 

Pennywort, False Centella asiatica 

Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata 

Pimpernel, Water Samolus parviflorus 

Pink, Sea Sabatia stellaris 

Pinweed, Leggett’s Lechea pulchella 

Plantain, Pale Seed Plantago virginica 

Pondweed, Leafy Potamogeton foliosus 

Pondweed, Sago Potamogeton pectinatus 

Pondweed, Clasping-Leaf Potamogeton perfoliatus 

Pondweed, Bushy Najas flexilis 

Pondweed, Horned Zannichellia palustris 

Pondweeds Najas spp. 

Primrose, Evening Oenothera humifusa 

Purslane, Water Ludwigia palustris 

Rabbit Tobacco Gnaphalium obtusifolium 

Ragweed, Annual Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Redstem, Pink Ammania teres 

Rocket, American Sea Cakile edentula 

Rocket, Harper’s Sea Cakile harperi 

Salad, Corn Valerianella radiata 

Sandmat, Seaside Chamaesyce polygonifolia 

Skullcap, Hyssop Scutellaria integrifolia 
222 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued)

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) (continued)

Smartweed, Dotted Polygonum punctatum 

Sorrel, Sheep Rumex hastatulus 

Soybean (Exotic) Glycine max 

St. Andrews Cross Hypericum stragalum 

Starwort, Water Callitriche heterophylla 

Sweetclover, White Melilotus alba 

Tea, Mexican Chenopodium ambrosioides 

Thistle, Russian Salsola kali 

Thistle, Yellow Cirsium horridulum 

Thoroughwort, Late-flowering Eupatorium hyssopifolium 

Toadflax Linaria canadensis 

Tresses, Ladies Spiranthes vernalis 

Violet, Bog White Viola lanceolata 

Watercress Nasturtium officinale 

Weed, Mermaid Proserpinaca palustris 

Wild Sensitive Plant Cassia nictitans 

Wintergreen, Spotted Chimaphila maculata 

Wort, St. Johns Hypericum hypericoides 

Yarrow, Common Achillea millefolium 

FLORA (continued) 

GRASSES 

Bahiagrass (Exotic) Paspalum notatum 

Barnyardgrass (Exotic) Echinochloa crusgalli 

Bermudagrass (Exotic) Cynodon dactylon 

Bluegrass, Annual Poa annua 

Bluestem, Bushybeard Andropogon glomeratus 
Appendices 223

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued) 

GRASSES (continued) 

Bluestem, Little Schizachyrium scoparium 

Bluestem, Splitbeard Andropogon ternarius 

Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus 

Cordgrass, Big Spartina cynosuroides 

Cordgrass, Saltmeadow Spartina patens 

Cordgrass, Smooth Spartina alterniflora 

Corn Zea mays 

Crabgrass Digitaria spp. 

Cutgrass, Giant Zizaniopsis mileacea 

Cutgrass, Rice Leersia oryzoides 

Dallisgrass (Exotic) Paspalum dilatatum 

Deertongue Dichanthelium clandestinum 

Eelgrass Vallisneria americana 

Fescue, Tall (Exotic)l Lolium arundinaceum 

Foxtail, Green Setaria virdis 

Grass, American Cupscale Sacciolepis striata 

Grass, Blue-eyed Sisyrinchium mucronatum 

Grass, Widgeon Ruppia maritima 

Grass, Yellow-eyed Xyris difformis 

Grass, Yellow-eyed Xyris jupicai 

Johnsongrass (Exotic) Sorghum halpense 

Knotgrass Paspalum distichum 

Maidencane Panicum hemitomom 

Millet (Exotic) Setaria spp. 

Orangegrass Hypericum gentianoides 

Orchardgrass (Exotic) Dactylis glomerata 
224 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued) 

GRASSES (continued) 

Panicgrass, Beaked Panicum anceps 

Panicgrass, Velvet Dichanthelium scoparium 

Panicum, Fall Panicum dichotomiflorum 

Plumegrass, Sugarcane Saccharum giganteum 

Purpletop Tridens flavus 

Reed, Common (Exotic) Phragmites australis 

Ryegrass, Annual (Exotic) Lolium multiflorum 

Saltgrass, Seashore Distichlis spicata 

Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense 

Sorghum Sorghum bicolor 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 

Watergrass Hydrochloa spp. 

Wheat (Exotic) Triticum aestivum 

Woodoats, Slender Chasmanthium laxum 

FLORA (continued) 

GRASSLIKE PLANTS 

Beakrush, Clustered Rhynchospora glomerata 

Beakrush, Loosehead Rhynchospora chalorocephala 

Bulrush, Softstem Scirpus validus 

Cattail, Common Typha latifolia 

Cattail, Narrow-leaf Typha angustifolia 

Cattail, Southern Typha domingensis 

Flatsedge, Slender Cyperus fillicinus 

Flatsedge, Strawcolored Cyperus strigosus 

Iris, Virginia Iris virginica 

Iris, Yellow Water Iris pseudoacorus 
Appendices 225

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

FLORA (continued) 

GRASSLIKE PLANTS (continued) 

Rush, Canada Juncus canadensis 

Rush, Turnflower Juncus biflorus 

Rush, Black Needle Juncus roemerianus 

Rush, Leathery Juncus coriaceus 

Rush, Soft Juncus effusus 

Sedge, Egg-bracted Carex ovalis 

Spikerush, Blunt Eleocharis obtuse 

Spikerush, Dwarf Eleocharis parvula 

Spikerush, Foursquare Eleocharis quadrangulata 

Spikerush, Small-Fruit Eleocharis microcarpa 

Spikerush, Yellow Eleocharis flavescens 

Threesquare, Common Scirpus pungens 

Threesquare, Olney Scirpus olneyi 

Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus 

FERN 

Fern, Cinnamon Osmunda cinnamomea 

Fern, Netted Chain Woodwardia areolata 

MOSS 

Moss, Spanish Tillandsia usneoides 
226 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 227

Appendix VII. Priority Bird Species and 

Species Suites 

Habitat Extremely High Priority High Priority 

Pocosin –Grass Stage, 

Open Country 

Bachman’s Sparrow 

Henslow’s Sparrow 

Henslow’s Sparrow 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper 

Bobolink 

Yellow Rail 

American Woodcock 

Short-eared Owl 

Sedge Wren 

Pocosin – Shrub Stage Bachman’s Sparrow 

Henslow’s Sparrow 

Henslow’s Sparrow 

American Woodcock 

Prairie Warbler 

Northern Bobwhite 

Field Sparrow 

Pocosin-ConiferHardwood Black-throated Green Warbler Wood Thrush 

Northern Parula 

Hooded Warbler 

Worm-eating Warbler 

Yellow-throated Warbler 

Tall Pocosin – Pond Pine, 

Forested Wetlands 

Swainson’s Warbler 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Brown-headed Nuthatch Prairie 

Warbler 

Northern Bobwhite 

Cerulean Warbler 

American Woodcock 

American Black Duck 

Prothonotary Warbler 

Emergent Wetland - Moist 

Soil Units 

 Yellow Rail 

King Rail 

American Black Duck 

Virginia Rail 

Mudflats (Drought Years, 

Water Management in 

Impoundments) 

 Stilt Sandpiper 

Solitary Sandpiper 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper 
228 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Habitat Moderate Priority Local or Regional Interest 

Pocosin –Grass Stage, 

Open Country 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Loggerhead Shrike 

Palm Warbler 

Northern Harrier 

Barn Owl 

Eastern Kingbird 

Eastern Meadowlark 

Bald Eagle 

Pocosin – Shrub Stage Eastern Towhee 

Palm Warbler 

White-eared Vireo 

Orchard Oriole 

Whip-poor-will 

Pocosin – Conifer - 

Hardwood 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

Carolina Chickadee 

Acadian Flycatcher 

Yellow-throated Vireos 

Eastern Wood-peewee 

Black-and-white Warbler 

Tall Pocosin - Pond Pine, 

Forested Wetlands 

Rusty Blackbird 

Red-headed Woodpecker 

Chuck-will’s-widow 

Pine Warbler 

Louisiana Waterthrush 

Wood Duck 

Mississippi Kite 

Bald Eagle 

Colonial Tree and/or 

Brush-nesting Waterbirds 

 Great Blue Heron 

Black-crowned Night Heron 

Great Egret 

Snowy Egret 

Little Blue Heron 

Yellow-crowned Night Heron 

Emergent Wetland - Moist 

Soil Units 

American Bittern 

Least Bittern 

Northern Harrier 

Peregrine Falcon 

Bald Eagle 

Mudflats (drought years, 

water management in 

impoundments) 

Least Sandpiper 

Greater Yellowlegs, Pectoral 

Sandpiper 
Appendices 229

Appendix VIII. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATION NEEDS SYSTEM (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 97001 - Conduct Long-term Monitoring (2 half-time biological technicians) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $130,000, Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank - 4 

This project would provide the funding to hire two half-time GS-7 biological technicians to conduct 

long-term monitoring of wildlife populations and vegetative communities for the purposes of 

determining the effects of past management actions and to guide future management decisions. Key 

species to be monitored would include red-cockaded woodpeckers (endangered), black bear, 

American alligator, waterfowl, shorebirds, neotropical migratory birds, and other migratory birds. Key 

vegetative communities would include Atlantic white cedar stands (considered globally threatened) 

and intensively managed seasonally flooded wetlands within moist-soil units. Because of the dense 

shrub understory layer in the pocosin wetlands, red-cockaded woodpecker cavity tree surveys must 

be done with aircraft, followed by cutting trails in to the site for monitoring/management access. 

These technicians would also monitor the refuge's 200+ wood duck boxes for nesting success, as 

well as assist with waterfowl banding and other research efforts. 

Project 97008 - Enhance Restoration and Management of Pocosin and Moist-soil Wetlands 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $410,000, Recurring Request $20,000 

Station Rank -12 

This project would provide the funding to enhance restoration of 20,000 acres of pocosin wetlands and 

improve management of 700 acres of seasonally flooded wetlands (moist-soil units). Pocosin is a unique 

type of wetland that is rapidly disappearing worldwide. Atlantic white cedar stands are often found within 

pocosins and this species is considered globally threatened. Intensively managed moist-soil units have 

become very important to waterfowl, shorebirds, and other migratory species due to the overall loss of 

wetland habitat nationwide. Pocosin Lakes NWR protects vast expanses of pocosin and the Pungo Unit 

contains several important moist-soil units. Native trees, tree planting equipment, contract labor, a roller 

chopper, equipment transport vehicles, and other equipment are needed. 
230 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 97009 - Provide Essential Visitor and Resource Protection (Law Enforcement Officer) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $71,000 

Station Rank - 1 

This project would provide the funding to hire a full-time GS-9 law enforcement officer to protect 

refuge visitors and resources on this 113,000-acre refuge, spanning portions of three counties. 

The majority of the refuge is open to hunting of several game species. Nearly six months of open 

hunting seasons attract over 8,000 hunters annually. Private hunt clubs surround the refuge. A 

new visitor center/environmental education center was opened in 2002, and visitation is expected 

to eventually exceed 400,000 visitors annually. An additional full-time officer is needed to combat 

increasing incidences of vandalism, timber and other trespass, dumping, incidents involving 

reintroduced endangered red wolves and other issues, such as suspected drug problems. The 

current law enforcement strength is one full-time officer shared with another refuge and a dualfunction officer, a position that will be soon phased out as part of the conversion to a more 

professional law enforcement cadre. 

Project 97013 - Develop a Cultural Resource Plan 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $50,000, Recurring Request $0 

Station Rank - 999 

Develop a cultural resource plan and coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Identify 

various sites. The refuge is over 113,000 acres in size and has never had a cultural resource survey. 

 Native Americans are known to have utilized the area, but no sites are identified. 

Project 97021 - Develop a Public Use Plan (Resource Specialist) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $85,000, Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank - 999 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-7 park ranger to develop a public use plan that 

describes the needs and the direction of the refuge’s public use program, in coordination with the 

Regional Office and planning teams. The plan must be developed to implement the Partnership for 

the Sounds in joint educational/outreach efforts. This is one of the largest partnerships on the east 

coast. The 113,000-acre refuge would have 450,000 visitors with no plan. 

Project 99001 - Improve Waterfowl Monitoring Projects 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $30,000 

Station Rank - 999 

This project would provide the funding to hire two quarter-time GS-5 biological technicians to capture 

and band 400 wood ducks from July – September, and capture, neck collar, and band 250 tundra 

swans from December - March. The capture would be accomplished with nets propelled by rockets 

and/or swim in traps. New wood duck boxes would also be erected while old boxes would be 

checked and repaired. Moist-soil plants would be surveyed to determine food quality and abundance 

before waterfowl arrive in the fall. Water levels would be maintained throughout the year to provide 

optimum plant growth conditions, as well as standing water during winter waterfowl months. Two 

seasonal technicians would be needed to accomplish activities. 
Appendices 231

Project 99002 - Monitor Endangered Red-cockaded Woodpeckers 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $30,000, Recurring Request $20,000 

Station Rank - 5 

This project would provide the funding to conduct aerial and ground surveys of the endangered redcockaded woodpecker and manage its habitat in accordance with guidelines in the Service’s 

Recovery and Management Plan for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers and their habitat. Because of the 

dense shrub understory layer in pocosin wetlands found in this area, red cockaded woodpecker 

cavity tree surveys must be conducted with aircraft followed by cutting trails in to the site for 

monitoring/management access. 

Project 99009 - Purchase Boat, Motor, and Trailer 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $20,000, Recurring Request $5,000 

Station Rank - 999 

This project would provide the funding to purchase a boat, which would be essential to management 

of several land tracts that have boat access only or to access portions of land tracks that have boat 

access only. Two partners’ tracks - Buck Ridge and Roper Island - would require a boat for access 

as well as Frying Pan and a large portion of the refuge. 

Project 99010 - Enhance Refuge Access for Protection, Management, and Public Use (Equipment 

Operator) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank - 12 

This project would provide the funding to hire a WG-9 equipment operator to enhance refuge access 

for fire fighting, prescribed burning, law enforcement, and other management purposes, as well as 

public use activities through improved maintenance of over 100 miles of refuge roads and 25 miles of 

firebreaks. All refuge roads are dirt and require constant maintenance due to the soil type (high 

organic peat) of the region. Catastrophic wildfires have occurred in and around the refuge, and the 

risk of these fires remains high. Roads and firebreaks provide the access needed to control fires 

while they are small. In addition, over 10,000 hunters and thousands of other visitors use many of 

these roads each year to pursue their recreational activities, resulting in road damage and increased 

maintenance requirements. Additional manpower (an equipment operator) is needed to properly 

maintain refuge roads and firebreaks. 

Project 99012 - Effectively Operate the Walter B. Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds (Park Ranger, 

Office Assistant/Receptionist) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $140,000, Recurring Request $149,000 

Station Rank - 2 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-5 park ranger and GS-5 office assistant to provide 

environmental education and interpretation to a projected 400,000 visitors annually at the Walter B. 

Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds and Pocosin Lakes NWR headquarters facility. Construction of this 

$1.9 million facility was completed in FY 01. It is located adjacent to a rest area on U.S. Highway 64, 

the main route to North Carolina's outer banks beaches. More than one million vehicles pass the site 

every year. Maintenance services are needed to keep this highly visible, award-winning facility clean 
232 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

and presentable to the public. Current refuge staffing is not adequate to perform this function and the 

building is already showing some signs of neglect. Brochures, cleaning supplies, utilities, and other 

materials are needed to properly operate the facility. Receptionists are needed to greet visitors in the 

Center and in the adjacent refuge administrative office. The Center is being operated in partnership 

with the non-profit Partnership for the Sounds, Inc. 

Project 99013 - Survey Boundary (Resource Specialist – Surveyor)) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $125,000, Recurring Request $72,000 

Station Rank - 999 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-11 resource specialist (surveyor) to survey 

several miles of refuge boundary. The refuge is seven years old without adequate surveys. Some 

areas have surveys from 1919. This project includes 8 properties and includes three Farm Service 

Agency tracts and several out parcels in swamp areas. During the hunting season (6 months), public 

hunters often encroach on adjoining land and cause a lot of trouble. A good survey would eliminate 

some of these problems. 

Project 99014 - Enhance Fire Suppression Capabilities (Equipment) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $115,000, Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank - 15 

This project would provide the funding to purchase a third fire engine (pumper truck) and a second 

irrigation system to improve wildfire fighting and prescribed burning capabilities, and a second remote 

weather station in Columbia, North Carolina to help monitor fire weather conditions in the eastern half 

of the refuge that is over 40 miles from west to east. Most of Pocosin Lakes NWR’s 113,000 acres 

consist of pocosin wetlands - southeastern shrub bog habitat that is highly susceptible to catastrophic 

wildfire. Attempts to drain much of the land prior to it becoming a refuge have artificially dried out 

thousands of acres increasing the potential for wildfires. Several catastrophic fires have occurred in 

and around the refuge in the past. Private structures adjacent to the refuge are at risk. The 

understory vegetation in pocosins will burn even after full green-up during the growing season and 

the high organic (peat) soil will also burn (called ground fire). Putting the ground fire out following the 

main fire often requires lots of water that is applied with pumper trucks and irrigation systems. 

Project 99015 - Expand Hazardous Material Handling Capabilities 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $43,000, Recurring Request $0 

Station Rank - 999 

This project would provide the funding to modify the storage building to contain fluid spills (if a spill 

should occur), according to new regulations. It would allow for the purchase of a dispensing system 

for oil and grease, and for the construction of a holding area for used oil and filters. It would also 

allow for the purchase of two self-contained oil houses for the Pungo maintenance site and new site 

in Columbia. 
Appendices 233

Project 00005 - Monitor and Control Phragmites and Other Invasive Species (Biological Technician) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank - 6 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-7 biological technician to monitor and control 

invasive species on over 113,000 acres of refuge land. Giant reed (Phragmites spp.) forms 

extensive, dense monocultures in wetland areas displacing desirable vegetation used by waterfowl 

and other species managed on the refuge. Several hundred acres of Phragmites have become 

established on the refuge and our control efforts are not keeping pace with the spread of this plant. 

Other invasive species may also be present and this project would increase detection efforts for new 

threats by providing staff dedicated to invasive species management. The refuge is used by 

thousands of migrating swans, geese, ducks, and other birds annually, but the spread of Phragmites 

threatens the habitat these birds require. Local economically disadvantaged communities are 

promoting nature-based tourism for their economic development and depend on the resources 

managed by the refuge. A biological technician is needed to do the monitoring and treatment work. 

Project 00006 - Restore Pocosin Wetlands (Assistant Refuge Manager) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $63,000 

Station Rank - 1 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-9 assistant refuge manager to plan and 

coordinate the restoration of 20,000 acres of pocosin wetlands on the 113,700-acre refuge. Pocosin 

(a native American word meaning "upland swamp") habitat is associated with organic peat soils and 

is one of the most rapidly disappearing wetlands in the world. Only 10 percent of the original acreage 

is left, which is mostly on State and Federal land. This wetland type also supports Atlantic white 

cedar, whose population is threatened and reduced by 90 percent. Restoring these wetlands would 

provide much needed water control and flood control to resolve high water problems with 12 

surrounding landowners. Water control structures will be placed in ditches; Atlantic white cedars 

would be planted; roads would be raised to allow higher water levels; and water levels would be 

monitored. An assistant refuge manager is needed to coordinate and supervise this restoration work. 

Project 00008 - Improve Water Management Capabilities (Heavy Equipment Operator) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $57,000 

Station Rank - 3 

This project would provide the funding to hire a WG-9 heavy equipment operator to replace existing 

dikes around two waterfowl impoundments and to maintain and repair an extensive dirt road (100 

miles) system and canal/ditch (200 miles) system on the 113,700-acre refuge. The dikes on two 

waterfowl impoundments are not effective in manipulating water levels and need to be replaced. The 

replacement dikes are needed to allow controlled flooding of the waterfowl impoundments. The 

controlled flooding (or draining) of these impoundments on a seasonal basis creates prime growing 

conditions for various wetland plants. These wetland plants then provide a high-quality food source 

that is used by thousands of migrating waterfowl and shore birds. These trust species have food and 

water requirements that are not being met under current situations. The heavy equipment operator 

would use existing heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers, excavators, and road graders) to maintain, 

repair, or replace dikes, canals, roads, and water control structures (20+) on the refuge, with an 

overall goal of restoring the natural hydrology on 19,000 acres of pocosin wetland habitat (upland 

swamp on predominantly organic peat soils). 
234 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 00009 - Expand Endangered Species Management and Protection (Forester, 2 Biological 

Technicians) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $130,000, Recurring Request $190,000 

Station Rank - 13 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-11 forester and two GS-7 biological technicians to 

manage and protect over 30 clusters of endangered red cockaded woodpeckers on the PalmettoPeartree Preserve, a 10,000-acre endangered species mitigation project being carried out by the Service, 

the Conservation Fund, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Our partners are currently 

increasing the number of clusters on this site through habitat improvements. Once the target (31 

clusters) is reached (projected for 2007), the Service expects the Conservation Fund to turn over the area 

to the refuge for maintenance and management. Red-cockaded woodpecker management would 

include habitat management (prescribed burning, thinning, understory control, installation of artificial 

cavities, etc.), population monitoring, capture and relocation of birds, and maintenance of infrastructure 

(such as roads and trails) for access. A comprehensive public use and environmental education 

program, including a large hunting program, is also being planned for the area. 

Project 00011 - Improve Biological Monitoring and Management (Wildlife Biologist) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $63,000 

Station Rank - 2 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-9 wildlife biologist to conduct essential biological 

surveys and to coordinate other tasks in the refuge's biological program. Biological monitoring 

surveys are necessary to ensure sound management of the wildlife and plant resources on the 

110,106-acre refuge. The wildlife biologist would help to accomplish refuge objectives mandated for 

endangered species (red wolf and red-cockaded woodpecker), Service trust species (waterfowl and 

songbirds), important resident species (black bear, white-tailed deer, and river otter), and invasive 

pest species (Phragmites and southern pine beetle), which adversely affect the habitat of the above 

listed animal categories. Monitoring surveys that would be conducted or coordinated by the wildlife 

biologist would include the following: carbon sequestration, endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, 

black bear, American alligator, Phragmites, and declining populations of Henslow's sparrow, 

songbirds, shorebirds, bats, and amphibians. 

Project 00012 - Improve Mapping Capabilities to More Effectively Document Refuge Projects and 

Management Practices (Biologist) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $90,000, Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank – 999 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-7 biologist to improve mapping capabilities to 

more effectively document law enforcement reports, refuge biological projects and fire management 

programs. Aerial and infrared photographs will greatly aid habitat and fire management by identifying 

vegetation and landscape characteristics on the refuge, including limited accessible areas. GIS maps 

produced with Global Positioning Systems data and recent aerial photographs would directly benefit 

many refuge programs, such as endangered species, invasive species control, fire, Service trust 

species, pocosin habitat restoration, and Atlantic white cedar restoration. Benefits would include 

increasing accuracy and effectiveness of monitoring, reporting, and distributing critical data to other 

cooperative organizations and future mitigation projects. 
Appendices 235

Project 00013 - Improve Refuge Fire Equipment in Support of Wildfire and Prescribed Burning 

Operations 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $54,000, Recurring Request $0 

Station Rank - 999 

This project would provide the funding to purchase tools and equipment for the maintenance and fire 

program. We have large amounts of heavy equipment and very few tools to handle the maintenance. 

 Improvement of outdated and hazardous equipment will allow the refuge fire staff to more efficiently 

complete projects in support of ecosystem objectives. Safety codes are not met with current 

equipment, subjecting staff and the public to potential hazards. 

Project 00014 - Enhance Fire Suppression Capabilities (Heavy Equipment Operator) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank - 11 

This project would provide the funding to improve wildfire fighting and prescribed burning capabilities. 

 Most of Pocosin Lakes NWR’s 110,106 acres consist of pocosin wetlands - southeastern shrub bog 

habitat that is highly susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. Attempts to drain the land prior to it 

becoming a refuge have artificially dried out thousands of acres increasing the potential for wildfires. 

Several catastrophic fires have occurred in and around the refuge in the past. Private structures 

adjacent to the refuge are at risk. The understory vegetation in pocosins will burn even after full 

green-up during the growing season and the high organic (peat) soil will also burn. Increasing the 

number of firefighters will allow for faster, safer, and more efficient response to wildfire and more 

prescribed burning to reduce hazardous fuel loads (and enhance wildlife habitat). An additional WG8 equipment operator is needed to strengthen the fire crew. 

Project 00016 - Enhance Refuge Access for Protection, Management, and Public Use (Equipment) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $200,000, Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank - 13 

This project would provide the funding to enhance refuge access for fire fighting, prescribed burning, 

law enforcement, and other management purposes; hunting; fishing; wildlife observation; and other 

public use activities through improved maintenance of over 100 miles of refuge roads and 25 miles of 

firebreaks. All refuge roads are dirt and require constant maintenance due to the soil type (high 

organic peat) of the region. Catastrophic wildfires have occurred in and around the refuge, and the 

risk of these fires remains high. Roads and firebreaks provide the access needed to control fires 

while they are small. In addition, over 10,000 hunters and thousands of other visitors use many of 

these roads each year to pursue their recreational activities - usually resulting in road damage and 

increased maintenance requirements. Additional equipment (tractors with mowing and other 

implements) is needed to properly maintain refuge roads and firebreaks. 
236 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 00019 - Enhance Refuge Partnership Efforts 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $33,000, Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank - 4 

This project would provide the funding to enhance partnership efforts with organizations such as 

Partnership for the Sounds, Red Wolf Coalition, Pocosin Arts, and Pettigrew State Park. The 

available budget for support activities with these important partnerships has been declining. This 

project would enhance these partnerships by providing matching funds. For example, the 

Partnership for the Sounds has already spent over five million dollars on projects that benefit five 

refuges in the area. Matching refuge funds would have improved these projects and garnered more 

partnership support. Properly funded, existing and future programs and projects of these refuge 

partners will reach over 400,000 people. Being able to partner with these groups financially will 

enhance the overall mission and programs of not only Pocosin Lakes NWR, but also other refuges 

(Alligator River, Mattamuskeet, and Roanoke River) in the immediate vicinity. 

Project 01001 - Enhance Public Use Opportunities at Walter B. Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds 

(Park Ranger) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank - 14 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-7 park ranger to conduct interpretive and 

educational programs to visitors, including school groups, making full use of the new center and the 

environmental education classroom that have been constructed. It would provide additional public 

use opportunities in the recently completed Walter B. Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds (refuge visitor 

center). Construction of this facility was completed in 2001 and over 400,000 visitors are expected 

annually (approximately 1.2 million cars pass the site each year). The project will provide 

recreational and educational opportunities that should foster a greater understanding and 

appreciation of the refuge, the area's natural resources, and the Refuge System's mission. The 

center will be operated in partnership with the non-profit Partnership for the Sounds. 

Project 01002 Monitor and Control Phragmites and Other Invasive Species 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $0, Recurring Request $50,000 

Station Rank - 7 

This project would provide the funding to monitor and control invasive species on over 113,000 acres 

of refuge land. Giant reed (Phragmites spp.) forms extensive, dense monocultures in wetland areas, 

displacing desirable vegetation used by waterfowl and other species managed on the refuge. 

Several hundred acres of Phragmites have become established on the refuge and our control efforts 

are not keeping pace with the spread of this plant. Other invasive species may also be present and 

this project will increase detection efforts for new threats by providing staff dedicated to invasive 

species management. The refuge is used by thousands of migrating swans, geese, ducks, and other 

birds annually, but the spread of Phragmites threatens the habitat these birds require. Local 

economically disadvantaged communities are promoting nature-based tourism for their economic 

development and depend on the resources managed by the refuge. This project provides the 

pesticides, pesticide application contracts, and aerial photography needed to complete the work 

described in Project No. 00005. 
Appendices 237

Project 02001- Monitor Fire Effects in Pocosins (Biological Technician/Firefighter) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $55,000, Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank - 10 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-9 biological technician/firefighter to conduct long-term 

monitoring of the effects of wild and prescribed fires on the refuge's pocosin wetlands. It is suspected 

that pocosin wetlands historically burned very infrequently, maybe once every 100 years. Unfortunately, 

due to the buildup of hazardous fuels over these time periods, the fires that occurred were normally 

catastrophic. If they occurred today, such fires would destroy property and take lives. More frequent 

controlled burns are needed today to reduce fuel loads, lessen the risk of catastrophic fire, and improve 

wildlife habitat. However, the effects of more frequent burning must be monitored in order to determine 

the optimum burning frequency that balances fire control and ecological health goals. The position is 

needed to monitor the effects of prescribed and wild fires on the pocosin wetlands and the variety of 

wildlife species, including threatened and endangered species that use them. 

Project 03001 - Provide Adequate Visitor and Resource Protection (Law Enforcement Officer) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $71,000 

Station Rank - 3 

This project would provide the funding to hire a GS-9 law enforcement officer for essential law 

enforcement protection to refuge visitors and resources. Basic law enforcement services are needed 

on this 110,106-acre refuge, spanning portions of three counties. The majority of the refuge is open 

to hunting of several game species. Nearly six months of open hunting seasons attract over 8,000 

hunters annually. Private hunt clubs also surround the refuge. A new visitor center/environmental 

education center was opened in 2002, and is expected to eventually exceed 400,000 visitors 

annually. Vandalism, timber and other trespass, dumping, incidents involving reintroduced 

endangered red wolves, and other issues are increasing. Drug problems are suspected. This project 

will add a second GS-9 full-time law enforcement officer, thus providing adequate law enforcement 

protection for the refuge. 
238 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects Listed by Project Number 

Station 

Rank/ 

Tier 

Project 

Number 

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring) 

Positions Project Title 

4/2 97001 $130,000 

$69,000 

1.0 Conduct Long-Term Monitoring (2 HalfTime Biological Technicians) 

12/2 97008 $410,000 

$20,000 

0.0 Enhance Restoration and Management of 

Pocosin and Moist Soil Wetlands 

1⁄2 97009 $65,000 

$71,000 

1.0 Provide Essential Visitor and Resource 

Protection (Law Enforcement Officer) 

999/2 97013 $50,000 

$0 

0.0 Develop a Cultural Resource Plan 

999/2 97021 $85,000 

$59,000 

1.0 Public Use Plan Development 

(Park Ranger) 

999/2 99001 $65,000 

$30,000 

0.5 Improve Waterfowl Monitoring Projects (2 

Quarter Time Biological Technicians) 

5/2 99002 $30,000 

$20,000 

0.0 Monitor Endangered Red-cockaded 

Woodpeckers 

999/2 99009 $20,000 

$5,000 

0.0 Purchase Boat, Motor, and Trailer 

12/2 99010 $65,000 

$59,000 

1.0 Enhance Refuge Access for Protection, 

Management, and Public Use (Equipment 

Operator) 

2/2 99012 $140,000 

$149,000 

2.0 Effectively Operate the Walter B. Jones, Sr., 

Center for the Sounds (Park Ranger, Office 

Assistant) 

999/2 99013 $125,000 

$72,000 

1.0 Survey Boundary (Resource Specialist – 

Surveyor)) 

15/2 99014 $115,000 

$10,000 

0.0 Enhance Fire Suppression Capabilities 

(Equipment) 

999/2 99015 $43,000 

$0 

0.0 Expand Hazardous Material Handling 

Capabilities 

6/2 00005 $65,000 

$59,000 

1.0 Monitor and Control Phragmites and Other 

Invasive Species (Biological Technician) 

1/1 00006 $65,000 

$63,000 

1.0 Restore Pocosin Wetlands (Assistant 

Refuge Manager) 
Appendices 239

Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects Listed by Project Number 

Station 

Rank/ 

Tier 

Project 

Number 

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring) 

Positions Project Title 

3/1 00008 $65,000

$57,000

1.0 Improve Water Management Capabilities 

(Heavy Equipment Operator) 

13/2 00009 $130,000

$190,000

3.0 Expand Endangered Species Management 

and Protection (Forester, 2 Biological 

Technicians) 

2/1 00011 $65,000

$63,000

1.0 Improve Biological Monitoring and 

Management (Wildlife Biologist) 

999/2 00012 $90,000

$59,000

1.0 Improve Mapping Capabilities to Document 

Refuge Projects and Management Practices 

(Biologist) 

999/2 00013 $54,000

$0

0.0 Improve Refuge Fire Equipment In Support 

Of Wildfire And Prescribed Burning 

Operations 

11/2 00014 $65,000

$59,000

1.0 Enhance Fire Suppression Capabilities 

(Heavy Equipment Operator)(Fire) 

13/2 00016 $200,000

$10,000

0.0 Enhance Refuge Access for Protection, 

Management, and Public Use (Equipment) 

4/1 00019 $33,000

$10,000

0.0 Enhance Refuge Partnership Efforts 

14/2 01001 $65,000

$59,000

1.0 Enhance Public Use Opportunities at Walter 

B. Jones Center for the Sounds (Park 

Ranger) 

7/2 01002 $0

$50,000

0.0 Monitor and Control Phragmites and Other 

Invasive Species 

10/2 02001 $55,000

$69,000

1.0 Monitor Fire Effects in Pocosins (Biological 

Technician)(Fire) 

3/2 03001 $65,000

$71,000

1.0 Provide Adequate Visitor & Resource 

Protection (Law Enforcement Officer) 
240 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects Listed by Tier and Station Rank 

Station 

Rank/ 

Project 

Number 

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring) 

Positions Project Title 

Tier 1 

1 00006 $65,000 

$63,000 

1.0 Restore Pocosin Wetlands (Assistant 

Refuge Manager) 

2 00011 $65,000 

$63,000 

1.0 Improve Biological Monitoring and 

Management (Wildlife Biologist) 

3 00008 $65,000 

$57,000 

1.0 Improve Water Management Capabilities 

(Heavy Equipment Operator) 

4 00019 $33,000 

$10,000 

0.0 Enhance Refuge Partnership Efforts 

Tier 2 

1 97009 $65,000 

$71,000 

1.0 Provide Essential Visitor & Resource 

Protection (Law Enforcement Officer) 

2 99012 $140,000 

$149,000 

2.0 Effectively Operate the Walter B. Jones 

Center for the Sounds (Park Ranger, Office 

Assistant) 

3 03001 $65,000 

$71,000 

1.0 Provide Adequate Visitor and Resource 

Protection (Law Enforcement Officer) 

4 97001 $130,000 

$69,000 

1.0 Conduct Long Term Monitoring (2 HalfTime Biological Technicians) 

5 99002 $30,000 

$20,000 

0.0 Monitor Endangered Red-cockaded 

Woodpeckers 

6 00005 $65,000 

$59,000 

1.0 Monitor and Control Phragmites and Other 

Invasive Species (Biological Technician) 

7 01002 $0 

$50,000 

0.0 Monitor and Control Phragmites and other 

Invasive Species 

8 ? ? ? ? 

9 ? ? ? ? 

10 02001 $55,000 

$69,000 

1.0 Monitor Fire Effects in Pocosins (Biological 

Technician)(Fire) 
Appendices 241

Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects Listed by Tier and Station Rank 

Station 

Rank/ 

Project 

Number 

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring) 

Positions Project Title 

11 00014 $65,000

$59,000

1.0 Enhance Fire Suppression Capabilities 

(Heavy Equipment Operator)(Fire) 

12 99010 $65,000

$59,000

1.0 Enhance Refuge Access for Protection, 

Management, and Public Use (Equipment 

Operator) 

12 97008 $410,000

$20,000

0.0 Enhance Restoration and Management of 

Pocosin and Moist Soil Wetlands 

13 00009 $130,000

$190,000

3.0 Expand Endangered Species Management 

and Protection (Forester, 2 Biological 

Technicians) 

13 00016 $200,000

$10,000

0.0 Enhance Refuge Access for Protection, 

Management, and Public Use (Equipment) 

14 01001 $65,000

$59,000

1.0 Enhance Public Use Opportunities at Walter 

B. Jones, Sr., Center for the Sounds (Park 

Ranger) 

15 99014 $115,000

$10,000

0.0 Enhance Fire Suppression Capabilities 

(Equipment) 

999 97013 $50,000

$0

0.0 Develop a Cultural Resource Plan 

999 97021 $85,000

$59,000

1.0 Public Use Plan Development 

(Park Ranger) 

999 99001 $65,000

$30,000

0.5 Improve Waterfowl Monitoring Projects (2 

Quarter Time Biological Technicians) 

999 99009 $20,000

$5,000

0.0 Purchase Boat, Motor, and Trailer 

999 99013 $125,000

$72,000

1.0 Survey Boundary (Resource Specialist - 

Surveyor) 

999 99015 $43,000

$0

0.0 Expand Hazardous Material Handling 

Capabilities 

999 00012 $90,000

$59,000

1.0 Improve Mapping Capabilities to Document 

Refuge Projects and Management Practices 

(Biologist) 
242 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MMS) PROJECTS 

(Ordered by Project Number, Tables by Number and Rank Follow Descriptions) 

MMS Projects Organized by Number 

Number Description Cost Rank 

92103184 Replace Grain Bin Blower $26,000 5 

93103203 Rehabilitate Office and Residence Interiors $26,000 9 

97110627 Construct Maintenance Facility Columbia $1,044,000 2 

98103198 Rehabilitate Boardwalk and Classroom $26,000 6 

98103193 Repair Bulkhead Material $26,0007 7 

99103188 Replace Tracks on Three D6 Dozers $63,000 4 

99103205 Replace Volume Lift Pumps $50,000 26 

99103202 Rehabilitate Flooring in Pole Shed and Shop $32,000 14 

99123340 Construct Storage Building and Water Facility for the 

Equipment Wash Rack 

$24,000 4 

99103210 Rehabilitate Parking Areas $14,000 12 

99103201 Rehabilitate Ditches $63,000 8 

99103195 Replace Water Control Structures $94,000 3 

99103192 Replace Front End Loader $98,000 24 

99103187 Replace Grapple Bucket $17,000 16 

00103211 Repair Road to the Observation Tower (FHA Route 118) $113,000 22 

00123336 Construct Red Wolf Education Center $260,000 999 

00103216 Replace Culverts and Risers $125,000 4 

00103214 Replace Creekside Lowboy Trailer $66,000 22 

00123337 Construct Interpretive Signs for Boardwalk and Outdoor 

Classroom 

$38,000 999 

00115271 Replace Case IH-780 Offset Disk Harrow $19,000 36 

01103219 Replace S.R. Boardwalk Signs and Repair Pungo Kiosk $26,000 10 

01103222 Replace Unimog Truck Tractor $110,000 2 

01103223 Replace Drop Neck Trailer $63,000 45 

01103225 Replace Three Slip on fire Fighting Pumper Units $50,000 28 

01103227 Replace Boom Ax Mower $95,000 54 

01103228 Rehabilitate Troop Carriers to Meet Fire Readiness 

Objectives 

$16,000 27 

01103229 Replace PL 5 Bombardier Fire Unit Track System $16,000 25 

01103230 Rehabilitate Fire Control Shop $35,000 15 
Appendices 243

MMS Projects Organized by Number 

Number Description Cost Rank 

01103231 Replace Wajax Pacific Fire Pumper Unit $27,000 53 

01114833 Replace 1996 Dodge Ram Pickup $31,000 61 

01114836 Replace 1995 Ford Supercab Pickup $31,000 19 

01114839 Replace 2000 Ford Ranger $31,000 62 

01114843 Replace 1998 Dodge Pickup, Extended Cab $31,000 63 

01114845 Replace 1998 Dodge Service Truck $31,000 64 

01114846 Replace 1998 Dodge Pickup $31,000 69 

01114873 Replace 1996 Ford Bronco $33,000 68 

01114876 Replace 1992 Ford Truck $53,000 50 

01114879 Replace 1990 Dodge Ram Pickup $31,000 999 

01114892 Replace 1991 GM Service Truck $37,000 12 

01114894 Replace 1998 Ford Dump Truck $115,000 68 

01114901 Replace 1995 Ford Pickup $31,000 41 

01114903 Replace Fire Truck $31,000 40 

01114907 Replace 1993 Ford L9000 Truck Tractor $95,000 67 

01114910 Replace 1992 Ford Truck Tractor $105,000 63 

01114911 Replace 1984 IHC F-2574 Truck Tractor $95,000 8 

01114923 Replace 1992 Ford F800 Truck Tractor $79,000 64 

01114935 Replace 1994 Bombardier Fire Fighting Vehicle $185,000 38 

01115260 Replace 1998 John Deere 410E Backhoe $80,000 74 

01115262 Replace 1983 FMC Dragline $211,000 60 

01115254 Replace D6C Dozer $215,000 59 

01115265 Replace 1998 John Deere Excavator $185,000 75 

01115267 Replace Terra Torch Flame Thrower $10,000 37 

01117361 Replace Rome Offset Disk $19,000 51 

01117379 Replace John Deere 455 Riding Lawn Mowers (1 of 2) $9,000 23 

01117389 Replace John Deere 455 Riding Lawn Mowers (2 of 2) $9,000 17 

01117397 Replace 1987 Hester Fire Plow $10,000 49 

01117405 Replace Mathis Fire Plow $10,000 48 

01117412 Replace 1993 Hester 4000 Fire Plow (1 of 2) $10,000 47 

03124937 Replace Office—Field Station $313,000 5 

03124956 Construct, Plan, and Design Maintenance Facility $307,000 1 
244 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

MMS Projects Organized by Number 

Number Description Cost Rank 

03124975 Construct Addition to Walter B. Jones, Sr., Center for the 

Sounds 

$1,044,000 3 

03125602 Repair Northern Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 127 

(5.48 miles) 

$1,348,000 11 

03125604 Repair Nodwell Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 126 

(2.22 miles) 

$546,000 13 

03125609 Repair Middle Road, FHA Route 124 (4.58 miles) $1,127,000 31 

03125614 Repair Western Road, FHA Route 122 (6.12 miles) $1,506,000 15 

03125618 Repair Evans Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 113 

(1.27 miles) 

$312,000 999 

03125612 Repair Seagoing Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 123 

(6.43 miles) 

$1,582,000 14 

03125735 Replace Caterpillar 12G Motor Grader $193,000 65 

03125617 Repair Harvester Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 114 

(5.97 miles) 

$1,200,000 16 

03125743 Replace John Deere 772CH Motor Grader $193,000 66 

03125611 Repair DeHoog Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 112 

(7.66 miles) 

$1,885,000 17 

03125613 Repair Smith Wick Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 129 

(2.75 miles) 

$677,000 35 

03125616 Repair Clayton Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 120 

(3.07 miles) 

$755,000 20 

03125619 Repair Coulbourn Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 121 

(2.00 miles) 

$492,000 21 

03126523 Repair County Line Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 

110 (1.00 mile) 

$246,000 19 

03125626 Repair Boerma Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 109 

(6.09 miles) 

$1,498,000 18 

03125915 Convert the Allen Road Fire Tower to a Public Use 

Observation Tower 

$94,000 6 

03126065 Repair F2 Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 106 (2.34 

miles) 

$576,000 23 

03126067 Repair Phelps Road, Public Use Road, FHA Route 125 

(1.22 miles) 

$300,000 24 

03130539 Repair Dike on Chinquapin Road North of Northern Road $84,000 11 

04134232 Replace John Deere Flex Wing Mower $10,000 67 
Appendices 245

MMS Projects Organized by Number 

Number Description Cost Rank 

04134013 Replace 1994 Bombardier Fire Fighting Vehicle $185,000 20 

04134198 Replace Caterpillar D-5 Dozer $150,000 999 

04134200 Replace D5 Dozer $190,000 76 

04134201 Replace D6D Dozer $215,000 47 

04134207 Replace D3G Dozer $100,000 70 

04134209 Replace D6D Dozer $215,000 61 

04134216 Replace Forklift $40,000 71 

04134226 Replace Bush Whacker Flex Wing Mower $10,000 83 

04134228 Replace Toro Riding Mower $8,000 29 

04134234 Replace Gregory Roanoke Bush Axe Mower $15,000 66 

04134235 Replace John Deere Lift Type, 3 point Hitch Mower $6,000 60 

04134237 Replace Hyster 2 Disk Plow $6,000 59 

04134239 Replace Hyster 4 Disk Fire Plow $7,000 58 

04134507 Replace Three Slip-On Fire Fighting Pumper Units $50,000 56 

04134506 Replace Two Volume Lift (Gator) Pumps $30,000 57 

04134508 Replace Two Portable Fire Fighting Pumper Units $40,000 55 

04134510 Replace Irrigation Pump $20,000 35 

04134511 Replace 500 Gal Slip-on Fire Fighting Pumper Unit $20,000 34 

04134523 Replace Ford Tractor with Boom Mower $60,000 69 

04134525 Replace 1997 Ford New Holland Tractor $50,000 72 

04134528 Replace John Deere 7810 Tractor $90,000 73 

04134531 Replace Two Portable Bridge Trailers $75,000 65 

04134572 Replace 2004 Ford New Holland Tractor $80,000 77 

04134579 Replace Cargo Trailer $6,000 71 

04134583 Replace Fontaine Lowboy Trailer $32,000 70 

04134584 Replace Two Boaz Lowboy Trailers $80,000 33 

04134621 Replace Salem Travel Trailer $20,000 79 

04134624 Replace GMC 2-1/2 Ton Stake Dump Truck $30,000 48 

04134628 Replace 1978 GMC Dump Truck $115,000 49 

04134631 Replace 1996 Jeep $30,000 42 

04134632 Replace 2002 Ford Pickup $25,000 84 

04134637 Replace 2002 Ford Explorer $25,000 73 
246 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

MMS Projects Organized by Number 

Number Description Cost Rank 

04134651 Replace 2002 Ford F150 Truck $22,000 74 

04134658 Replace 1999 Dodge Ram $25,000 72 

04134660 Replace 2003 Sterling Truck Tractor $105,000 78 

04134661 Replace 2004 Sterling Truck Tractor $105,000 79 

04134664 Replace 1995 US Military Full Track Troop Carrier $230,000 43 

04134665 Replace 1995 US Military Full Track Troop Carrier $230,000 30 

04134666 Replace 1992 Military Personnel Carrier $230,000 31 

04134669 Replace 1992 Weather Stations $40,000 9 

04134670 Replace Two 2002 Rockwell Travel Trailers $20,000 80 

04134672 Replace Geo-Boy Brush Cutter $200,000 77 

04134673 Replace 2004 GM Silverado Truck $20,000 75 

04134679 Replace Chevy Express Passenger Van $25,000 76 

04134682 Replace 18’ Sea Ox Boat $15,000 44 

04134685 Replace Two Trailer Mounted Air Compressors $20,000 45 

04134686 Replace Canon Image Runner Copier $8,000 46 

04134689 Replace Dyna Packer $30,000 80 

04134691 Replace Transplanter $20,000 78 

04134890 Repair Pungo Lake Banding Site. Repairs include Replace 

Bulkhead Material. 

$30,000 12 

04134891 Repair Evans Pond Dike $30,000 13 

04134971 Repair Property Line Road, FHWA 103 $62,000 30 

04134978 Repair West Lake Drive, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 

104 

$300,000 29 

04134985 Repair South Lake Drive, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 

105 

$957,000 28 

04134988 Repair Allen Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 108 $698,000 33 

04134991 Repair Fields Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 115 $330,000 44 

04134994 Repair Van Staalduinen Road, Public Use Road, FHWA 

Route 117 

$244,000 26 

04135001 Repair South Pungo Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 

116 

$659,000 25 

04135005 Repair Hyde Park Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 

119 

$512,000 27 

04135006 Repair Respess Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 102 $273,000 32 
Appendices 247

MMS Projects Organized by Number 

Number Description Cost Rank 

04135008 Repair D-Canal Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 101 $866,000 34 

04136147 Repair Paved Parking Lot at HQ/VC $44,000 999 

04136160 Repair Gravel Parking Lot East of Ludington Drive $25,000 41 

04136165 Repair HQ/VC Overflow Parking Area No. 2 $21,000 42 

04136173 Repair Field Station Parking Area No. 2 $10,000 10 

04136215 Repair Field Station Parking Area and Drive $38,000 40 

04136218 Repair Pungo Observation Deck Parking Area $18,000 43 

04136221 Repair North Lake Drive Parking Area (south side of 

Respess) 

$58,000 36 

04136226 Repair North Lake Parking Area (North Side of Respess 

Road) 

$5,000 37 

04136227 Repair North Lake Drive Parking Area (West Side of Road $3,000 38 

04136242 Repair Parking Area at D Canal and North Pungo $15,000 39 

05137233 FY04 Storm Damage – Repair Trux Road $1,016 999 

05137251 FY04 Storm Damage – Repair Smartweed Impoundment 

Dike 

$68,693 999 

05137309 FY04 Storm Damage – Repair Hurricane Related Damage 

to Northwest Fork Road 

$1,476,000 999 

05138007 Replace refuge 40x60 tent $15,000 999 

05138009 Replace 2004 Dressta Dozer $190,000 999 

05138010 Replace 2005 Chevy Hybrid Truck $30,000 81 

05138011 Replace 2005 Ford Type 6 Wildland Fire Engine $75,000 82 

05138031 Repair Fire Control Building $20,000 999 

05138032 Clean Out of Hyde Park Canal $20,000 999 

05138033 Clean Out of Hyde Park Canal $20,000 999 

05138034 Replace Water Control Structure – Pungo Lake Outfall $40,000 999 

05138042 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $12,363,000 999 

05138043 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $53,000 999 

05138044 Repost 80 Miles of Refuge Boundary Line $8,000 999 

05138045 Rehabilitate Parking lot No. 2 at Office and Visitor Center $21,000 7 

05138046 Clean Silt Out of Allen Canal $15,000 999 

05138047 Clean Silt Out of Clayton Canal $44,000 1 

05138048 Replace Water Control Structures on North Lake and $67,000 999 
248 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

MMS Projects Organized by Number 

Number Description Cost Rank 

05138049 Repair South Lake Drive Public Use Road FHWA $20,000 999 

05138050 Remove Vegetation from Shore Drive Fire Break $20,000 999 

05138051 Remove Vegetation from Evans Road Fire Break $30,000 51 

05138053 Repair Fire Control Building $10,000 999 

05138054 Clean Out of Hyde Park Canal $20,000 999 

05138055 Replace Water Control Structure – Pungo Lake Outfall $40,000 5 

05138056 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $53,000 52 

05138155 Clean Out of County Line Canal $30,000 3 

05138158 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $4,000 999 

05138159 Clean Out Boerma Canal $46,000 6 

05138160 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $5,000 999 

05138161 Clean Out Dehoog Canal $58,000 2 

05138162 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $1,000 999 

05138163 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $7,000 53 

05138164 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $4,000 54 

05138165 Replace Water Control Structure $15,000 7 

05138166 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $2,000 55 

05138168 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $5,000 56 

05138170 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $1,000 57 

05138174 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $6,000 50 

05138176 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $14,000 58 

05138178 Replace Water Control Structure $15,000 8 

05138180 Replace Water Control Structure on North Boundary $15,000 9 

05138181 Replace Water Control Structure on North Lake Road $15,000 10 
Appendices 249

MMS Projects Organized by Rank 

Rank Number Description Cost 

1 00123337 Construct Interpretive Signs for Boardwalk and Outdoor 

Classroom 

$38,000

1 03124956 Construct, Plan, and Design Maintenance Facility $307,000

1 05138047 Clean Silt Out of Clayton Canal $44,000

2 01103222 Replace Unimog Truck Tractor $110,000

2 97110627 Construct Maintenance Facility $1,044,000

2 05138161 Clean Out Dehoog Canal $58,000

3 99103195 Replace Water Control Structures $94,000

3 03124975 Construct Addition to Walter B. Jones, Sr., Center for the 

Sounds 

$1,044,000

3 05138155 Clean Out County Line Canal $30,000

4 99103188 Replace Tracks on Three D6 Dozers $63,000

4 00103216 Replace Culverts and Risers $125,000

4 99123340 Construct Storage Building and Water Facility for the 

Equipment Wash Rack 

$24,000

5 92103184 Replace Grain Bin Blower $26,000

5 05138055 Replace Water Control Structure – Pungo Lake Outfall $40,000

6 98103198 Rehabilitate Boardwalk and Classroom $26,000

6 03125915 Convert the Allen Road Fire Tower to a Public Use 

Observation Tower 

$94,000

6 05138159 Clean Out Boerma Canal $46,000

7 98103193 Repair Bulkhead Material $26,000

7 02124937 Replace Office – Field Station $313,000

7 05138045 Rehabilitate Parking lot No. 2 at Office and Visitor Center $21,000

7 05138165 Replace Water Control Structure $15,000

8 99103201 Rehabilitate Ditches $63,000

8 01114911 Replace 1984 IHC F2574 Truck Tractor $95,000

8 05138178 Replace Water Control Structure $15,000

9 93103203 Rehabilitate Office and Residence Interiors $26,000

9 04134669 Replace 1992 Weather Stations $40,000

9 05138180 Replace Water Control Structure on North Boundary $15,000

10 01103219 Replace S.R. Boardwalk Signs and Repair Pungo Kiosk $26,000
250 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

MMS Projects Organized by Rank 

Rank Number Description Cost 

10 04136173 Repair Field Station Parking Area No. 2 $10,000

10 05138181 Replace Water Control Structure on North Lake Road $15,000

11 03130539 Repair Dike Chinquapin Road North of Northern Road $84,000

11 03125602 Repair Northern Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 127 

(5.48 miles) 

$1,348,000

12 04134890 Repair Pungo Lake Banding site. Repairs include Replace 

Bulkhead Material. 

$30,000

12 01114892 Replace 1991 GM Service Truck $37,000

12 99103210 Rehabilitate Parking Areas $14,000

13 04134891 Repair Evans Pond Dike $30,000

13 03125604 Repair Nodwell Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 126 

(2.22 miles) 

$546,000

14 99103202 Rehabilitate Flooring in Pole Shed and Shop $32,000

14 03125612 Repair Seagoing Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 123 

(6.43 miles) 

$1,582,000

15 01103230 Rehabilitate Fire Control Shop $35,000

15 03125614 Repair Western Road, FHWA Route 122 (6.12 miles) $1,506,000

16 99103187 Replace Grapple Bucket $17,000

16 03125617 Repair Harvester Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 114 

(5.97 miles) 

$1,200,000

17 01117389 Replace John Deere 455 Riding Lawn Mower (2 of 2) $9,000

17 03125611 Repair DeHoog Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 112 

(7.66 miles) 

$1,885,000

18 03125626 Repair Boerma Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 109 

(6.09 miles) 

$1,498,000

19 01114836 Replace 1995 Ford Supercab Pickup $31,000

19 03125623 Repair County Line Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 

110 (1.00 mile) 

$246,000

20 04134013 Replace 1994 Bombardier Fire Fighting Vehicle $185,000

20 03125616 Repair Clayton Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 120 

(3.07 miles) 

$755,000

21 03125619 Repair Coulbourn Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 121 

(2.00 miles) 

$492,000

22 00103214 Replace Creekside Lowboy Trailer $66,000
Appendices 251

MMS Projects Organized by Rank 

Rank Number Description Cost 

22 00103211 Repair road to the observation tower FHWA Route 118 $113,000

23 01117379 Replace John Deere 455 Riding Lawn Mower (1 of 2) $9,000

23 03126065 Repair F2 Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 106 (2.34 

miles) 

$576,000

24 99103192 Replace Front End Loader $98,000

24 03126067 Repair Phelps Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 125 

(1.22 miles) 

$300,000

25 01103229 Replace PL 5 Bombardier Fire Unit Track System $16,000

25 04135001 Repair South Pungo Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 

116 

$659,000

26 04134994 Repair Van Staalduinen Road, Public Use Road, FHWA 

Route 117 

$244,000

26 99103205 Replace Volume Lift Pumps $50,000

27 04135005 Repair Hyde Park Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 119 $512,000

27 01103228 Rehabilitate Troop Carriers to Meet Fire Readiness 

Objectives 

$16,000

28 04134985 Repair South Lakes Drive, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 

105 

$957,000

28 01103225 Replace Three Slip-on Fire Fighting Pumper Units $50,000

29 04134978 Repair West Lake Drive, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 104 $300,000

29 04134228 Replace Toro Riding Mower $8,000

30 04134971 Repair Property Line Road, FHWA 103 $62,000

30 04134665 Replace 1995 U.S. Military Full Track Troop Carrier $230,000

31 03125609 Repair Middle Road, FHA Route 124 (4.58miles) $1,127,000

31 04134666 Replace 1992 Military Personnel Carrier $230,000

32 04135006 Repair Respess Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 102 $273,000

33 04134988 Repair Allen Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 108 $698,000

33 04134584 Replace Two Boaz Lowboy Trailers $80,000

34 04135008 Repair D-Canal Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 101 $866,000

34 04134511 Replace 500 Gallon Slip-on Fire Fighting Pumper Unit $20,000

35 03125613 Repair Smith Wick Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 

129 (2.75 miles) 

$677,000

35 04134510 Replace Irrigation Pump $20,000

36 00115271 Replace Case IH-780 Offset Disk Harrow $19,000
252 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

MMS Projects Organized by Rank 

Rank Number Description Cost 

36 04136221 Repair North Lake Drive Parking Area (S. Side Respess) $58,000

37 01115267 Replace Terra Torch Flame Thrower $10,000

37 04136226 Repair North Lake Drive Parking Area (N. Side Respess) $5,000

38 01114935 Replace 1994 Bombardier Fire Fighting Vehicle $185,000

38 04136227 Repair North Lake Drive Parking Area (W. Side Road) $3,000

39 04136242 Repair Parking Area at D Canal and North Pungo $15,000

40 01114903 Replace Fire Truck $31,000

40 04136215 Repair Field Station Parking Area and Drive $38,000

41 01114901 Replace 1995 Ford Pickup $31,000

41 04136160 Repair Gravel Parking Lot East of Ludington Drive $25,000

42 04134631 Replace 1996 Jeep $30,000

42 04136165 Repair HQ/VC Overflow Parking Area No. 2 $21,000

43 04134664 Replace 1995 US Military Full Track Troop Carrier $230,000

43 04136218 Repair Pungo Observation Deck Parking Area $18,000

44 04134991 Repair Fields Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 115 $330,000

44 04134682 Replace 18’ Sea Ox Boat $15,000

45 01103223 Replace Drop Neck Trailer $63,000

45 04134685 Replace Two Trailer Mounted Air Compressors $20,000

46 04134686 Replace Canon Image Runner Copier $8,000

47 04134201 Replace D6D Dozer $215,000

47 01117412 Replace 1993 Hester 4000 Fire Plow (1 of 2) $10,000

48 04134624 Replace GMC 2-1/2 Ton Stake Dump Truck $30,000

48 01117405 Replace Mathis Fire Plow $10,000

49 04134628 Replace 1978 GMC Dump Truck $115,000

49 01117397 Replace 1987 Hester Fire Plow $10,000

50 01114876 Replace 1992 Ford Truck $53,000

50 05138174 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $6,000

51 01117361 Replace Rome Offset Disk Plow $19,000

51 05138051 Remove Vegetation from Evans Road Fire Break $30,000

52 05138056 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $53,000

53 01103231 Replace Wajax Pacific Fire Pumper Unit $27,000

53 05138163 Cleanout of Farm Field Ditches $7,000
Appendices 253

MMS Projects Organized by Rank 

Rank Number Description Cost 

54 01103227 Replace Boom Ax Mower $95,000

54 05138164 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $4,000

55 04134508 Replace Two Portable Fire Fighting Pumper Units $40,000

55 08138166 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $2,000

56 04134507 Replace Three Slip-on Fire Fighting Pumper Units $50,000

56 05138168 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $5,000

57 04134506 Replace Two Volume Lift (Gator) Pumps $30,000

57 05138170 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $1,000

58 04134239 Replace Hyster 4 Disc Fire Plow $7,000

58 05138176 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $14,000

59 01115254 Replace D6C Dozer $215,000

59 04134237 Replace Hyster 2 Disk Plow $6,000

60 01115262 Replace 1983 FMC Dragline $211,000

60 04134235 Replace John Deere Lift Type, 3 Point Hitch Mower $6,000

61 04134209 Replace D6D Dozer $215,000

61 01114833 Replace 1996 Dodge Ram Pickup $31,000

62 01114839 Replace 2000 Ford Ranger $31,000

63 01114910 Replace 1992 Ford Truck Tractor $105,000

63 01114843 Replace 1998 Dodge Pickup, Extended Cab $31,000

64 01114923 Replace 1992 Ford F800 Truck Tractor $79,000

64 01114845 Replace 1998 Dodge Service Truck $31,000

65 03125735 Replace Caterpillar 12G Motor Grader $193,000

65 04134531 Replace Two Portable Bridge Trailers $75,000

66 03125743 Replace John Deere 772CH Motor Grader $193,000

66 04134234 Replace Gregory Roanoke Bush Axe Mower $15,000

67 01114907 Replace 1993 Ford L9000 Truck Tractor $95,000

67 04134232 Replace John Deere Flex Wing Mower $10,000

68 01114894 Replace 1998 Ford Dump Truck $115,000

68 01114873 Replace 1996 Ford Bronco $33,000

69 04134523 Replace Ford Tractor with Boom Mower $60,000

69 01114846 Replace 1998 Dodge Pickup Truck $31,000

70 04134207 Replace D3G Dozer $100,000
254 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

MMS Projects Organized by Rank 

Rank Number Description Cost 

70 04134583 Replace Fontaine Lowboy Trailer $32,000

71 04134216 Replace Forklift $40,000

71 04134579 Replace Cargo Trailer $6,000

72 04134525 Replace 1997 Ford New Holland Tractor $50,000

72 04134658 Replace 1999 Dodge Ram Pickup Truck $25,000

73 04134528 Replace John Deere 7810 Tractor $90,000

73 04134637 Replace 2002 Ford Explorer $25,000

74 01115260 Replace 1998 John Deere 410E Backhoe $80,000

74 04134651 Replace 2002 Ford F150 Pickup Truck $22,000

75 01115265 Replace 1998 John Deere Excavator $185,000

75 04134673 Replace 2004 GM Silverado Pickup Truck $20,000

76 04134200 Replace D5 Dozer $190,000

76 04134679 Replace Chevy Express Passenger Van $25,000

77 04134572 Replace 2004 Ford New Holland Tractor $80,000

77 04134672 Replace Geo-Boy Brush Cutter $200,000

78 04134660 Replace 2003 Sterling Truck Tractor $105,000

78 04134691 Replace Transplanter $20,000

79 04134661 Replace 2004 Sterling Truck Tractor $105,000

79 04134621 Replace Salem Travel Trailer $20,000

80 04134670 Replace Two 2002 Rockwell Travel Trailers $20,000

80 04134689 Replace Dyna packer $30,000

81 05138010 Replace 2005 Chevy Hybrid Truck $30,000

82 05138011 Replace 2005 Ford Type 6 Wildland Fire Engine $75,000

83 04134226 Replace Bush Whacker Flex Wing Mower $10,000

84 04134632 Replace 2002 Ford Pickup Truck $25,000

999 00123336 Construct Red Wolf Education Center $260,000

999 97123339 Construct Visitor Information Kiosks $44,000

999 03125618 Repair Evans Road, Public Use Road, FHWA Route 113 

(1.27 miles) 

$312,000

999 04134198 Replace Caterpillar D5 Dozer $150,000

999 04136147 Repair Paved Parking Lot at HQ/VC $44,000

999 05137233 FY04 Storm Damage – Repair Trux Road $1,016
Appendices 255

MMS Projects Organized by Rank 

Rank Number Description Cost 

999 05137251 FY04 Storm Damage – Repair Smartweed Impoundment 

Dike 

$68,693

999 05137309 FY04 Storm Damage – Repair Hurricane Related Damage to 

Northwest Fork Road 

$1,476,000

999 05138007 Replace Refuge 40x60 Tent $15,000

999 05138009 Replace 2004 Dressta Dozer $190,000

999 05138031 Repair Fire Control Building $10,000

999 05138032 Clean Out of Hyde Park Canal $20,000

999 05138034 Replace Water Control Structure – Pungo Lake Outfall $40,000

999 05138042 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $12,363,00

0

999 05138043 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $53,000

999 05138044 Repost 80 Miles of Refuge Boundary Line $8,000

999 05138046 Clean Silt Out of Allen Canal $15,000

999 05138048 Replace Water Control Structure on North Lake $67,000

999 05138049 Repair South Lake Drive Public Use Road FHWA R $20,000

999 05138050 Remove Vegetation from Shore Drive Fire Break $20,000

999 05138053 Repair Fire Control Building $10,000

999 05138054 Clean Out of Hyde Park Canal $20,000

999 05138158 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $4,000

999 05138160 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $5,000

999 05138033 Clean Out of Hyde Park Canal $20,000

999 05138162 Clean Out of Farm Field Ditches $1,000
256 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 257

Appendix IX. Wilderness Review 

BACKGROUD 

Wilderness reviews are a required component of the Fish and Wildlife Service 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: 

1. greater than 5,000 acres; 

2. a roadless island of any size; or 

3. 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. 

In May 2001, Fish and Wildlife Service staff met at Pocosin Lakes NWR to gather information and 

conduct field exams for the refuge’s wilderness review. The review team from that meeting is listed in 

the table below. 

Wilderness Review Team 

Team Member Title/Affiliation Address Phone 

David Kitts Acting Manager 

Pocosin Lakes NWR 

P.O. Box 329 

Columbia, NC 27925 252/796/3004 

Wendy Stanton Wildlife Biologist 

Pocosin Lakes NWR 

P.O. Box 329 

Columbia, NC 27925 252/796/3004 

Michelle Chappell Park Ranger 

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 

Prior to the review, using database analysis of land status with a geographic information system, 

transportation system, and hydrographic information, ecosystem planning staff prepared a map of 

wilderness inventory units potentially meeting the wilderness study area criteria (Figure 8). These 

seven wilderness inventory units were evaluated over the course of the field exercise. 
258 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

 Figure 8. Wilderness inventory units of Pocosin Lakes NWR 
Appendices 259

Wilderness inventory units - Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Unit Acreage Habitat 

1 2,762 Tall Pocosin 

2 10,058 Tall Pocosin 

3 3,770 Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 

4 2,778 Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 

5 8,292 Tall Pocosin 

6 7,384 Freshwater Marsh, Cypress-Gum Swamp, and Tall Pocosin 

7 7,562 Tall Pocosin, Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 

Participants also discussed the various steps, guidelines, and documentation requirements for 

conducting wilderness reviews; management goals, guidelines, and restrictions for designated 

wilderness; potential resource management issues associated with each inventory unit; and 

management alternatives for each unit that should be analyzed in the Draft CCP/EA for Pocosin 

Lakes NWR, which is a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

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 CCP/EA, managers 

assumed that authorization of such uses would be temporary and rare in a wilderness area. If such 

restrictions would significantly limit Fish and Wildlife Service’s ability to accomplish other resource 

management objectives, these impacts were fully described in the environmental consequences 

sections of the Draft CCP/EA and would have obviously been a factor for consideration in selecting a 

proposed 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. 

NAVIGABLE WATERS. Navigable waters (e.g., sounds, lakes, rivers, and creeks) bound most of the 

inventory units on Pocosin Lakes NWR. These waters are under the jurisdiction of the State of North 

Carolina. The Fish and Wildlife Service has limited authority to restrict activities, such as motorized 

boating, on navigable bodies of water. 
260 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER. The federally listed red-cockaded woodpecker inhabits mature 

loblolly pine trees in mixed pine and hardwood 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 clusters on the Pocosin 

Lakes River NWR with a possibility for more clusters. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery 

Plan designated the Pocosin Lakes clusters as a support population rather than a recovery 

population. The staff will develop a Red-cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan for Pocosin Lakes 

NWR after the National Recovery Plan is completed. Current management activities on the refuge 

consist of clearing trails to the cavity trees by using machetes and a brush saw, paint marking and 

numbering trees, notation of locations with a geographic positioning system, and monitoring of 

nesting activity. 

SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE. The Southern pine beetle attacks all species of pines, including the 

pond pine found on Pocosin Lakes NWR. The infestations are of concern because of the potential for 

killing red-cockaded woodpecker nest trees. On Alligator River NWR in Dare County, immediately 

east of Pocosin Lakes NWR, control measures have typically consisted of felling a buffer strip of 

green, uninfested trees at the spreading edge or front of the active infestation using a tracked fellerbuncher. The width of the buffer strip is as wide as the average height of the trees. 

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. Fish and Wildlife Service 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: 

y national wildlife refuge purposes; 

y historic and existing public uses; 

y historic and existing national wildlife refuge management activities; 

y status of current step-down management plans (e.g., provisions of the fire management plan 

that relate to a specific wilderness study area); 

y existing or proposed management practices requiring motorized access or equipment and/or 

mechanized transport; 

y compatibility determinations; 

y special use permits; 

y military uses and memorandums of understanding; 

y research uses; and 

y commercial uses. 
Appendices 261

SUMMARY OF WILDERNESS REVIEW FINDINGS 

The review team identified two wilderness study areas at the refuge in the table below and in Figure 9. 

Wilderness study areas - Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Unit 

Number Suggested Name of WSA Access Acreage 

2 Harvester Road Wilderness Study Area Visual from 

Perimeter 10,058 

6 Intracoastal Waterway Wilderness Study Area Visual from 

Perimeter 7,384 

Total 17,342 

The findings for each of the inventory units, including the wilderness study areas, are summarized below. 

Unit 1 (2,762 acres) was inventoried as a small tract of tall pocosin with the potential to be added to 

Unit 2, if the road and ditch that separates the two units could be abandoned. The refuge staff 

indicates that the road and ditch are important for refuge management and hydrology restoration and 

cannot be abandoned. 

Unit 2 (10,058 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. It is a tall pocosin 

named by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as the Harvester Road Tall Pocosin. The 

roads and ditches on the perimeter of the unit are important to refuge management and hydrology 

restoration. There are no roads or ditches within the unit. Access for pedestrians within the 

wilderness study area is not safe because the deep organic soil will not support the weight of visitors’ 

bodies. Visitors may view the wilderness study area from the roads on the perimeter. 

Unit 3 (3,770 acres) was inventoried as a small tract of bottomland hardwood forest and mixed pine 

hardwood forest with the potential to be added to Unit 4 and/or 7 if the roads and ditches that 

separate the units could be abandoned. The refuge staff indicates that the roads and ditches are 

important for refuge management and hydrology restoration and cannot be abandoned. Farmers 

who own the adjacent land have the rights to maintain the ditches to ensure drainage of their land. 

Unit 4 (2,778 acres) was inventoried as a small tract with the potential to be added to Unit 3 and/or 7 

if the roads and ditches that separate the units could be abandoned. The refuge staff indicates that 

the roads and ditches are important for refuge management and hydrology restoration and cannot be 

abandoned. Farmers who own the adjacent land have the rights to maintain the ditches to ensure 

drainage of their land. 

Unit 5 (8,292 acres) meets the criteria for a wilderness study area, but will be burned by prescription 

more frequently than the natural frequency in pocosins to meet wildlife management needs. 

Unit 6 (7,384 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 vegetation in the 

unit is freshwater marsh, cypress-gum swamp, and tall pocosin. The unit is too wet to be burned by 

prescription. Access for pedestrians within the wilderness study area is not safe because the deep 

organic soil will not support the weight of visitors’ bodies. Visitors may view the wilderness study 

area from the roads on the perimeter. 
262 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 9. Potential wilderness study areas of the Pocosin Lakes NWR 
Appendices 263

Unit 7 (7,562 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. However, it will require 

intensive management to restore the Atlantic white cedar forest that once occupied the unit. The 

Atlantic white cedar was harvested decades ago and the site was not disturbed sufficiently to ensure 

regeneration of the stand. Other species now dominate the site. The unit will need intensive 

mechanical disturbance, herbicide application, and artificial regeneration. 

The management needs that preclude consideration as a wilderness study area are summarized below. 

Management needs and other considerations in wilderness inventory units 

not considered wilderness study areas 

Unit 

Number Management Needs Other Considerations Acreage 

1 Hydrology Restoration Small Tract, Ditch Cannot be Filled to 

Join Other Units 2,762 

3 Hydrology Restoration 

Small Tract, Ditch Cannot be Filled to 

Join Unit 4 or 7, Neighbors Depend on 

Drainage 

3,770 

4 Hydrology Restoration 

Small Tract, Ditch Cannot be Filled to 

Join Unit 3 or 7, Neighbors Depend on 

Drainage 

2,778 

5 

Prescribed Burning More 

Frequent Than Natural 

Frequency 

None 8,292 

7 

Intensive Mechanical 

Disturbance, Herbicide 

Application, Artificial 

Regeneration for Atlantic 

White Cedar 

None 7,562 
264 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 265

Appendix X. Consultation and Coordination 

The Service formed a planning core team composed of representatives from various Service 

divisions to prepare the Draft CCP/EA. Initially, the team focused on identifying the issues and 

concerns pertinent to refuge management. The team met on several occasions from December 2000 

to June 2002. A biological review team met on the refuge four times between December 1999 and 

December 2000 to assess the habitats on the refuge and the needs of wildlife species in the 

ecosystem, and to make recommendations on land management and acquisition needs. The core 

team also sought the contributions of experts from various fields. 

This appendix summarizes the consultation and coordination that occurred in the processes of 

identifying the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative, which were presented in the Draft 

CCP/EA; during the period of time while the Draft CCP/EA was being prepared and distributed; and 

during the period of public review and comment on the Draft CCP/EA. 

Pocosin Lakes NWR comprehensive conservation plan core planning team members 

Name and Title Station, Refuge, Location 

Howard Phillips, Refuge Manager 

David Kitts, Assistant Manager 

Wendy Stanton, Wildlife Biologist 

Vince Carver, Fire Management Officer 

Susan Russo, former Park Ranger 

Michelle Chappell, former Park Ranger 

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Columbia, North Carolina 

Robert Glennon, former Natural Resource 

Planner 

David Brown, former Habitat Protection Biologist 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 
266 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation plan biological review 

team members 

Name, Title Affiliation, Location 

Bob Noffsinger, former Supervisory Wildlife 

Management Biologist 

Migratory Bird Field Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Frank Bowers, former Migratory Bird Coordinator Southeast Regional Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Chuck Hunter, former Nongame Migratory Bird 

Coordinator 

Southeast Regional Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Ronnie Smith, Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Assistance Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

John Stanton, former Wildlife Biologist Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Swan Quarter, North Carolina 

Wendy Stanton, Wildlife Biologist Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Columbia, North Carolina 

Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Biologist Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Ralph Keel, former Wildlife Biologist Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Suffolk, Virginia 

John Gallegos, Wildlife Biologist Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

David Allen, Nongame Wildlife Biologist North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

New Bern, North Carolina 
Appendices 267

Expert contributors to the Pocosin Lakes NWR comprehensive conservation plan and their 

area(s) of expertise 

Name, Title, Affiliation, Location Area of Expertise 

Bill Grabill, former Refuge Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Refuge Management 

Rufus Croom, District Conservationist 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Plymouth, North Carolina 

Soil and Water Conservation 

Federal Land Conservation Programs 

John Gagnon, Soil Scientist 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

Soil Science 

Kevin Moody, former NEPA Specialist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

National Environmental Policy Act 

John Ann Shearer, Private Lands Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

Wetland Management, 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

Richard Kanaski, Regional Archaeologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Savannah, Georgia 

Cultural Resources 

To expand the range of issues and to generate potential alternatives, the core planning team met in 

January 2001. Shortly thereafter, on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, in Washington, Swan Quarter, 

Plymouth, Columbia, and Manns Harbor, North Carolina, the planning team held public meetings to 

gain the insights of local citizens and their perceptions of the issues and concerns facing the refuge. 

The issues and alternatives generated from these meetings, coupled with the input of the planning 

team, were summarized in Chapters I and III of the environmental assessment, which was Section B 

of the Draft CCP for Pocosin Lakes NWR. After the team developed the alternatives, it held public 

meetings on April 25 and 28, 2005, in Plymouth and Columbia, North Carolina, to garner public 

reaction on the alternatives. 

The Draft CCP/EA for Pocosin Lakes NWR was released for public review and comment in July 2007. 

A news release and flyers were sent announcing the deadline for accepting public comments as 

August 15, 2007. In addition, two open house meetings were held on Wednesday, July 25, at the 

Vernon James Center in Washington County and on Thursday, July 26, at the Walter B. Jones, Sr., 

Center for the Sounds in Tyrrell County. Comments were compliled and responses were developed. 

Some changes were incorporated into this final CCP. 
268 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 269

Appendix XI. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties, North Carolina 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties, North Carolina, through the Pocosin Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge. An Environmental Assessment was prepared to inform the public of the possible 

environmental consequences of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pocosin 

Lakes 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, which was Section B of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Alternatives

In developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated four alternatives: Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

The Service adopted Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for guiding the direction of the refuge 

over the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in this CCP is that wildlife conservation 

assumes first priority in refuge management and wildlife-dependent recreational uses are allowed if 

they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreation uses (e.g., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) will 

be emphasized and encouraged. 

Alternative 1. Current Management 

Alternative 1 represents no change from current management of the refuge. Under this alternative, 

110,106 acres of refuge lands would be protected, maintained, restored, and enhanced for waterfowl, 

neotropical migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and resident wildlife. Refuge 

management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with baseline biological 

information only on waterbird populations and moist-soil vegetation. All refuge management actions 

would be directed toward achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (i.e., conserving wintering habitat 

for waterfowl, providing production habitat for wood ducks, and helping to meet the habitat 

conservation goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other 

national, regional, and State goals to protect and restore migratory bird populations. Cooperative 

farming would continue to be used to manage and maintain approximately 1,250 acres of cropland; 

the refuge would manage 443 acres of moist-soil habitats. The refuge would manage marshes and 

pine forests with prescribed fire. The current level of wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., hunting, 

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

opportunities would be maintained to serve 242,000 visitors. Outreach efforts would target a 

population of 4 million. There would be a modest volunteer program to support refuge programs. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all willing-seller properties 

within the present acquisition boundary. 
270 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative 2. Preferred Alternative 

The preferred alternative, Alternative 2, represents management of the highest priority habitats and 

wildlife species on the refuge. Under this alternative, 110,106 acres of refuge lands would be 

protected, maintained, restored, and enhanced for waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, threatened 

and endangered species and resident wildlife. Refuge management programs would continue to be 

developed and implemented with baseline biological information on high-priority habitats and wildlife 

species. All refuge management actions would be directed toward achieving the refuge’s primary 

purposes (i.e., conserving wintering habitat for waterfowl, providing production habitat for wood 

ducks, and helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan), while contributing to other national, regional, and State goals to protect and 

restore migratory bird populations. Cooperative farming would continue to be used to manage and 

maintain approximately 1,410 acres of cropland; the refuge would manage 593 acres of moist-soil 

habitats. The refuge would manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire, and selected 

habitats with thinning and timber harvest. The level of wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., hunting, 

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

opportunities would be increased to serve 467,000 visitors. Outreach efforts would target a 

population of 16 million. There would be an extensive volunteer program to support refuge programs. 

 Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all willing-seller properties 

within the present acquisition boundary. The refuge would add more staff, equipment, and facilities in 

order to survey wildlife and habitat, manage habitat, and provide public use opportunities. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 represents management of all habitats and wildlife species on the refuge. Under this 

alternative, 110,106 acres of refuge lands would be protected, maintained, restored, and enhanced 

for waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, threatened and endangered species and resident wildlife. 

Refuge management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with baseline 

biological information on all habitats and wildlife species. All refuge management actions would be 

directed toward achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (i.e., conserving wintering habitat for 

waterfowl, providing production habitat for wood ducks, and helping to meet the habitat conservation 

goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other national, 

regional, and State goals to protect and restore migratory bird populations. Cooperative farming 

would continue to be used to manage and maintain approximately 1,710 acres of cropland; the refuge 

would manage 743 acres of moist-soil habitats. The refuge would manage marshes and pine forests 

with prescribed fire, and all habitats with thinning and timber harvest. The level of wildlife-dependent 

recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation) opportunities would be increased to serve 722,000 visitors. Outreach 

efforts would target a population of 25 million. There would be an extensive volunteer program to 

support refuge programs. Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all 

willing-seller properties within the present acquisition boundary. The refuge would add more staff, 

equipment, and facilities in order to survey wildlife and habitat, manage habitat, and provide public 

use opportunities. 

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 represents minimal management of habitats and wildlife species on the refuge as staff 

retires or transfers and is not replaced. Under this alternative, 110,106 acres of refuge lands would 

be protected, maintained, restored, and enhanced for waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, 

threatened and endangered species, and resident wildlife. Refuge management programs would 

continue to be developed and implemented with baseline biological information only on waterfowl 

populations and moist-soil vegetation. All refuge management actions would be directed toward 

achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (i.e., conserving wintering habitat for waterfowl, providing 

production habitat for wood ducks, and helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of the North 
Appendices 271

American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other national, regional, and State 

goals to protect and restore migratory bird populations. Cooperative farming would continue to be 

used to manage and maintain approximately 1,250 acres of cropland; the refuge would manage 443 

acres of moist-soil habitats. The refuge would manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire. 

 The level of wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) opportunities would be decreased to 

serve 84,000 visitors. Outreach efforts would target a population of 10,000. There would be a 

modest volunteer program to support refuge programs. Under this alternative, the refuge would 

continue to seek acquisition of all willing-seller properties within the present acquisition boundary. 

The refuge would lose staff to retirements and transfers and not replace them. It would replace 

equipment and facilities as they break down or are beyond repair. Road access for the public would 

be limited access on roads that lead to wildlife observation platforms. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative 2 is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge purposes and goals; emphasizes the management of high-priority habitats; 

collects data on selected habitats and wildlife species; 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 Alternative 2, a land protection plan will be developed and lands outside the boundary will be 

prioritized for land protection 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 CCP. Habitat management, population management, land 

conservation, and visitor service management activities on Pocosin Lakes NWR would result in 

increased migratory bird utilization and production; increased protection for threatened and 

endangered species; enhanced wildlife populations; improved habitat conditions; and enhanced 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. These effects are 

detailed as follows: 

1. Waterfowl, marsh bird and wading bird use of the refuge would improve as intensive water 

management efforts would provide dependable flooded habitats with high-quality food to match 

the migration chronologies of these species. Forest breeding birds would benefit from forest 

management actions. Woodcock population numbers and habitat use would be monitored and 

managed and woodcock use of the refuge would be expected to increase. 

2. Migratory bird production would increase by enhancing forest habitat quality for neotropical 

migratory birds, habitat and food availability for wintering waterfowl, and through forest 

management. Forest management practices, such as prescribed burning, thinning, selective 

harvests, and conservation of mature stand components, would benefit nesting and feeding 

habitat for neotropical migratory birds. 
272 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

3. Refuge land acquisition, habitat management, and habitat and wildlife protection would benefit the 

recovery of threatened and endangered species. Bald eagles may have historically nested on the 

refuge. Red-cockaded woodpeckers nest in the pine forests. Red wolves inhabit the entire 

refuge. 

4. The refuge’s habitat mix of cropland, moist soil, marsh, and pine and hardwood forest, as well as 

habitat management, would improve food and cover for resident wildlife species and enhance 

wetland communities within the refuge. 

5. Habitat management, along with a focus on accessibility and facility developments, would result in 

improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. While public use would result in some 

minimal, short-term adverse effects on wildlife, and user conflicts may occur at certain times of 

the year, these effects are minimized by site design, time zoning, and implementing refuge 

regulations. Anticipated long-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats of implementing the 

management action are positive. In the long-run, wildlife habitat and increased opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities could result in an increase in economic benefits to the 

local community. 

6. Implementing the comprehensive CCP is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on 

wetlands and floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, as actions would not 

result in development of buildings and/or structures within floodplain areas, nor would they result 

in irrevocable, long-term adverse impacts. In fact, a major thrust of the management action is to 

implement forest and marsh management within the wildlife communities of the refuge that has 

been severely impacted by actions of previous landowners. Implementing the management 

action would result in substantial enhancement of forest and herbaceous wetland communities 

and net increases to the Nation’s habitat and quality. 

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 such as establishment of protection zones around key sites, 

rookeries and eagle nests (if necessary), and routing of roads and trails to avoid direct contact with 

sensitive areas, such as nesting bird habitat. 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 

wildlife-dependent 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. 
Appendices 273

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action should not substantially impact adjacent or in-holding 

landowners. Some minor impacts would be off-set by benefits to the adjacent 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. 

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Land ownership by the Service precludes any future economic development by the private sector; 

however, the presence of the refuge provides opportunities for ecotourism and therefore potential for 

nature-based tourism economic development in local communities. 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. Potential development of access roads, dikes, 

water control structures, and visitor parking areas could lead to minor short-term negative impacts on 

plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site 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 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Division of Coastal Management 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 

Conservation organizations 
274 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

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, which was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for the Pocosin Lakes 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 141-152). 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, pages 141-152). 

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 141-152). 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 141-152). 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 141-152). 

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, 

pages 141-152). 

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, pages 141-152). 

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 141-152). 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 141-152; Appendix V). 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of 

the environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 141-152). 
Appendices 275

Supporting References

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties, 

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 

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in July 2007. Additional copies are 

available by writing: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345 or 

download from www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/draftDocs.htm..