DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

PEE DEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Anson and Richmond Counties, North Carolina 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

April 2007 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

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

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

Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 5

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

Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 8

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................ 8

Ecological Threats and Problems ................................................................................................. 9

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 11

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 11

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 11

Geology, Topography, and Soils ....................................................................................... 12

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 14

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 14

Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 14

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 15

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 15

Endangered, Threatened, and Imperiled Species ............................................................. 26

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 29

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 30

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 31

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 37

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 37

Scoping of Issues and Concerns ................................................................................................38

Summary of Issues ..................................................................................................................... 38

Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 38

Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 41

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 41

Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 41

Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 41

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................................... 43

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 43

Vision .......................................................................................................................................... 43

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 43

Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 44
ii Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

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

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 67

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 73

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 77

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 77

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 77

Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 77

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

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 79

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 80

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 80

Partnerships and Volunteer Opportunities ................................................................................. 81

Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 81

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 83

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 83

SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 85

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 85

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 86

Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 86

Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 86

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 87

Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 87

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 88

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 89

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 89

Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 89

Management Common to all Alternatives .................................................................................. 89

Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 89

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................... 90

Alternative B ..................................................................................................................... 91

Alternative C: Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 94

Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 96

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................... 117

Overview .................................................................................................................................. 117

Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 117

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 117

Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 117

Other Management ......................................................................................................... 118

Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 119

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act Payments ........................................................................ 119

Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 119

Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 119

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................. 120

Alternative B ................................................................................................................... 120
Table of Contents iii

Alternative C: Proposed Action ....................................................................................... 120

Comparison of Effects from Implementing Alternatives ............................................................ 121

Unavoidable Impacts and Minimization Measures ................................................................... 132

Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 132

Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 132

Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 132

User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 133

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 133

Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 133

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 133

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 135

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 135

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 137

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 137

Core CCP Planning Team ........................................................................................................137

Wildlife and Habitat Management Review Team ...................................................................... 137

Visitor Services Review Team ..................................................................................................138

Wilderness Review Team ......................................................................................................... 138

Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team ...................................................................... 138

SECTION C. DRAFT APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 141

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ............................................................... 149

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ................................ 155

APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 167

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 167

APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ................................................................ 169

APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................... 179

APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ..................................... 203

APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................ 209

APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA .......................................................................................................... 211

APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 219
iv Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge and its approved acquisition boundary. ...... 6

Figure 2. The Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem. .................................................................... 7

Figure 3. North Carolina conservation lands. ................................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Vegetation of Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................................................... 16

Figure 5. Burn Units, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................. 18

Figure 6. Timber stands, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ........................................................... 19

Figure 7. Croplands on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. .............................................................. 20

Figure 8. Managed wetlands, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. .................................................... 21

Figure 9. Conservation easements, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. .......................................... 32

Figure 10. Public use areas, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ........................................................ 33

Figure 11. Hunt areas, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................. 34

Figure 12. Current organizational chart, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................... 35

Figure 13. Proposed organizational chart, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. .................................. 82

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Habitat types and sizes on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ............................................ 15

Table 2. Acreages of open water and wetland habitats on Pee Dee NWR. ....................................... 22

Table 3. State and federally listed fish and wildlife species documented and potentially 

occurring on Pee Dee NWR. ............................................................................................... 28

Table 4. Listed plant species potentially occurring on Pee Dee NWR. ............................................... 29

Table 5. Regional county population data for Pee Dee NWR. ............................................................ 30

Table 6. Project costs and staffing. ..................................................................................................... 80

Table 7. Pee Dee NWR step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the 

comprehensive conservation plan. ...................................................................................... 83

Table 8. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Pee Dee 

National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................................................................................... 97

Table 9. Summary of environmental consequences by alternative, Pee Dee 

National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................................................... 122
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment to provide a foundation for the management and use of Pee 

Dee National Wildlife Refuge in Anson and Richmond counties, North Carolina. The plan is intended 

to serve as a working guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 

years. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlifedependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not 

detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established. 

The plan has been prepared in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

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

Manual. The plan also meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 through the inclusion of an environmental assessment (Section B), which describes the 

alternatives that are being considered and their potential effects on the environment. 

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

refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. In developing the plan, the 

team has incorporated the input of federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, local 

citizens, and the general public. This public involvement and the planning process itself are 

described in Chapter III, Plan Development. 

This plan represents the Service’s proposed alternative and is being put forward after considering two 

other alternatives, as described in the environmental assessment (Section B). It is being made 

available to federal and state agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and 

comment. All public comments will be considered in the development of the final plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the plan is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge’s purpose; 

attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the mission of the National 

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

with sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

y provide a clear statement of the refuge’s management direction; 

y provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the 

Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 

y ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection, recreation and 

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

and 

y provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs. 
2 Pee Dee 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, local, and 

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

species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges and over 3,000 

small waterfowl breeding and nesting sites covering nearly 100 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, are in Alaska. The 

remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several U.S. island territories. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

 

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

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

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

future generations of Americans.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

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; that the growth of refuges and the Refuge System must be strategic; and that the Refuge 

System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others. This broad 

participation includes local, state, and federal government partners; organizations; local business 

communities; individuals; and volunteers. Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the 

success of the Refuge System and in 1999, some 36,000 of them contributed more than 1.3 million 

hours on refuges nationwide, representing an economic value of more than $20 million. 

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

legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were 

initiated in 1997 to implement the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete 15-

year comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are conducted with full 

public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges, including providing management 

direction for natural resources and recreation and education programs. The Improvement Act states 

that each refuge shall be managed 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; 

and 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

y recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, observing 

wildlife, photographing wildlife, and participating in environmental education and interpretation, 

are legitimate and priority public uses of national wildlife refuges. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System attracts more than 35 million annual visitors. Economists have 

found that these refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the economies of local 

communities. In 2001 on conservation lands throughout the nation, approximately 37.8 million people 

participated in wildlife-elated activities, most to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. These visitors 

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

2001, according to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census 

Bureau 2001). As visitation continues to grow on conservation lands and waters in general and 

specifically on refuges, the adjacent local communities are realizing economic benefits. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

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

Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. 

Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines 

established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Management options are guided by a refuge’s establishing 

authorities, Public Law 104, Stat. 2957 (§108, H.R. 3338), and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (see Appendix C for more information on legal and policy guidance for the 

operation of national wildlife refuges). Key guidance and direction can be found in: 

y National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966; 

y Refuge Recreation Act of 1962; 

y Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations; 

y U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual; and 

y National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Because refuges must be managed for wildlife first, the lands and waters within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System are closed to public uses unless specifically and legally opened under specified 

conditions providing for compatibility with each refuge's purpose(s). All programs and uses of a 

refuge must be evaluated based on the mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act, including those that: 

y contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to refuge purpose(s) and goals; 

y conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

y monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

y manage and ensure compatible wildlife-dependent visitor uses as those uses which benefit 

the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and which contribute to the enjoyment of the 

public (these uses include hunting, fishing, observing wildlife, photographing wildlife, and 

participating in environmental education and interpretation); and 

y ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purpose(s). 

NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Because many issues affecting the protection and management of natural resources transcend geopolitical boundaries, multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private 

entities to address the environmental problems affecting regions. A large amount of conservation 
4 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

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

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

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

The conservation guidance described in the various plans and initiatives listed below, along with 

issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and integrated where appropriate into this draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

y U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic Plan 

y Wildfire and Air Quality National Strategic Plan 

y U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System 

y North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

y North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

y North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan 

y Southeastern U.S. Region Waterbird Conservation Plan 

y U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 

y U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Southeastern Coastal Plains-Caribbean Region 

y Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 

y Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans 

y USFWS Southeastern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS 

The Service is committed to encouraging and maintaining partnerships with others to improve the 

environmental health of ecosystems and the National Wildlife Refuge System. Partnerships are 

recognized by the Service as vital to fulfill the Service’s mission and help share advocacy for fish and 

wildlife resources. Some of the current partners include federal and state agencies, environmental 

organizations, outdoor sporting groups, industry, local governments, and private landowners. A 

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

policy provides 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. 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge’s state agency partners include the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; North 

Carolina Forest Service; and North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) manages the state’s fish and wildlife 

resources. It helps the Service with enforcement and management responsibilities relating to 

migratory birds, game species, and fisheries, as well as with management of the state’s natural 

resources. The NCWRC owns, leases, or manages two million acres (809,371 hectares) of public 

and private lands for recreation and conservation purposes. 

Various agencies within the state government have participated in a mix of refuge projects, including 

the planning process to develop this 15-year comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge. The 

State of North Carolina’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive planning 

process provides for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment 

of fish and wildlife in North Carolina. A vital part of the comprehensive planning process is the 

integration of common mission objectives, where appropriate. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1963 and is located approximately 48 miles (74 

kilometers [km]) east of Charlotte, North Carolina, in Anson and Richmond counties (Figure 1). The refuge 

covers a total of 8,443 acres (3,417 hectares) and includes a diversity of habitats consisting of creeks, 

ponds, and a river; bottomland hardwoods; upland pine forests; croplands; open fields; moist soil units; and 

mixed pine/hardwood forests. These areas support a wide variety of fish, wildlife, and plants, including 

waterfowl and other migratory birds, as well as federally- and state-listed species. In addition, the refuge 

protects a number of historical and archaeological sites. A growing human population, along with ongoing 

development and other human activities, currently threaten the refuge and its surrounding environs. 

The refuge straddles several miles of the Pee Dee River in southcentral North Carolina in the unique 

Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem (Figure 2). The Pee Dee River is approximately 230 miles 

(370 km) long and begins with its headwaters in the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina. 

It then flows in a southeasterly course through South Carolina into the Atlantic Ocean. 

The refuge’s current habitat management activities include cooperative farming for wildlife food and 

cover; impoundment management for waterfowl and wading birds; selective timber thinning; 

prescribed burning; and old field management. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

The Catawba Indians were the earliest known inhabitants to make use of the vast resources of the 

Pee Dee River. In the early 1700s, white settlers moved in and began clearing the rich river bottoms 

and nearby hillsides for farmland. By the mid-1800s, most of the land had been cleared and planted 

to cotton, which remained the principal crop until the 1950s. 

The origin of the refuge dates to 1934 when a local landowner, Lockhart Gaddy, established a 

Canada goose sanctuary bordering the Pee Dee River and Brown Creek. Mr. Gaddy was an avid 

goose hunter and created the “Lockhart Gaddy's Wild Goose Refuge” to provide food, shelter and 

protection for migratory Canada geese. He opened it to the public and allowed visitors to feed and 

observe the geese, and daily attendance rates of 4,000 visitors were not uncommon. Shortly before 

his death in 1950, the goose flock numbered approximately 10,000. In 1950, Mrs. Gaddy took over 

management of the refuge until her death in 1975, at which time the refuge was closed to the public. 

In the 1960s, the numbers of both geese and ducks began to decline in southcentral North Carolina. 

However, the lands adjacent to the Pee Dee River and Brown Creek offered potential for waterfowl 

habitat development. With local and state support, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in October 1963 to provide wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. 

The original purpose for which the refuge was established was “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purpose for migratory birds,” including waterfowl and songbirds 

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act). The refuge’s objectives include: 

y Resource Protection: Through a continued land acquisition program, complete acquisition of 

lands within the approved refuge boundary to ensure protection of the area's natural and 

cultural resources and to help fulfill the refuge's commitment to ecosystem management 

within the Yadkin–Pee Dee River focus area. 
6 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location of Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge and its approved acquisition boundary. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

Figure 2. The Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem. 
8 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Habitat Restoration: With consideration to other goals and subsequent management 

programs, restore aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout the refuge to provide for the 

needs of a diversity of native plant and animal communities including endangered and 

threatened species. 

y Resource Management: Maintain the refuge through active management programs including 

forestry, cooperative farming, moist soils and water management, prescribed burning, law 

enforcement, public use, biological monitoring, and wildlife surveys. 

y Dynamic Partnering: Maintain a key role in the Yadkin–Pee Dee River Focus Area of the 

Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem by maintaining and expanding partnerships with 

individuals, communities, agencies, and organizations to accomplish mutually beneficial 

natural resource conservation goals. 

y Environmental Education and Interpretation: Expand public awareness and appreciation of 

wildlife and associated habitats, natural science, land stewardship and ethics, and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

y Wildlife-oriented Recreation: Provide opportunities for refuge visitors to enjoy high quality, 

safe and wholesome wildlife-oriented recreational experiences that are compatible with the 

purpose for which the refuge was established. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

The refuge does not include any areas with special federal designations. However, 3,000 acres 

(1,214 hectares) of the Brown Creek floodplain is designated as a Significant Natural Heritage Area 

by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Expanding human populations and resulting habitat alterations are the biggest threat to natural systems 

and biodiversity. Protecting land is one of the most effective ways to safeguard native habitats, fish, 

wildlife, and plants. Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge is located in an area of North Carolina that has 

dramatically changed through historical land use practices (primarily agriculture), and more recently, 

residential and industrial development. The refuge is important in a regional ecosystem context because 

it contains large areas of protected natural habitats. Together with other federal and state lands, such a 

network of conservation lands can help mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation, provide protection, 

and serve as wildlife corridors. In addition, the refuge’s vegetated areas reduce sedimentation and help 

improve water quality downstream. Furthermore, forested wetlands can function as water retention areas 

to minimize flood damage during times of excessive rainfall. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

In 2001, Congress charged each state and territory with developing a statewide comprehensive 

wildlife conservation strategy as part of the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the 

State Wildlife Grants Program. These programs were designed to assist states by providing annual 

allocations for the development and implementation of programs to benefit wildlife and their habitats. 

The funding was intended to supplement, not duplicate, existing fish and wildlife programs, and to 

target species in greatest need of conservation, species indicative of the diversity and health of the 

states’ wildlife, and species with low and declining populations, as deemed appropriate by each 

state's fish and wildlife agency. The state wildlife conservation plans provide an essential foundation 

for the future of wildlife conservation and a stimulus to engage state, federal, and other conservation 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

partners to think strategically about their individual and coordinate roles in prioritizing conservation 

efforts across the nation. This includes the use of landscape-based conservation strategies to map 

existing protected areas (see Figure 3 for North Carolina conservation lands) and to identify gaps and 

potential wildlife corridors. The North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan (NCWAP) was finalized in 2005 as 

a guide to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and its partners in 

conservation for sound management of North Carolina’s fish and wildlife resources into the future. 

The goals of the NCWAP are to: 

y Improve the understanding of the species diversity in North Carolina and enhance the ability 

to make conservation or management decisions for all species; 

y Conserve and enhance habitats and the communities they support; 

y Foster partnerships and cooperative efforts among natural resource agencies, organizations, 

y academia and private industry; 

y Support educational efforts to improve understanding of our wildlife resources among the 

general public and conservation stakeholders; and 

y Support and improve existing regulations and programs aimed at conserving habitats and 

communities. 

In addition to the NCWAP, several other state and regional conservation and resource protection 

plans are listed below: 

y North Carolina Working Lands Plan 

y New Parks for a New Century 

y State Stormwater Management Program 

y Wetlands Conservation Plan 

y Private Lands Protection Plan 

y North Carolina Forest Plan 

y Natural Heritage Program Biennial Protection Plan 

y The Greater Uwharries Regional plan 

y The Nature Conservancy Piedmont Ecoregional Plan 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge is an important component of the Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee 

Ecosystem in that it borders the Pee Dee River and its associated lowlands and uplands, 

encompassing a range of habitats. Human impacts and underlying threats to biological diversity on 

and off the refuge include: 

y Direct loss of habitat due to development and other human activities 

y Simplification and degradation of remaining habitats, including habitat alteration and 

fragmentation 

y Loss and decline of species and biological diversity 

y Effects of constructing navigation and water diversion facilities 

y Introduction and spread of exotic, nuisance, and invasive species 

y Lack of environmental regulation and enforcement 

y Cumulative effects of land and water resource development projects 

y Ongoing wildlife disturbance due to development and other human activities 

y Impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution and water quality degradation 
10 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 3. North Carolina conservation lands. 

 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

In an assessment of risk to ecosystems in the United States, seven southeastern states, including 

North Carolina, made the “extreme risk” category based on the number of endangered ecosystems, 

the percentage of imperiled species by state, and development pressures. In fact, eight of the top 21 

endangered ecosystems in the United States can be found in North Carolina (Noss and Peters 1995). 

Several of these rare habitats are found on the refuge, including southern forested wetlands 

(bottomland hardwoods), large streams and rivers, and longleaf pine forests. 

CLIMATE 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge lies in the Southern Piedmont climate zone, an area where the 

interaction of south and east winds from the Atlantic Ocean and the nearby western mountain ranges 

creates a unique climate (State Climate Office of North Carolina [SCONC] 2006). 

Temperature 

Extremely low temperatures are infrequent because the Appalachian Mountains block much of the cold, 

continental air masses that move southward in the winter months. The coldest month is January. A 

record low of -4 degrees Fahrenheit (F°) (-20 degrees Celsius [C°]) was recorded in January 1985. 

Average winter lows are approximately 32 F° (0 C°), while winter highs of around 53 F° (12 C°) are the 

norm. During spring the temperatures quickly rise, and average May highs and lows are 80 F° (27 C°) 

and 58 F° (14 C°), respectively. July is the hottest month of the year with highs averaging 90 F° (32 C°) 

and lows near 70 F° (21 C°). Although July is the warmest month on average, record high temperatures 

of 107 F° (41 C°) were recorded in June and August 1983. During autumn, average high temperatures 

rapidly decline to 60 F° (16 C°) in early December (SCONC 2006). The average first frost occurs on 

November 4 (North Carolina State University 1996). 

Relative Humidity 

The average relative humidity does not vary greatly from season to season but is generally the 

highest in winter and lowest in spring. The lowest relative humidities are found over the southern 

Piedmont, where the year-round average is about 65 percent. 

Precipitation 

While there are no distinct wet and dry seasons in North Carolina, average rainfall does vary around 

the year. Summer precipitation is normally the greatest, and July is the wettest month averaging 5 

inches (13 centimeters [cm]). Summer rainfall is also the most variable, occurring mostly in 

connection with showers and thunderstorms. Daily showers are not uncommon, nor are periods of 

one to two weeks without rain. Autumn is the driest season, and November the driest month with an 

average rainfall of approximately 2.9 inches (7.2 cm). Precipitation during winter and spring occurs 

mostly in connection with migratory low pressure storms, which appear with greater regularity and in 

a more even distribution than summer showers. Average annual rainfall is approximately 46.5 inches 

(118 cm) in the refuge vicinity. In 2007, much of the Southeast was in an “exceptional” drought with 

corresponding stream flows at or below the 5th percentile compared to the 30-year average (U.S. 

Geological Survey 2007). In December 2007, Charlotte, North Carolina had only received 

approximately 25 inches (64 cm) of rain, more than 16 inches (41 cm) below average (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007). 

Lightning 

Lightning poses a hazard to refuge visitors and personnel and can cause infrastructure damage. In 

addition, fire management is a refuge activity that can be influenced by lightning. Historical lightning 

data are not available for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge (SCONC 2006). 
12 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Wind 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge averages approximately two severe thunderstorms annually with 

accompanying high winds of 40 miles per hour (mph) (64 kilometers per hour [kph]) or greater. 

Severe Weather 

Windstorms, hail, ice storms, tornadoes, droughts, and tropical cyclones all have the potential to 

affect the refuge by altering habitat, displacing wildlife and damaging infrastructure. A 2002 ice storm 

severely damaged trees in Anson County and other areas of central North Carolina. Recent tropical 

cyclones that caused wind damage, localized flooding, and tornadoes include Hugo in 1989 and 

Frances and Jeanne in 2004. Currently Anson and Richmond counties are abnormally dry, with 

eminent drought conditions possible (North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council 2007). 

GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS 

Geology 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge lies in an area of North Carolina defined by Triassic Basin and 

Piedmont geologies. The Triassic Basin gets its name from the Triassic period, which was during the 

Mesozoic Era between 245–208 million years ago, which lasted 37 million years. It is located all along 

the eastern coast of the United States. The basin was formed due to many processes. Erosion basically 

carved the newly raised mountains across the state of North Carolina, and after 15–20 million years of 

erosion, movement of material in the mantel began to produce forces that would alter and then eventually 

tear and separate the North American and Euro-African crustal plates. As this stress increased, the crust 

began to fracture. When it began to fracture, cracks developed throughout Europe, Africa, and the 

eastern coast of North America. These fractures formed in two separate sets. One set runs northeast to 

southwest and the other runs north-south. Many fractures remained exactly how they formed million of 

years ago. Today, the fractures can be seen across the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces as cracks in 

the older Paleozoic rocks (Horton and Zullo 1991). Within the Piedmont geology, the Carolina slate belt 

consists of heated and deformed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. It was the site of a series of oceanic 

volcanic islands about 550–650 million years ago. 

Topography 

The surface relief of the Piedmont is characterized by relatively low, rolling hills with heights of 

between 200 feet (50 meters [m]) and 800 feet to 1,000 feet (250 m to 300 m) above mean sea level. 

Its geology is complex, with numerous rock formations of different materials and ages intermingled 

with one another. Essentially, the Piedmont is the remnant of several ancient mountain chains that 

have since been eroded away (Rogers 1999). Due to its topography, the rivers within the Piedmont 

tend to flow from north to south, rather than west to east. 

Soils 

The soil types on the refuge range from sandy (Orangeburg) on a small portion of the refuge in 

Richmond County to a loamy clay and humid soil (Wehadkee) in the Brown Creek floodplain 

(Robinson and Singleton 1991). Other soil types include the well drained first bottom Riverview 

(Pee Dee River floodplain) and the sandy loam types (Mayodan; White Store). The refuge’s soil 

types are described below. 

Riverview Series. The Riverview series consists of deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils 

that formed in loamy alluvium in the coastal plain. These soils are on nearly level floodplains and 

natural levees along rivers and large creeks. Slopes range from 0 to 5%. The soils flood mostly 

during the winter or early spring months. The native vegetation is forests consisting of gum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), oak (Quercus spp.), beech (Fagus grandifolia), poplar (Populus spp.) and 

some pine (Pinus spp.). In a representative profile, the surface layer is dark brown loam 8 inches (20 

cm) thick. The underlying material, in sequence from the top, is 14 inches (35 cm) of dark brown 

loam; 10 inches (25 cm) of dark brown very fine sandy loam; 6 inches (15 cm) of very dark grayish 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

brown loam; 24 inches (61 cm) of brown silty clay loam; and the lower part is mottled clay loam to a 

depth of 80 inches (203 cm).

Chewacla Series. The Chewacla series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils on 

nearly level floodplains. They formed in loamy sediments washed largely from soils formed in 

residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. Slopes 

range from 0 to 2%. Chewacla soils formed in recent alluvium on nearly level floodplains along 

streams that drain from the mountains and Piedmont. Most areas flood frequently. Much of the soil 

is cleared and is in pasture or cropland. The remainder is forest. Chewacla soils have brown loam 

surface layers 8 inches (20 cm) thick. The subsoil is 50 inches (127 cm) thick. It is dark yellowish 

brown and consists of yellowish brown loam in the middle part and light brownish gray silty clay loam 

in the lower portion. The underlying material is sand and extremely gravelly sand. 

Wehadkee Series. The Wehadkee series consists of poorly drained soils on floodplains along streams 

that drain from the mountains and Piedmont. They are formed in loamy sediments. Slopes are generally 

less than 2%. Runoff is very slow as is internal drainage, while permeability is moderate. These soils are 

frequently flooded and are usually found in forested areas. Native vegetation is comprised of chiefly 

water-tolerant hardwoods such as sweetgum, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), water oak (Quercus nigra), 

willow oak (Q. phellos), poplar, hickories (Carya spp.), beech, and elm (Ulmus spp.). In a representative 

profile, the surface layer is grayish brown sandy loam about 8 inches (20 cm) thick. The subsoil, 

extending to a depth of 40 inches (101 cm), is dark gray loam in the upper part and gray sandy loam in 

the lower part. The underlying layer to a depth of 50 inches (127 cm) is gray sandy loam. 

Granville Series. The Granville series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable 

soils on Piedmont uplands. They formed in residuum weathered from Triassic sandstone and shale. 

The slope ranges from 0 to 10%. Soils are strongly acidic throughout, except when the surface is 

limited. Approximately two-thirds of the acreage of Granville soils is cultivated or used for pasture. 

Common vegetation includes white (Quercus alba), red (Q. falcata), black (Q. velutina) and post oaks 

(Q. stellata), hickory, sweetgum, red maple (Acer rubrum), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and 

dogwood (Cornus spp.). Shortleaf (Pinus echinata), Virginia (P. virginiana) and loblolly (P. taeda) 

pines are common, especially on old fields. In a representative profile, the surface layer is light 

yellowish brown sandy loam, about 3 inches (8 cm) thick. The underlying material is brownish yellow 

sandy clay loam saprolite weathered from Triassic material.

Mayodan Series. The Mayodan series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils that 

formed in residuum weathered from Triassic materials of the Piedmont uplands. Slopes range from 1 

to 25%. Approximately 65% of the acreage of Mayodan soils is cultivated or used for pasture. Forest 

vegetation includes white, red, black and post oaks, hickory, yellow poplar, sweetgum, red maple, 

sourwood, and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). Shortleaf, Virginia, and loblolly pine are common 

in old fields. A representative layer consists of a surface layer of grayish brown sandy loam 3 inches 

(8 cm) thick. The subsoil, which extends 47 inches (119 cm), is strong brown sandy clay loam in the 

upper part and yellowish red sandy clay in the middle and lower parts. The underlying material is 

dark red and very pale brown clay. 

Creedmoor Series. The Creedmoor series is composed of moderately well drained and somewhat 

poorly drained, very slow permeable soils that have formed in residuum weathered from Triassic 

materials of upland Piedmont origins. Slopes range from 0 to 15%. In a representative profile, the 

surface layer is dark gray sandy loam 2 inches (5 cm) thick. The subsurface layer is pale brown 

sandy loam 6 inches (16 cm) thick. The subsoil extends to 56 inches (142 cm). It is pale brown and 

brownish yellow sandy clay loam in the upper part; light yellowish brown clay in the middle part; and 

light gray clay and silty clay in the lower part. The underlying layer is fine sandy loam to 77 inches 

(195 cm). About one-third of the soil is under cultivation or in pasture, and the remainder is in forests 

of shortleaf and loblolly pine, oaks, hickory, and gum. 
14 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

White Store Series. The White Store series consists of moderately well drained, very firm, plastic, 

sticky, very slow permeable soils that have formed in residuum weathered Triassic material of the 

Piedmont uplands. White Store soils are on nearly level to moderately steep Piedmont uplands. 

Slopes range from 2 to 25%. About two-thirds of the total area is in forests of loblolly and shortleaf 

pines, oaks, hickories, and gums. The remainder is in cultivation or pasture. In a representative 

profile, the surface layer is brown, fine sandy loam about 6 inches (15 cm) thick. The subsoil extends 

to 35 inches (89 cm). It is strong brown clay loam in the upper part. The underlying material is dark 

reddish brown weathered sandstone to 38 inches (98 cm). 

Worsham Series. Soils of the Worsham series are very deep and poorly drained. They are on 

uplands and formed in a mixture of colluvium and alluvium or in residuum. Typically these soils have 

a dark gray fine sandy loam surface layer 8 inches (20 cm) thick. The gray mottled subsoil layers (8–

50 inches (20–127 cm) are sandy clay loam and sandy clay. Slopes range from 0 to 8%. 

HYDROLOGY 

The refuge’s hydrology is characterized by sheet-flow and stream flow. Water drains from upland 

areas through sheet-flow and small streams and collects in larger creeks (such as Brown Creek) 

which empty into the Pee Dee River. This hydrology is interrupted primarily by roads, where water is 

directed through culverts. Water is retained in impoundments and then slowly released to streams. 

AIR QUALITY 

Air quality is high on the refuge due to its rural location. According to the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Anson and Richmond counties consistently maintain “attainment” (good air quality) 

status, which includes ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and 

lead (EPA 2007). Factors that contribute to poor air quality are air stagnation due to temperature 

inversions and forest fires, although these episodes are typically not severe and of short duration. 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 

The refuge’s water quality has not been systematically assessed; however, some parameters 

(dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and turbidity) were collected during an ichthyological survey 

conducted by Progress Energy (Progress Energy 2005a). Standing water in lakes and ponds is 

expected to be reasonably good due to limited input of sediment and pollutants. However, the 

streams, creeks and rivers on the refuge are thought to have fair to poor water quality. The EPA has 

listed Brown Creek as an impaired water body on its 2002 303(d) list (North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality 2002). Impairments include low 

dissolved oxygen and high sediment and turbidity levels. Low-order streams on the refuge (Canal 

Branch, Hurricane Creek, Pressley Creek, and Flat Fork Creek) received stream health scores of 

“Poor” or “Fair” using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (Progress Energy 2005a). 

The water quality of two refuge ponds has been indirectly measured through mercury analyses of fish 

tissue (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). All fish (catfish, sunfish, and largemouth bass) collected from 

Ross and Sullivan ponds contained mercury at concentrations that ranged between 0.01–0.88 parts per 

million (ppm) wet weight. Mercury levels were lowest in redear sunfish (median: 0.12 ppm) and highest in 

largemouth bass (median: 0.63 ppm). Mercury distribution nationwide can be attributed to a variety of 

natural (e.g., mercury deposits in certain geologic formations and soil types) and anthropogenic sources 

(e.g., fossil fuel combustion, solid waste incineration). All waters of the eastern United States are subject 

to continuous mercury loading through atmospheric deposition (EPA 2001). 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge protects a wealth of biological resources, including bottomland 

hardwoods, upland pine forests, mixed pine-hardwood forests, grasslands, croplands, and managed 

wetlands. Many species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds use the refuge year-round 

or as part of their annual migrations, some of which are state- and federally-listed species. 

HABITAT 

The refuge encompasses a variety of natural habitat types (Table 1). Artificial habitats consist of 

croplands, moist soil units, flooded crop impoundments, and a green tree reservoir (see Table 1 for 

habitat types and sizes and Figure 4 for a vegetation map). 

Table 1. Habitat types and sizes on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Habitat Type Acres (Hectares) 

Bottomland Hardwoods 2,895 (1,172) 

Mixed Pine-Hardwoods 1,820 (737) 

Upland Pine Forest 1,736 (703) 

Croplands 1,161 (470) 

Grasslands/Old Fields 732 (296) 

Managed Wetlands 315 (127) 

Open Water* 319 (129) 

Total 8,978 (3,634) 

*Includes 140 acres of the Pee Dee River which flows through the refuge, but are not Service-owned 

Bottomland Hardwoods 

A total of 2,895 acres (1,172 hectares) of bottomland hardwood habitat occurs on Pee Dee 

National Wildlife Refuge and is considered one of the largest contiguous tracts of this rare habitat 

type in North Carolina. The majority of this habitat type is located along the bottoms of the Pee 

Dee River, Brown Creek, Thoroughfare Creek, and Pressley Creek. Swamp chestnut oak 

(Quercus michauxii) and cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda) dominate the stands, along with lesser 

amounts of green and white ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica and F. americana); mockernut and 

shagbark hickories (Carya tomentosa and C. ovata); white oak (Q. alba); and blackgum (Nyssa 

sylvatica). The understory is comprised of pawpaw (Asimina triloba), American hornbeam 

(Carpinus caroliniana), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), 

devils walkingstick (Aralia spinosa), and American holly (Ilex opaca). 
16 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 4. Vegetation of Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Upland Pine Forests 

A total of 1,736 acres (703 hectares) of upland pine forest habitat occurs on Pee Dee 

National Wildlife Refuge. Of this, about 212 acres (86 hectares) consist of planted pine. 

This habitat type is made up of pure stands of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) or mixtures in which 

loblolly makes up the majority of the stocking. The most common species mixed in is 

sweetgum (Liquidambar spp.). On the well drained sites, shortleaf (P. echinata), Virginia (P. 

virginiana) and longleaf pines (P. palustris) occur. The understory is rich in species diversity 

and numbers. Management techniques utilized in this habitat include prescribed fire and tree 

thinning (see Figure 5 for burn units and Figure 6 for timber stands). 

Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forests 

A total of 1,820 acres (737 hectares) of mixed pine-hardwood forest occurs on the refuge. 

Loblolly and shortleaf pines are not predominant, but make up at least 25 percent of the 

stand. The hardwood species present differ depending on site wetness. Succession is 

strongly toward the hardwoods, and these sites can be considered transitional to various 

hardwood types. Thinning and prescribed fire (see Figures 5 and 6) are the primary 

management tools used in these areas, with low intensity fires (or no fire) used in areas 

where hardwoods dominate (to prevent hardwood tree mortality). 

Grasslands and Old Fields 

Grassland and open areas total 732 acres (296 hectares) and include 85 acres (34 hectares) of 

road rights-of-way; 7.4 acres (3 hectares) of distribution rights-of way; and 18 acres (7 hectares) 

of a gas line right-of-way. These habitats are maintained using prescribed fire, mowing, and 

planting annuals and native grasses. 

Croplands 

Croplands comprise 1,161 acres (470 hectares) of the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

(Figure 7). In 2006, 615 acres (249 hectares) were planted with corn and 547 acres 

(221 hectares) were planted with soybeans under the Cooperative Farming Program. Of 

these acreages, 20 percent of the crops are taken in standing corn left for wildlife or as 

commodity payments. A percentage of wheat is occasionally grown. In addition, in the 

upland fields, farmers are required to leave a 15-foot (4.6-meter) wide unplanted field border, 

which is left fallow or planted by refuge staff to a mix of annual wildlife food plantings. 

Natural and Managed Wetlands 

Natural and managed wetlands are comprised of flooded crop impoundments, moist soil 

impoundments, manmade ponds and semipermanent wetlands, beaver ponds, and a manmade 

green tree reservoir (see Figure 8 for a map of the managed wetlands and Table 2 for their 

respective sizes). Management techniques used in these areas include prescribed fire, planting, 

mowing, and water level manipulation. 

Nonnative Plants 

Nonnative plants have the potential to alter refuge habitats by displacing native plants, changing fire 

regimes, and altering soil hydrology (Miller 2003). Although a systematic inventory of nonnative 

plants has not been performed on the refuge, kudzu, Chinese privet and alligatorweed are present. 

Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) is a fast-growing vine that can be a serious invader of 

seminatural or natural habitat. This species forms large impenetrable masses, growing over woody 

vegetation and engulfing unwooded areas. It kills trees by completely shutting out light, girdling 

woody stems and tree trunks, breaking branches or uprooting entire trees and shrubs from the sheer 

weight (Miller 2003). Kudzu is found on a few, relatively small areas of the refuge. 
18 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 5. Burn Units, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Figure 6. Timber stands, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 
20 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7. Croplands on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Figure 8. Managed wetlands, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 
22 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) displaces native plants in ditches, along banks, and 

in shallow water (Holm et al. 1997). It can also disrupt water flow, causing increased 

sedimentation; and can shade out submersed plants and animals, causing reduced oxygen levels 

beneath the mat (Quimby and Kay 1976). Alligatorweed has been documented in at least one of 

the refuge impoundments. 

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) is currently the most widespread nonnative weed on the refuge. It 

is an aggressive invasive, often forming dense thickets particularly in bottomland forests. Chinese 

privet is shade-tolerant and colonizes new areas by root sprouts and is spread widely by abundant 

bird- and other animal-dispersed seeds. 

Table 2. Acreages of open water and wetland habitats on Pee Dee NWR. 

Unit Acres / 

Hectares 

Habitat Type 

Ross Pond 6.9 / 2.8 Manmade Pond 

Sullivan Pond 3.8 / 1.5 Manmade Pond 

Little Pond 0.8 / 0.3 Manmade Pond 

Lower Ringneck Unit 6.4 / 2.6 Manmade Moist Soil Unit 

Andrews Pond 17.8 / 7.2 Manmade Pond 

Beaver Ponds 22 / 8.9 Beaver Ponds 

Sullivan MSU 26.5 / 10.7 Manmade Moist Soil Unit 

Arrowhead Lake 28.6 / 11.6 Manmade Lake 

Unnamed Impoundments 51.6 / 20.9 Manmade Moist Soil Units 

Green-tree Reservoir 135 / 54.6 Manmade Reservoir 

Griffin Unit 60 / 24 Flooded Crop Impoundments 

Patterson Unit 20 / 8 Flooded Crop Impoundments 

Andrews Unit 10 / 4 Flooded Crop Impoundments 

Upper Ringneck Unit 10 / 4 Manmade Moist Soil Unit 

Total 399.4 / 161.1
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Wildlife 

The lands and waters of Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, 

including invertebrates; at least 35 species of fish; 48 species of amphibians and reptiles; 28 species 

of mammals; and more than 175 species of birds (see Appendix I, Refuge Biota). Several 

representative species from each category are described below. 

Invertebrates 

Aquatic invertebrates on the refuge include crayfish, snails, and mussels. More than 10 species of 

mussels have been documented on the refuge (Progress Energy 2005b; J. Fridell, USFWS, personal 

communication, 20 Nov. 2007), including the eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata), Carolina lance (E. 

angustata), Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), notched rainbow (V. constricta), eastern 

creekshell, (V. delumbis), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) and creeper (Strophitus undulatus). 

Crayfish likely to be found on the refuge include those species in the genus Cambarus and Procambarus. 

Listed crayfish species were not documented during a 2005 study along the Pee Dee River (Progress 

Energy 2005b). An inventory of terrestrial invertebrates has not been performed on the refuge. However, 

at least a few state-listed insects are likely to occur on the refuge, as several dozen have been 

documented in Anson and Richmond counties (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 2004). 

Fish 

A total of 35 species of fish were encountered in a fishery survey on the refuge (Progress Energy 

2005a). These include the longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and 

gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). Common species included largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), several species of sunfish (Lepomis spp.), 

catfish (Ameiurus and Ictalurus spp.), shiners (Notropis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.), and eastern 

mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). At least one listed species, the Carolina darter (Etheostoma 

collis), has been documented. 

Nonnative fish found on the refuge include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), comely shiner (Notropis 

amoenus), smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus), blue and channel catfish (Ictalurus furcatus and I.

punctatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and yellow perch 

(Perca flavescens). The ecological effects of these nonnative fish have been evaluated for only a few 

of these species, such as carp and flathead catfish. Carp, a bottom-feeder, are known to negatively 

impact native fish by removing aquatic vegetation, which, in turn, causes a decline in water quality 

(Hill 1999). Flathead catfish, a large predatory species, has the potential to cause changes in North 

Carolina freshwater fish communities (Pine et al. 2005) and has been named one of the worst 

nonnative species of fish in the United States (Fuller 1999). 

Amphibians 

Amphibians have not been intensively surveyed on the refuge, but several species have been 

documented. North Carolina and the Piedmont, in particular, have a high diversity of salamanders. 

Nine species of salamanders have been found on the refuge. The salamanders likely to be found 

along streams and in wetlands on the refuge include the Eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), 

two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), and marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), while 

slimy salamanders (Plethodon glutinosus) are common in woodlands. Toads include the Eastern 

spade-foot (Scaphiopus holbrooki), which prefers sandy lowlands; Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), 

which is found near wetlands; the woodland oak toad (B. quercicus); and the American toad (B. 

americanus), a species that can be found in a variety of habitats. At least nine species of frogs are 

found on the refuge. Aquatic and wetland species include the bullfrog (Rana catebeiana), green frog 

(R. clamitans), and Northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), whereas the gray treefrog (Hyla 

chrysoscelis) occupies woodlands. 
24 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Reptiles 

Although a thorough survey of reptiles has not been performed on the refuge, six species of lizards, 

13 species of snakes, and seven species of turtles have been documented on the refuge. The sixlined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus) and the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates) 

are likely to be found in drier habitats. Several species of skinks, such as the broadheaded skink 

(Eumeces laticeps), are found in many refuge habitats. Snakes that could be encountered on the 

refuge include common species such as black racers (Coluber constrictor), corn snakes (Elaphe 

guttata), and rat snakes (E. obsolete), which utilize several different habitats. The eastern hognose 

snake (Heterodon platirhinos) usually occupies drier, sandy areas. Several water snakes may be 

found along the streams, ponds, and wetlands, including Nerodia spp. as well as brown water snakes 

(Storeria dekayi). The most common venomous snake in the Piedmont is the copperhead 

(Agkistrodon contortrix), a species that can be found in the refuge’s fields and lowlands. Turtles on 

the refuge include mostly aquatic species such as the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine); musk 

turtle (Sternotherus odoratus); one or more species of terrapins (Chrysemys spp.); and possibly the 

softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera). The only terrestrial turtle on the refuge is the eastern box turtle 

(Terrapene carolina), a species that inhabits pastures and woods. 

Birds 

The refuge is an important stopover area for many species of migratory birds and songbirds during 

the fall and spring. The refuge lies midway along the Atlantic Flyway, and thus many species of 

migratory birds feed and rest on the refuge during their annual migrations. The refuge impoundments 

also serve an important role as an inviolate sanctuary for waterfowl during the winter, since no 

hunting is allowed. In total, more than 188 species of birds can be found using the refuge seasonally. 

This includes a number of federally and state-listed avian species, several of which are discussed in 

the Endangered, Threatened and Imperiled Species section below. Waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds (i.e., songbirds or passerines) all depend on the diverse 

habitats available on the refuge. 

Waterfowl. The planning region for the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) includes Pee Dee National 

Wildlife Refuge. The ACJV is a partnership of private and public entities working together for the 

conservation of native birds in the Atlantic Flyway region of the United States. The highest priority 

nonbreeding waterfowl species identified in the ACJV are the Canada goose (Branta canadensis, Atlantic 

and Southern James Bay populations) and the American black duck (Anas rubripes). These two species 

are found on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. Other species that utilize the refuge’s wetland forests, 

ponds, impoundments, and croplands include the wood duck (Aix sponsa), American wigeon (Anas 

Americana), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), ring-necked ducks (Aythya 

collaris), and hooded mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus). Several of these species nest on the refuge, 

while others use it as a stopover site to feed and rest during their migrations. 

Shorebirds. Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge was identified in the Southeast Coastal Plain–

Caribbean Shorebird Conservation Plan (Southeast SCP) as an important refuge for shorebirds. 

Shorebird species include the killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), 

Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicate), and several species of sandpipers (Calidris spp). None of these 

species are likely to breed on the refuge; however, the refuge provides suitable foraging habitat for 

spring and fall migrating and overwintering birds. Although the refuge does not support breeding 

populations, its role in providing stopover habitat during the spring and fall migrations is important. 

Availability of foraging habitats during key migratory periods has been shown to be critical for the 

persistence of long-distance migrants. One habitat goal stated in the Southeast SCP is to provide 

dedicated, high quality managed habitat to support the energetic requirements of in-transit migrants. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Wading Birds. Wading birds at the refuge utilize a broad range of wetland habitat types for foraging, 

roosting, and nesting. Refuge habitats frequented by wading birds include both natural and 

manmade features, natural wetlands, impoundments, and shallow streams and creeks. Great blue 

herons (Ardea herodias) and green herons (Butorides virescen) are common on the refuge. 

Landbirds. Several species of landbirds are known or likely to occur within the refuge, including priority 

species identified by the Southern Piedmont Bird Conservation Plan, North Carolina Partners in Flight, 

and the North Carolina Bird Species Assessment. However, due to their inconspicuousness or a general 

lack of quantitative abundance data, it remains unclear to what extent they occur on the refuge or how 

significantly the refuge might contribute to their conservation. The refuge’s upland habitats are utilized by 

priority species such as wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), 

yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and yellowthroated vireo (Vireo flavifrons). Priority species in riparian habitats include the Louisiana water thrush 

(Seiurus motacilla), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrine), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), northern 

parula (Parula americana), Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria 

citrea), and Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii). 

Nonnative Birds. Several species of nonnative birds have been documented on the refuge, including 

the cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer 

domesticus), and rock pigeon (Columba livia). Cattle egrets first colonized South America during the 

1930s and soon thereafter invaded North America (Crosby 1972). This species has been 

documented to compete with native wading birds in rookeries (Burger 1978). European starlings 

compete aggressively for nesting cavities, often to the detriment of native birds (Kerpez and Smith 

1990). Similarly, house sparrows will supplant and even kill native species attempting to use nest 

boxes (Gowaty 1984; Radunzel et al. 1997). The European starling is known for its propensity to 

damage fruit crops, sprouted seeds, and livestock feedlots (Dolbeer et al. 1978; Somers and Morris 

2002). Starlings are major components of winter blackbird roosts which are noisy, smelly and 

generally not aesthetically pleasing (Dolbeer et al. 1978; Mott 1980). 

Mammals 

The mammals found on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge are likely to include those that are relatively 

common state-wide. Bobcats (Lynx rufus) are the largest native predators on the refuge and will be found 

in a variety of habitats. Smaller predators include the opossum (Didelphis virginiana); raccoon (Procyon 

lotor); striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis); red fox ((Vulpes vulpes); gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus); 

and otter (Lutra canadensis). Conspicuous herbivores include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 

beaver (Castor canadensis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), and cottontail 

rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus). In addition, numerous species of rats, mice, voles, bats, shrews, and 

moles occupy various habitats on the refuge. 

Nonnative mammals include the coyote (Canis latrans) and feral hogs (Sus scrofa). Coyotes 

have colonized the eastern United States during the last 100 years and continue to expand their 

range (Hill et al. 1987). Coyotes are highly opportunistic, generalist feeders, with a varied diet 

that usually includes rodents, birds, and fruit (Gammons 2004). However, coyotes can also prey 

on larger species. Although coyotes are not known to seriously impact quail populations (Henke 

2002), they can be important predators of deer (Brundige 1993; Patterson and Messier 2003), 

wild turkey (Ballard 2003), and livestock (Houben 2004). A potentially much more problematic 

species is the feral hog. This species has been listed among the world’s 100 worst nonnative 

species by the World Conservation Union (Invasive Species Specialist Group 2007) due to its 

predation on native species and habitat destruction. 
26 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND IMPERILED SPECIES 

Several federally and state-listed endangered or threatened species are known to occur or potentially 

occur within the refuge. They include birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, freshwater mussels, 

and several species of plants (Table 2). 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a large raptor whose populations declined through hunting, 

habitat loss, and pesticide poisoning (Buehler 2000). In 1967 it was listed as endangered. Through 

various conservation efforts, the bald eagle’s status was changed to threatened in 1995 and removed 

from the Federal Endangered and Threatened Species List in July 2007. It remains federally protected 

under the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and is state-listed as threatened. It is primarily 

associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near bodies of water where it feeds. There are 

no documented bald eagle nests within the refuge; however, two to four eagles have been annually 

documented feeding and roosting in the area during winter. In addition, a few migratory bald eagles have 

been noted moving through the area during the colder months. 

Little Blue Heron 

One of the wading birds, the little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), forages in shallow water for small 

fish and invertebrates. As a result of farmland expansion, residential development, and recreation, 

changes in water levels and flow have degraded coastal and riparian wetlands for breeding and 

wintering herons (Rogers and Smith 1995). The little blue heron is occasionally observed on the 

refuge, especially during summer and fall. This species is state-listed as one of special concern. 

Loggerhead Shrike 

The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus) is known for its unique behavior of impaling 

its prey on thorns, barbed-wire fences, and similar projections, hence its preference for nesting near 

areas containing such “larders.” Throughout its range, its habitat typically includes grasslands 

interspersed with scattered trees and shrubs that provide nesting and perching sites. A variety of 

habitats often occur within breeding territories, including cultivated cropland, transportation rights-ofway, and shelterbelts. Loggerhead shrikes are declining nationwide. One hypothesis for their 

decreasing populations suggests that the abandonment of many farms and orchards, overgrown from 

neglect, has created unfavorable nesting habitat. Roadkills and pesticide contamination may also be 

factors (Yosef 1996). Though uncommon on the refuge year-round, the loggerhead shrike is known 

to breed on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) is a nonmigratory bird of mature southern 

pine forests. Its preference for longleaf pine and the destruction of that habitat have resulted in the 

woodpecker becoming federally listed as an endangered species in 1970 (Hooper et al. 1980). It is a 

cooperative breeder and lives in family units or groups that consist of a breeding pair and previous 

offspring that jointly raise each successive brood. Each group inhabits a “cluster” of cavity trees. 

Historically, three sites or “clusters” were present on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. The last 

known occurrence of a single male RCW was in 1999–2000. Prior to 2000, the cluster occupied by 

the solitary male was augmented with four artificial cavities and two female RCWs were released in 

an attempt to establish a breeding pair, but these efforts proved unsuccessful. 

Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat 

Rafinesque's big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii) typically require large hollow trees for 

roosting and raising their young. Throughout their range, many such roosts have been lost. The 

relatively few remaining colonies now survive primarily in lowland tree hollows that are subject to flooding, 

or in abandoned buildings that are prone to human disturbance and structural collapse from decay. Some 

occupy cave entrances and rock shelters, again where they are easily disturbed. The status and 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

distribution of this species on the refuge is unknown, although it has been documented via echolocation 

(M. Kalcounis-Rueppell, University of North Carolina, personal communication, 14 Sept. 2004). These 

bats are federally listed as of special concern and designated as threatened by NCWRC. 

Stream Fish 

Due to continued degradation of water quality from runoff and pollution, several species of stream fish 

in North Carolina have declined significantly (Warren et al. 2000). Stream fish need clean, welloxygenated water that is free of sediments that can smother foraging areas and spawning grounds. 

The Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis), listed by the Service and NCWRC as a species of special 

concern, has been documented on the refuge (Progress Energy 2005a). The Carolina redhorse 

(Moxostoma sp. 2) could also be found in the section of the Pee Dee River that flows through the 

refuge as it has been documented from nearby areas. This species was only recently discovered 

(1995) as a distinct species (hence it has not been fully named to date) and has been extirpated 

throughout most of its former range (Dr. W. Starnes, North Carolina Museum of Natural Science, 

personal communication, 15 Nov. 2007). 

Diadromous Fish 

Diadromous fish migrate between salt and freshwater to complete part of their life cycle. Some 

spawn in freshwater and migrate to marine habitats to mature (e.g., salmon, some shad species), 

while others spawn in the ocean and become adults in freshwater (e.g., eels). Prior to the European 

colonization of North America, several diadromous species were found in the Pee Dee River and its 

tributaries. These included the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrhynchus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), hickory shad (A. mediocris), American 

shad (A. sapidissima), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). 

Populations of these species in North America have declined due to overfishing, loss of habitat, 

limited access to spawning areas (blocked by dams), and water pollution, promoting state and federal 

protective measures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

2006). These species cannot pass Blewett Falls dam, which is located downstream of the refuge on 

the Pee Dee River, and are consequently unlikely to be found on the refuge (M. Bowers, USFWS, 

personal communication, 12 June 2007). Only the American eel has been documented on the refuge 

(Progress Energy 2005a). 

Freshwater Mussels 

The decline of freshwater mussels (Family Unionidae), which began in the late 1800s, has resulted 

from various habitat disturbances, and most significantly, the modification and destruction of aquatic 

habitats by dams and pollution (Williams et al. 1993). Nonnative bivalves such as Asian clams 

(Corbicula fluminea) and zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) have also contributed to the decline 

of native freshwater mussels (Leff et al. 1990, Haag et al. 1993). In North Carolina alone, over 50 

species of freshwater mussels are federally and/or State listed (NCWRC 2004). Several freshwater 

mussel species have been documented on the refuge (Alderman 2005), including two federal species 

of concern, Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) and brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa). 

State and Natural Heritage Program listed species documented in Brown Creek and Little Brown 

Creek include eastern creekshell, creeper, and eastern lampmussel (J. Fridell, USFWS, personal 

communication, 20 Nov. 2007). Table 3 lists the state- and federally protected freshwater mussels 

that are documented and potentially found on the refuge. 
28 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 3. State and federally listed fish and wildlife species documented and potentially 

occurring on Pee Dee NWR. 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Status 

NCWRC USFWS 

FRESHWATER MUSSELS

Alewife Floater Anodonta implicata T - 

Brook Floater Alasmidonta varicosa E SC 

Carolina Creekshell Villosa vaughaniana E SC 

Carolina Fatmucket Lampsilis radiata conspicua T - 

Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E E 

Creeper Strophitus undulatus T - 

Eastern Creekshell Villosa delumbis SR - 

Eastern Lampmussel Lampsilis radiata T - 

Eastern Pondmussel Ligumia nasuta T - 

Notched Rainbow Villosa constricta SC - 

Roanoke Slabshell Elliptio roanokensis T - 

Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa E SC 

FISH

Carolina Darter Etheostoma collis SC SC 

Carolina Redhorse Moxostoma sp. 2 SC C 

MAMMALS

Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii T SC 

BIRDS

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T - 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SC - 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus SC - 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E E 

Key: C=Candidate for potential listing, E=endangered, SC= species of concern, SR=Significantly Rare (Natural Heritage 

Program), T=threatened 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Listed Plants 

North Carolina has a number of rare and imperiled plant species (North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources 2002). These listed plants have declined due to habitat loss from 

urbanization and agriculture, changes in land use (e.g., fire suppression), competition with exotic plants, 

and changes in hydrology. The listed species of plants that potentially occur on Pee Dee National Wildlife 

Refuge, based on documented occurrences for Anson and/or Richmond counties (North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2002), are shown in Table 4. This list was further 

developed through input from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (M. Schafale and B. Sorrie, 

personal communication, September 2007). Most of these are state-listed plants, but also include a 

federally endangered species, the Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). 

Table 4. Listed plant species potentially occurring on Pee Dee NWR. 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Status 

NCWRC USFWS 

Dwarf Aster Eurybia mirabilis SC - 

Flatrock Panic Grass Panicum lithophilum SC - 

Georgia Lead-plant Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana E SC 

Huger’s Carrion-flower Smilax hugeri SC - 

Roughleaf Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris scabrifolia SC - 

Sandhills Milk-vetch Astragalus michauxii T SC 

Schweinitz’s Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E E 

Small-leaved Meadow-rue Thalictrum macrostylum SC - 

Thick-pod White Wild Indigo Baptisia alba SC - 

Key: E=endangered, SC= species of concern

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Several archeological studies have been performed on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge (Anderson 

and Bryant 2000; Joy 1994; Garrow 1979; Cooper and Derting 1976). The results of these studies 

have shown that areas surrounding the Pee Dee River and Brown Creek had appreciable prehistoric 

use. Although many of the findings could not unambiguously dated, some artifacts were diagnostic to 

the Early – Late Archaic period (8,000 – 1,000 B.C.). 
30 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

North Carolina’s estimated population growth is 34,500 people annually, with 14,500 acres (5,868 

hectares) developed yearly in association with that increase (Costa and Petersen 2002). It is 

considered one of seven fastest-growing states in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The 

state's population is currently estimated at 8,856,505 and is expected to surpass 10 million by 2025 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Although the populations of Anson and Richmond counties are not 

expected to increase substantially, certain neighboring counties such as Mecklenburg and Union 

will become significantly more populated by 2019, as shown in Table 5 (North Carolina State 

Demographic Unit 2007; South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics 2007). 

In 2000, the population density of Anson County was 48 persons per square mile (mi2) or 18 persons 

per square kilometer (km2). There were 10,221 housing units at an average density of 19 units/mi2 

(7 units/km2). The racial makeup of the county was 49.53% White; 48.64% Black or AfricanAmerican; 0.45% Native American; 0.57% Asian; 0.02% Pacific Islander; 0.32% from other races; 

and 0.46% from two or more races. About 0.83% of the population was Hispanic or Latino of any 

race. The major economic activities include manufacturing; retail; technical services; health care; 

accommodation and food services; and agriculture. The land use is primarily agricultural, followed by 

silviculture and urban areas (North Carolina State Demographic Unit 2007). 

With the exception of population density, the demographics for Richmond County were similar to 

those of Anson County in 2000. The population density was 98/mi2 (38/km2). There were 19,886 

housing units at an average density of 42/mi2 (16/km2). The racial makeup of the county was 64.84% 

White; 30.53% Black or African-American; 1.65% Native American; 0.68% Asian; 0.03% Pacific 

Islander; 1.08% from other races; and 1.18% from two or more races. About 2.83% of the population 

was Hispanic or Latino of any race. Manufacturing, retail, health care, and accommodation and food 

services were the major employment sectors in 2000. Land use consists mostly of farming, followed 

by urban areas (North Carolina State Demographic Unit 2007). 

Table 5. Regional county population data for Pee Dee NWR. 

County 2005 

Population 

Percent Increase 

(2000–2005) 

Predicted 2019 

Population* 

Home Counties 

Anson 25,766 1.9% 27,279 

Richmond 46,676 0.2% 47,335 

Nearby Counties 

Chesterfield (SC) 42,768 10.9% (1990-2000) 46,850 

Mecklenburg 796,232 14.5% 1,093,595 

Montgomery 27,359 2.0% 30,412 

Stanly 58,912 1.4% 64,265 

Union 161,332 30.3% 249,559 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Fishing, hunting, and other wildlife-associated activities are an important component of the recreational 

opportunities available in North Carolina (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and 

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2001). More than two million North Carolina 

residents and nonresidents engaged in hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching activities. Birdwatchers 

comprised the largest component (75%) of the wildlife-related activities, with over 1.3 million people 

engaged in this activity. In 2001, state residents and nonresidents spent nearly $2.5 billion on wildlifeoriented recreation in North Carolina. Of that total, trip-related expenditures were $703 million and 

equipment purchases were $1.5 billion. The remaining $227 million was spent on licenses, contributions, 

land ownership and leasing, and other items and services. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Land Protection and Conservation 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge oversees 20 conservation easements, totaling approximately 

1,305 acres (528 hectares) located in eight counties (Anson, Bladen, Cabarrus, Columbus, Hoke, 

Lincoln, Robeson and Scotland) (Figure 9). The easement properties range in size from 14 to 

224 acres (5.7 to 90.6 hectares) and are predominantly wetlands with a few consisting of upland 

pine forests. These easements are placed under Service management as part of the Farm 

Service Agency’s formerly Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) Inventory Property Disposal 

Program. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

FSA provides farm ownership, farm operating, and other loans to farmers and ranchers unable to 

obtain credit from commercial lending institutions. In many instances, FSA obtains real property 

used to secure loans when those loans are defaulted. FSA obtains these properties through 

foreclosure actions that it or another lienholder initiates on delinquent real estate loans, or 

through voluntary conveyances from delinquent borrowers in lieu of foreclosure. FSA holds these 

properties in inventory until they can be sold to other parties or otherwise be disposed. FSA has 

an affirmative responsibility to protect wetlands, floodplains, and other important resources 

located on inventory properties prior to their disposal. Two primary mechanisms exist to 

conserve important resources on properties sold or otherwise transferred out of inventory status. 

Important resources on inventory properties can be protected from future degradation through a 

conservation easement or through fee title transfer for conservation purposes. 

Visitor Services 

The purpose of the refuge’s visitor services program is to provide opportunities for appropriate and 

compatible wildlife-oriented recreation to enable the public to enjoy the refuge (see Figure 10 for public 

use map). Approximately 30,000–35,000 visitors come to Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge annually. 

The refuge has a visitor contact area in the Refuge Office, where visitors can obtain maps and 

brochures; and three informational kiosks located around the refuge. Wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities exist along several trails and wildlife drives. Every year, at least 6,000 

hunters visit the refuge to hunt for deer, turkey, quail, dove, and small game (see Figure 11 for hunt 

areas). Fishing is also a popular activity on the refuge, and opportunities exist along several ponds, 

streams, Brown Creek, and the Pee Dee River. The refuge hosts a variety of environmental education 

programs for grade schools and college students. For environmental interpretation, the refuge offers 

brochures, a kiosk, the Tall Pines Trail, and the Gaddy Covered Bridge (Figure 10). 

Personnel, Operations and Maintenance 

The refuge headquarters office is located near the town of Wadesboro, North Carolina, a small community 

population of approximately 3,500 people. The refuge occupies a unique location where the rolling hills of 

the Piedmont drain into the wetland and aquatic habitats of the Pee Dee River and Brown Creek. The 

majority of the refuge lies within Anson County, with only a very small portion in Richmond County. 
32 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 9. Conservation easements, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Figure 10. Public use areas, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 
34 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 11. Hunt areas, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

The refuge staff was reduced from eight employees in 2002 to its current number of five. These 

positions include the Refuge Manager, Assistant Manager, Office Assistant, Engineering Equipment 

Operator, and a Refuge Officer (Figure 12). The assistant manager position has also been identified for 

reduction under the Work Force Planning Initiatives of 2006. Two vacated maintenance worker 

positions and a biologist will not be refilled under current directives. There was also a full-time Forest 

Technician position during the 1990s that was vacated and not filled. 

The refuge’s equipment includes the following: John Deere (JD) 450 dozer; Cat D-5 dozer; JD 670C 

grader; JD 310 backhoe; JD 7510 farm tractor; JD 2155 farm tractor; Case 886 farm tractor; type-6 fire 

engine; all-terrain vehicles including two Honda 4- wheelers; and a Kawasaki Mule with a small water tank 

and hose reel. 

A friends group called the Friends of the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1997. 

Its mission is to enhance public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of the refuge’s 

purposes, programs and projects and to assist the refuge staff in its biological and maintenance 

projects. The group now has more than 100 paid members and an active core membership of about 

12 people. The group sponsors several annual events, including a fall wildlife night prowl, butterfly 

walks, the Christmas Bird Count, and the annual Kids' Fishing Day. Additionally, the group is working 

with other groups to provide support for a proposed environmental education center. 

Refuge volunteers support the refuge during a variety of public use programs. Annually the refuge 

receives work campers who work four-month shifts at the refuge. Projects are dependent upon the 

camper’s knowledge and desires. In the past they have answered phones, picked up litter, 

performed maintenance, and monitored nest boxes. The refuge also utilizes volunteers to help 

conduct Christmas Bird Count surveys. 

Figure 12. Current organizational chart, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge Manager 

Refuge Wildlife 

Specialist (Assistant 

Refuge Manager) 

Office Assistant Engineering Equipment Park Ranger 

Operator 
36 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

III. Plan Development 

OVERVIEW 

Although Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge has had several step-down management plans in the 

past, no comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) existed to address all refuge programs. The 

comprehensive planning process has allowed the Service, governmental and nongovernmental 

partners, and the public the opportunity to take a detailed look at the refuge and its management, 

resources, and future. The Service’s CCP planning process provides for public involvement in 

developing a plan for the future management of a refuge. The comprehensive conservation plans are 

revised every 15 years or earlier, if monitoring and evaluation determine that significant changes are 

needed to achieve the refuge’s purposes, vision, goals, and/or objectives. The basic steps of the 

CCP planning process involve the gathering information; scoping for public input; developing the draft 

plan; gathering public input on the draft plan; developing the final plan; and implementing and 

monitoring the actions identified in the final plan. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

The planning process began with various data-gathering sessions. As part of this process, the 

Service conducted several reviews: a wildlife and habitat management review, a visitor services 

review, and a wilderness review. In addition, the Service established a Core CCP Planning Team 

that obtained input from the public and from an Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team. 

The Core CCP Planning Team consisted of two staff members from Pee Dee National Wildlife 

Refuge and a contracted consultant from the Dynamac Corporation. This team was the primary 

decision-making team for the CCP. The key tasks of this group involved defining and refining the 

vision; identifying, reviewing, and filtering the issues; defining the goals; outlining the alternatives; and 

providing a reality check. The Core CCP Planning Team members are: 

y Jeffrey Bricken, Refuge Manger, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Greg Walmsley, Assistant Refuge Manager, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Oliver van den Ende, Contractor, Dynamac Corporation 

The Core Planning Team met regularly to review public comments, data, and information collected to 

write the plan. Professional reviews of the refuge were conducted to determine the status, trends, and 

condition of the refuge’s resources and facilities. Experts from the Service (including those from the 

Ecological Services Division and Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge); the State of North 

Carolina (including the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Forest Service, 

and North Carolina Partners in Flight); Ducks Unlimited; and Gaddy’s Goose Pond participated in the 

wildlife and habitat management review of the refuge in 2006. A visitor services review was conducted 

in 2006 involving staff from the Service’s Southeast Regional Office, the Southeast Louisiana Refuges 

Complex, and Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge. This review focused on the refuge’s existing 

visitor use activities and provided recommendations to improve program development and public use 

facilities. The information garnered from these reviews helped the planning team analyze and develop 

recommendations for this draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Following the initial gathering of information, a Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP for the refuge was 

published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2006. The Service also placed advertisements in 

local newspapers; posted information on the refuge’s website regarding the upcoming public meeting 

and how to submit comments; posted information on the meeting in the local community (e.g., local 
38 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

shops, post offices, the refuge’s visitor center, and local libraries); and distributed flyers announcing 

the public meeting. Invitations were sent to everyone on the key contact list. During January 2007, 

at least three CCP-related articles appeared in four local newspapers: Richmond County Daily 

Journal, The Weekly Post News, Montgomery Herald, and The Express. A public scoping meeting 

was held at the refuge on January 25, 2007, with 26 attendees. During the public scoping period, 

more than 15 comments were submitted by individuals and organizations spanning several states. 

Planning updates kept the public informed of the progress of the CCP. To date, more than 50 people 

are on the refuge’s CCP mailing list. 

The Service is now seeking comments regarding this draft plan as the next stage of public 

involvement. All comments are welcomed and will be considered in the development of the final plan. 

SCOPING OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

The planning team identified a wide range of issues, concerns and opportunities related to fish and 

wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered 

species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as 

applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining 

public input through public scoping meetings, open planning team meetings, comment packets, and 

personal contacts. All public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues 

that are important to the public are beyond the scope of the Service’s authority and cannot be 

addressed within this planning process. The team did consider all issues raised through this planning 

process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding 

important issues. The team identified those issues that, in its best professional judgment, are the 

most significant to the refuge. The priority issues for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge are as follows: 

y Need for comprehensive wildlife and habitat management 

y Lack of baseline data 

y Threats to rare, threatened and endangered species 

y Human population growth, increased development, and resulting impacts to Refuge and 

Refuge resources and management 

y Need for increased partnerships and interagency cooperation 

y Spread of exotic and invasive species 

y Impacts to water quality, quantity and levels 

y Need for Improved environmental outreach, education and interpretation 

y Need for cultural resource management plan 

y Need to maintain quality hunting and fishing opportunities 

y Lack of sufficient staffing and funding 

In addition to these priority issues, other issues also include the refuge’s trust responsibilities. The 

issues for the refuge to address during the 15-year life of the CCP are divided into four categories: 

wildlife and habitat management; resource protection; visitor services; and refuge administration. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

The refuge is biologically diverse, with numerous species of fish, wildlife, and plants. The habitat 

diversity and location of the refuge offer fish and wildlife, including federally and state-listed species, 

migratory birds, and native species, an undeveloped landscape of prime habitat. However, increased 

human population growth, urbanization and suburbanization, and the development of lands around 

the refuge will eventually increase public use demands on the refuge and are expected to increase 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

associated impacts to the refuge. Direct and indirect activities that may impact the refuge include 

commercial, residential, and recreational uses (potentially resulting in reduced water quality, the 

spread of exotic species, and increased wildlife and habitat disturbance). Ongoing development of 

the landscape is consuming and fragmenting the remaining off-refuge habitats, which are also used 

and needed by many refuge wildlife (e.g., for breeding, nesting, loafing, feeding, migrating, and 

dispersing). The spread of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; the threats to imperiled species; 

the management and maintenance of impounded wetlands; and the decline in migratory birds and 

their associated habitats are priority wildlife and habitat management issues that need to be 

addressed in the 15-year life of the plan. 

Threatened, Endangered and Imperiled Species 

The protection and recovery of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important 

responsibility of the Service and the Service’s national wildlife refuges. Although federally listed species 

are currently not known to occur on the refuge, Schweinitz sunflowers grow in nearby areas and redcockaded woodpeckers were found on the refuge until several years ago. Several state-listed species, 

consisting predominantly of freshwater mussels, are found on the refuge. In addition, Rafinesque’s bats 

and loggerhead shrikes have been documented on the refuge. Rare species utilize a variety of habitats 

found on the refuge including open water, wetlands and upland communities. The refuge's large 

component of bottomland forest becomes increasingly important on a regional scale due the loss of this 

important habitat in North Carolina, while the refuge's uplands will serve as a sanctuary for species that 

are losing habitat due to accelerating development at a regional level. 

Nonnative and Nuisance Species 

Nonnative (introduced) and nuisance (destructive) species have the potential to negatively influence 

native species through habitat alteration (which can change ecological processes), resource 

competition, predation, or any combination of these factors. All major habitats on the refuge have 

nonnative and nuisance species. In upland habitats, coyotes prey on native wildlife species while 

Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), privet (Ligustrum sinese), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), kudzu 

(Pueraria montana var. lobata), wisteria (Wisteria sinensis), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) 

crowd out native plants. The refuge’s wetlands and aquatic habitats are inhabited by alligator weed 

(Alternanthera philoxeroides). Refuge waterways and impoundments are known to support carp, 

comely shiner, blue catfish, flathead catfish, green sunfish, redear sunfish, and yellow perch. Several 

nonnative species that are problematic in other parts of North Carolina but likely to begin colonizing 

areas of the refuge within the following 15 years include feral hogs, nutria, and armadillo. 

Resident Wildlife 

Outside of the refuge, many prime habitat types are being developed, fragmented, or otherwise 

altered as a result of large-scale land use changes, leaving them unsuitable for many wildlife species. 

Large or conspicuous invertebrates include butterflies which utilize many terrestrial habitats, while 

crayfish and freshwater mussels inhabit the freshwater habitats. At least 28 species of fish inhabit the 

waterways on the refuge. Small fish such as mosquito fish and shiners reside in small streams and 

the shallow, weedy areas of rivers and lakes. Meanwhile, larger predatory fish such as largemouth 

bass, bluegill, and catfish inhabit the deeper waters. Amphibians consisting of frogs, toads, and 

salamanders use wetlands areas such as small upland ephemeral ponds and the impoundments and 

waterways of the refuge. Reptiles represent a diverse group of animals and include species of 

turtles, lizards, and snakes. Common refuge mammals include deer, bobcat, fox, raccoon, and 

opossum, as well as smaller species such as rodents and bats. Resident birds include large species 

such as turkey, raptors including hawks and owls as well as medium-sized woodpeckers, doves and 

grackles. Several smaller birds such as blackbirds and warblers also nest on the refuge. 
40 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Migratory Birds 

A variety of migratory birds utilize the refuge’s relatively undisturbed upland and wetland habitats. 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge serves as an overwintering and/or stopover site for a variety of 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds. Regional landscape development and 

degradation will place greater emphasis on the refuge as one of the remaining undeveloped 

tracts along the Pee Dee River corridor. 

The refuge currently plays an important role for several species of wading birds, shorebirds, 

waterfowl, and passerines. Impoundments and backwaters are important habitat for wading birds 

such as the great blue heron, green heron, and great egret. The bottomland hardwood habitat, which 

has declined significantly elsewhere in North Carolina, supports wood ducks and woodpeckers. Pee 

Dee National Wildlife Refuge was originally established as a waterfowl refuge and more than 20 

species of ducks and geese have been recorded, though most species occur only in small numbers. 

However, mallards have been estimated to number in the several thousands, primarily on refuge 

impoundments, while Canada geese typically number in the hundreds. The refuge’s various upland 

habitats are utilized by passerines, including vireo, warbler, sparrow, wren, thrush, and flycatcher 

species as well as indigo bunting, American robin, brown thrasher and eastern phoebe. These 

habitats will increase in conservation value as the surrounding landscape becomes increasingly 

fragmented and less suitable for foraging and resting. 

Data Needs and Comprehensive Habitat Management 

The refuge's topography and other factors have created a habitat gradient that is comprised of xeric 

(dry) upland plant communities which grade into wetter lowland forest types. These, in turn, connect 

to wetlands and open water. Each habitat is sustained by different ecological processes, primarily 

fire regimes and hydrology. Much of the ecology of species and their responses to fire and 

hydrological conditions need to be quantified via the collection of baseline data and coordinated 

research. This information will be invaluable in building a comprehensive habitat management 

program, including fire and impoundment management plans needed to maintain the ecological 

integrity and diversity of refuge habitats and the wildlife species that these areas support. 

Impounded Wetlands 

The refuge’s 100 acres of impounded wetlands provide relatively undisturbed habitat for many 

species of migratory birds, as well as resident birds and many other fish and wildlife. Wetlands are 

declining or being degraded nationwide, and have suffered significant losses in North Carolina as 

well. Refuge impoundments will increase their conservation value as similar habitat becomes less 

available due to increasing human impacts in the landscape. 

Bottomland Hardwoods 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge has some of the largest contiguous tracts of bottomland hardwoods 

remaining in central North Carolina. This unique habitat supports many wildlife species, and as these 

forests continue to decline regionally, the bottomland hardwoods of the refuge will play an 

increasingly important role in the long-term population health of species dependent on this habitat. 

Water Quantity and Quality 

The increased demand for water for human uses and the degradation of water supplies from pollution 

and runoff negatively affect water quantity and quality on the refuge. These issues will intensify as a 

growing population occupies more land in the immediate vicinity of the refuge and in the upstream 

areas of the Pee Dee River watershed. Water dominates a large proportion of the habitats on the 

refuge. At least 30% of the refuge is comprised of impoundments, wetlands, bottomland hardwoods, 

and open water connected to Brown Creek and the Pee Dee River. Therefore, ensuring appropriate 

water quantity and quality on the refuge will be critical to the long-term ecological health of the refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

The resource protection issues at Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge consist of land acquisition, 

easement management, and law enforcement. 

Acquiring ecologically important lands is one of the most effective ways in which to protect vulnerable 

habitat and associated wildlife species. The refuge is located in an area where obtaining land from 

willing sellers is still an option, since neighboring lands are largely undeveloped. 

More than 1,300 acres of land are protected through conservation easements administered by Pee 

Dee National Wildlife Refuge. Such forms of cooperative land protection strategies are likely to play a 

larger role in an area threatened by urbanization. 

Accelerating population growth in the regions surrounding the refuge will likely result in increased 

impacts from inappropriate and illegal activities on the refuge. The refuge contains large areas that 

are relatively remote and difficult to patrol. Increased law enforcement and patrols will be required to 

protect and maintain the refuge's resources. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The growing human population will increase use of the refuge as undeveloped and natural areas 

dwindle in the region. Higher visitation rates will result in increased use of existing facilities, roads, 

and parking areas; and the associated waste disposal issues will increase. The quantity of litter may 

rise. The need for environmental education, outreach, and interpretation will increase, particularly 

those that focus on helping the public appreciate the benefits of nature and the projects that foster 

environmentally sound behaviors. Subsequently, the refuge’s staff size would need to grow to meet 

the increased demand for educational and interpretive opportunities and programs, and to better 

manage the visitor services program. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Important issues related to refuge administration involve staffing, funding, and intergovernmental 

coordination. The lack of sufficient staffing and funding to address management concerns continue 

be to issues for the refuge. Given the complexity of management on the refuge and the need for the 

involvement of multiple partners in developing and implementing solutions, intergovernmental 

coordination was identified as one of the priority issues that need to be addressed in the CCP. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The results of the refuge’s wilderness review are provided in Appendix H. 
42 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the Service to maintain the 

ecological health, diversity, and integrity of the refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are 

appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. These uses are therefore emphasized in this plan. 

Described below is the proposed comprehensive conservation plan for managing the refuge over the 

next 15 years. This proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies 

that will be used to achieve the refuge vision. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered and analyzed: Alternative A, Current 

Management (No Action); Alternative B; and Alternative C (Proposed Action). Each of these 

alternatives is described in Chapter III of the Environmental Assessment (Section B). The Service 

chose Alternative C as the proposed management direction. 

Implementing the proposed action alternative will result in an increase in the refuge's wildlife and 

habitat diversity. Listed species, migratory birds, and other wildlife species and habitats will continue 

to be protected and managed for optimal biodiversity. Resource protection activities will be 

enhanced, including the management of easements. Visitor services in the six priority public uses will 

improve and accommodate the expected rise in visitation. And finally, refuge administration activities 

will focus on improving wildlife and habitat diversity through streamlined efforts and the strengthening 

of local and regional partnerships. 

VISION 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1963 as an important resting and feeding area 

for wintering migratory waterfowl. The refuge occupies a unique location where the rolling hills of the 

Piedmont drain into the wetland and aquatic habitats of Brown Creek and the Pee Dee River. 

Through the collaboration of interagency partners, volunteers and the Service, Pee Dee National 

Wildlife Refuge will continue to serve as an important conservation link in the Savannah–Santee–Pee 

Dee Ecosystem. The refuge’s lands and waters will continue to support migratory birds, habitat, and 

species diversity through sound stewardship and habitat management. 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge is committed to the conservation, preservation, and enhancement of 

this important biological resource for the people of North Carolina. In this pursuit, the Service will work 

with partners to provide environmental education and promote quality wildlife-dependent recreation for 

all visitors. The focus of Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge will be to help foster an interest and sense of 

wonder in nature by future generations. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s responses to the issues, concerns 

and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public and are 

presented in a hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated 

with the various strategies. These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment 
44 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

to achieve the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and the purposes and vision of Pee Dee National 

Wildlife Refuge. With adequate staffing and funding as outlined in Chapter V, the Service intends to 

accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Wildlife and habitat management goals include rare, threatened, and endangered species; migratory 

birds; exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; wildlife and habitat diversity; and water resources. 

I. RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL I: Preserve, protect, enhance populations of rare, 

threatened, and endangered species of plants and animals at existing or increasing levels on the 

refuge and preserve, protect, manage, and restore their native North Carolina Piedmont habitat 

occurring on the refuge to contribute to recovery goals. 

Discussion: Listed species are plants or animals that have been listed by a state and/or federal 

agency with special protection or conservation designations. Those species with regulatory 

protection are protected by law, such as state and federal endangered and threatened species. The 

refuge’s expansive and protected areas provide undisturbed, natural-like habitat for many species. 

The refuge serves as a vital area for species such as bald eagles. Several listed plant species have 

been documented on the refuge. Due to its location, size, and diversity of undisturbed habitats, its 

level of federal protection, and its unique landscape features, the refuge lends itself to the possible 

future of a number of species and possible future reintroduction of declining species. 

I.A. Bald Eagle 

Wildlife and Management Objective I.A: Over plan's 15-year lifespan, continue to support bald 

eagle foraging habitats on the refuge. 

Discussion: The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near 

bodies of water where it feeds. Although bald eagles were federally delisted in July 2007, it is still 

designated as "threatened" by the State of North Carolina. There are no documented nests within the 

refuge; however, annually 2–4 eagles have been documented feeding and roosting in the area during 

the winter. In addition, a few migratory bald eagles have been noted moving through the area during 

winter. Disruption, destruction, or obstruction of roosting and foraging areas can also negatively 

affect bald eagles. Nesting bald eagles may inadequately feed their young if the adults are prevented 

or discouraged from feeding at preferred sites. Migrating and wintering bald eagles congregate at 

specific sites for purposes of feeding and sheltering. Bald eagles rely on established roost sites 

because of their proximity to sufficient food sources. Roost sites are usually in mature trees where 

the eagles are somewhat sheltered from the wind and weather. Human activities near or within 

communal roost sites may prevent eagles from feeding or taking shelter, especially if there are not 

other undisturbed and productive feeding and roosting sites available. Disruptive activities in the 

flight path between nesting and roosting sites and important foraging areas can interfere with feeding. 

Activities that permanently alter eagle habitat can altogether eliminate the elements that are essential 

for feeding and sheltering eagles. Where human activities agitate roosting or foraging bald eagles to 

the degree that they interfere with or interrupt breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, causing 

injury, death, or nest abandonment, constitutes a violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act. Eagles are unlikely to be disturbed by routine use of roads, homes, and other facilities where 

such use pre-dates the eagles’ successful nesting activity in a given area. Therefore, in most cases 

ongoing existing uses may proceed with the same intensity with little risk of disturbing bald eagles. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

The refuge’s current forestry practices include upland forestry management (including mechanical 

thinning and prescribed burning) that will favor the development of potentially suitable nest trees. In 

addition, the refuge has extensive bottomland hardwoods that could offer suitable nesting areas. 

Increasing the crown size of selected trees (through mechanical thinning) may somewhat improve the 

potential for nesting. 

Strategies: 

y Implement the Southeast Regional Bald Eagle Management Guidelines around any newly 

established nest sites. 

y Retain mature trees and old growth stands wherever possible, particularly within 1⁄2 mile (0.8 

km) from water. 

y Remove sweetgum at select locations to increase height and crown size of potential nest trees. 

y Retain tall trees along the Pee Dee River and low grounds area. 

y Protect foraging habitat from disturbance by the categories of management activities by 

adhering to activity-specific guidelines (USFWS 2006). 

I.B. Little Blue Heron 

Wildlife and Management Objective I.B: Over the plan’s 15-year lifespan, manage habitat on the 

refuge to support little blue heron foraging and nesting habitat and minimize disturbance. 

Discussion: Little blue herons are declining in several states, including North Carolina. Loss of 

foraging and nesting habitat has contributed to their decreasing numbers. This species requires 

shallow areas where they can prey on invertebrates, amphibians, and fish. This species is 

occasionally found on the refuge, which is within its breeding range. 

Strategies:

y Adjust water level in impoundments to 0–25 cm (0–12 inches) during seasons that little blue 

herons are present. 

y Maintain possible rookery/breeding sites. 

y To reduce human disturbance, allow riparian vegetation to grow sufficiently high around 

impoundments to provide a visual barrier. 

y Limit public access seasonally to areas with high wading bird use. 

I.C. Loggerhead Shrike

Wildlife and Management Objective I.C: Over the plan’s 15-year lifespan, manage habitat on the 

refuge to maintain breeding populations of loggerhead shrikes. 

Discussion: Loggerhead shrikes are declining in many portions of their range. Possible factors 

causing a decrease in their populations include the loss of nesting habitat (abandonment of many 

farms and orchards have allowed fields to become overgrown from neglect), roadkills and pesticide 

contamination. This species is known to breed on the refuge. Steps could be taken to increase the 

breeding potential of loggerhead shrikes on the refuge. 

Strategies:

y Work with partners to improve habitat on private lands adjacent to the refuge. 

y Manage open grasslands and old fields for shrubs and trees with thorns as “larders” (to 

effectively feed, shrikes need to impale their prey on thorns). 

y Increase surveys to monitor population status and trends. 
46 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

I.D. Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Wildlife and Management Objective I.D: During the first ten years of the plan, work with partners 

to document the presence or absence of red-cockaded woodpeckers near and on the refuge 

and adapt management as required on at least 1,000 acres (405 ha) of uplands annually. 

Discussion: Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) have occurred on the refuge in the past. Historically 

there were three sites or “clusters” on Pee Dee NWR. The last known occurrence of a single male RCW 

was in 1999–2000. Prior to 2000, the cluster occupied by the solitary male was augmented with four 

artificial cavities and then two female RCWs were released in an attempt to establish a breeding pair. 

These efforts were unsuccessful. Although the species is not breeding on the refuge, occupied redcockaded woodpecker clusters exist on conservation lands within 45 miles (72 km) of the refuge, and 

potentially suitable habitat exists on Pee Dee NWR. As RCW populations expand on nearby protected 

lands, the potential for new groups to become established on the refuge increases. Reintroduction of this 

listed species may be an option as suitable refuge habitat becomes available. 

Strategies: 

y Manage existing pine and mixed pine-hardwood stands to provide suitable foraging and cavity 

habitat for RCWs as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Recovery Guidelines 

criteria listed in the 2003 Revised Recovery Plan.

y Conduct annual surveys of current RCW cluster sites to determine activity status. 

y Update 1992 Pee Dee NWR Forest Habitat Management Plan to incorporate revised RCW 

recovery criteria and recommendations from relevant USFWS guidance documents.

y Use 2005 timber stand inventory data and the RCW Foraging Matrix Application to evaluate 

present forest stand conditions and to identify specific habitat prescriptions for these pine stands.

y Thin pine stands every 10 years to produce an uneven-aged stand composition with a 

targeted basal area and density meeting RCW recovery criteria. This will also benefit a 

variety of other landbirds.

y Evaluate conversion of some loblolly stands to longleaf pine stands along with the associated 

plant community as site conditions warrant.

y Continue prescribed fire and timber management of approximately 1,000 acres (405 hectares) 

of uplands annually. 

y Monitor presence or absence of RCWs on the refuge and coordinate with partners to monitor 

the proximity of active clusters on nearby lands. 

y Adapt management as necessary if groups become established on the refuge. 

y Consider opportunities for reintroduction. 

y Conduct multiple thinnings over time to reach targeted recovery standards for basal area 

across pine stands for possible future RCWs foraging or nesting sites. This will also benefit a 

variety of other pine specialists (e.g., brown-headed nuthatches). 

y Use an uneven-aged forest stand management approach to mimic natural stand conditions 

and to maximize plant/animal diversity. 

I.E. Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat

Wildlife and Management Objective I.E: During the first ten years of the plan, work with partners to 

document the presence or absence of Rafinesque's big-eared bats on the refuge and adapt 

management as required. 

Discussion: Drastic reductions in bat populations have occurred during recent years in the United 

States and many species are protected. Rafinesque's big-eared bats are listed by the Service as a 

species of special concern. Adverse human impacts include habitat destruction, direct killing, 

vandalism, disturbance of hibernating and maternity colonies, and the use of pesticides and other 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

chemical toxicants. The refuge contains a variety of habitats that could serve as foraging and 

roosting areas for this species, and a baseline survey in 2004 detected this species on the refuge. 

Future surveys will help confirm this data and allow abundance estimates to be made. 

Strategies:

y Implement annual bat surveys to monitor status and trends. 

y Maintain snags for roosting habitat. 

I.F. Stream Fish 

Wildlife and Management Objective I.F: During the first ten years of the plan, work with partners to 

document the presence or absence of listed stream fish on the refuge and work with the partners to 

improve the water quality of refuge streams. 

Discussion: Many of North Carolina's stream fish have been affected by degradation of their habitat 

due to sedimentation and pollution. Stream fish require clear, well-oxygenated water and spawning 

areas free of silt. Urbanization, clear-cutting, and erosion all contribute to increased sedimentation of 

freshwater resources. Several species of stream fish inhabit the refuge (Progress Energy 2005), 

including listed species such as the Carolina darter. Improving the water quality of streams through 

partnerships with local landowners and farmers could help increase populations and possibly allow 

extirpated species to return to the refuge. 

Cooperative farming on the refuge includes the use of a nonrestricted herbicide such as RoundUp. 

The use of fertilizers is minimized by crop-rotation with nitrogen-fixing legumes such as soybeans. 

An annual pesticide use proposal has to be submitted to the refuge and approved for use of any 

chemicals. Cooperative farmers use best management practices (BMPs) and minimize runoff from 

their fields to refuge waters. 

Strategies:

y Implement five-year surveys to monitor status and trends. 

y Develop water quality monitoring program. 

y Work with local landowners to incorporate erosion and runoff-control measures on the 

properties that border Brown Creek and other streams that flow through the refuge. 

y Leave riparian vegetation intact and ensure that roads and trails bordering streams do not 

contribute sediment to refuge streams. 

I.G. Diadromous Fish 

Wildlife and Management Objective I.G: During the first ten years of the plan, work with partners to 

document the presence or absence of diadromous fish on the refuge and work with the partners to 

improve the water quality of refuge streams. 

Discussion: Historically, the Pee Dee River and several of its tributaries were utilized by diadromous 

fish species (fish that must migrate between salt and freshwater to complete part of their life cycle), 

including American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose 

sturgeon and American eel. Many of these species have since been extirpated from most of the Pee 

Dee River due to the construction of dams, overfishing and water quality degradation. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources have developed a basin-wide 

plan (Restoration Plan for the Diadromous Fishes of the Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin) for restoring the 

diadromous fish of the Yadkin and Pee Dee River Basin (basin) of North Carolina and South Carolina 

(USFWS, NMFS, NCWRC and SCDNR 2006). Through implementation of this CCP, Pee Dee NWR 
48 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

will be able to contribute to the restoration efforts outlined in the diadromous fish plan, specifically with 

regard to helping improve water quality and maintaining suitable riverine/wetland habitat. 

To date, the American eel is the only diadromous species that has been documented on the refuge 

(Progress Energy 2005). 

Strategies:

y Implement surveys (every five years) to monitor population status and trends. 

y Develop water quality monitoring program. 

y Work with local landowners to incorporate erosion and runoff-control measures on the 

properties that border the Pee Dee River, Brown Creek and other streams that flow through 

the refuge. 

y Leave riparian vegetation intact and ensure that roads and trails bordering streams do not 

contribute sediment to refuge streams. 

I.H. Freshwater Mussels 

Wildlife and Management Objective I.H: Within three years of plan adoption, work with the 

Asheville Ecological Services Field Office and the Regional Refuge Ecologist to determine whether 

refuge streams (before or after restoration) would be appropriate habitat for populations of freshwater 

mussels that are likely to be extirpated in the next 5–10 years due to development. 

Discussion: Many species of freshwater mussels are declining in North Carolina. The Carolina 

Creekshell is one of the two highest priority mussels currently found on the refuge. Though 

considered a relatively hardy species, it is endemic to a small area in North Carolina in the area of the 

refuge and northern South Carolina (Price 2005a). The other high priority mussel species is the 

Brook Floater. Populations are found from Canada to the Savannah River Basin, and tend to be 

located in higher gradient mountain streams among boulders in sand (Price 2005b). The species is 

thought to be sensitive to sedimentation, flow alteration and low oxygen conditions. Other species 

also thought to be particularly sensitive to channel degradation, pollution and the aforementioned 

impairments include the Creeper (Price 2005c), Notched Rainbow (Price 2005d), and Carolina Lance 

(Price 2005e). The Eastern Creekshell is thought to be susceptible to bank erosion and loss of 

forested riparian zones (Price 2005f). 

Freshwater mussels would benefit from improved water quality of refuge streams. Since refuge 

activities do not negatively impact water quality (in fact, the large riparian buffers present on the 

refuge may somewhat improve water quality), efforts to clean up refuge waters will likely include 

working with landowners upstream of the refuge. 

Strategies:

y Implement surveys (every five years) to monitor population status and trends. 

y Develop water quality monitoring program. 

y Work with local landowners to incorporate erosion and runoff-control measures on the 

properties that border Brown Creek and other streams that flow through the refuge. 

y Leave riparian vegetation intact and ensure that roads and trails bordering streams do not 

contribute sediment to refuge streams. 

y Work with the NCWRC’s Wildlife Diversity Program when designing aquatic surveys and long 

term recovery efforts. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

I.I. Schweinitz’s Sunflower 

Wildlife and Management Objective I.I: Over the course of the 15-year plan, establish and manage 

one or more viable populations of Schweinitz’s sunflower on appropriate refuge sites using guidance 

from the current species Recovery Plan and species experts. 

Discussion: Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) is listed as endangered. Thirty-five 

populations are known, 19 from North Carolina and 16 from South Carolina. All occurrences occur 

near Charlotte, North Carolina, and Rock Hill, South Carolina. Schweinitz’s sunflower is currently 

known from roadsides, power line clearings, old pastures, woodland openings, and other sunny to 

semi-sunny situations. It is generally located on poor, clayey and/or rocky soils. Formerly, it probably 

occurred in prairie-like habitats or post oak-blackjack oak savannas maintained by fires set by 

lightning and Native Americans. Loss of this open habitat to fire suppression and urbanization has 

resulted in the decline of the species and its reduction to marginal and very vulnerable sites. Refuge 

staff and partners have identified at least one potential site on the refuge for possible establishment 

of the Schweinitz’s sunflower. The refuge currently contains remnant natural community types that 

are associated with and known to support this species, namely Piedmont longleaf pine and diabase 

bluffs. Pee Dee NWR also contains Iredell soils, mafic in nature and geologically, Triassic basin, both 

associated with “Piedmont prairies.” 

Strategies

y Inventory upland pine stands, dry oak/hickory forests, and early successional habitats on the 

refuge for presence of Schweinitz’s sunflower. 

y Identify areas with the potential to support viable populations of the species using updated 

vegetation maps of the refuge and establish populations. 

y Develop and implement a refuge-specific management plan for the species.

y Annually monitor established populations to measure success of relocation and management 

regimes and to determine population status and potential contribution toward the species’ 

recovery goal. 

I.J. State-listed Plants 

Wildlife and Management Objective I.J: Over the course of the 15-year plan, document the 

presence or absence of state-listed plants and maintain refuge habitats favorable for these species. 

Discussion: Due to its wide range of habitats from warm coastal areas to high altitude alpine habitats, 

North Carolina has a high diversity of rare and endemic plants. A large number of these species are 

at risk due to habitat loss and degradation and competition with exotic plants. At least 100 species 

are listed by the state and over 20 are protected by the Service. Many of these rare plants live in 

habitats that are being lost across North Carolina, and some of these habitats are present on the 

refuge. Several state-listed plants may be found on the refuge. Many of the rare species that are 

possibly found on the refuge require open habitat (areas historically cleared by fire) and various 

forestry practices that thin the forest canopy, which would benefit these types of plants. 

Strategies: 

y Work with partners (e.g., Natural Heritage Program) to survey the refuge for listed plant species. 

y Establish a Geographic Information System (GIS) database for listed species and refuge 

habitats. 
50 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

II. MIGRATORY BIRDS 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL II: Maintain and actively manage refuge habitats 

to meet the migratory bird priorities of the refuge and the North Carolina Piedmont Physiographic 

Area, while providing consistency with regional and national goals.

Discussion: Pee Dee NWR’s location and diversity of habitats make it suitable for a range of 

migratory birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds, and land birds. The 

importance of the refuge will increase for migratory birds as their key habitats are degraded or lost 

regionally due to increasing development. 

 

II.A. Waterfowl 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.A.1: Over the course of the 15-year plan, begin to 

increase the ratio of natural vegetation (moist soil units and GTR) to flooded cropland by 30% to 

support Southern James Bay geese and ducks. 

Discussion: Pee Dee NWR was originally established as a waterfowl refuge. Twenty-two species of 

ducks and geese have been recorded and waterfowl have used the refuge in large numbers. The 

most common species are mallard and green-winged teal that may number several thousand during 

fall and winter (September–March). Wood ducks are a year-round resident species, utilizing 

hardwood swamp habitats for breeding and foraging. Refuge impoundments are managed as "moist 

soil" units and provide foraging and resting habitats for wintering ducks. Intensively managed 

waterfowl impoundments provide a high concentration of food for waterfowl, thereby increasing the 

forage carrying capacity of these artificial wetlands. 

Strategies: 

y Annually provide 27 acres of unharvested corn to meet the minimum population goals for 

ducks (10,000) and Canada geese (1,000). 

y Continue to provide 164 acres (66 hectares) of natural and managed wetland habitat annually 

while working to increase the acres of these habitat types by 10 acres (4 hectares) a year over 

the next 10 years (for a total of 100 acres or 40 hectares) to meet the minimum population goals 

for ducks (10,000) and Canada geese (1,000). 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.A.2: During the life of the plan, monitor the 

Southern James Bay geese and duck distribution and migration chronology. 

Discussion: Migratory waterfowl are the primary reason the refuge was established. Consistent 

monitoring of waterfowl populations will help determine the management actions necessary to 

maintain optimal habitat for the most species at or near carrying capacities on the refuge. 

Strategy: 

y Conduct bimonthly waterfowl surveys in all suitable habitats (October–March) following the 

South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI) protocols, and enter the data into the SAMBI 

web-based database (https://shorebird.ncusfws.org/login.php)

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.A.3: During the life of the 15-year plan, enhance 

wood duck breeding habitats to maintain at least 50 pairs of wood ducks. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain a program of 50 well-maintained nest boxes (following the Service’s Regional 

Guidelines for wood duck nest box management). 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

y Maintain an open water to vegetation ratio of 50–70% vegetation, with 30–50% open water in 

Andrews Pond to provide optimal brood habitat. 

y The refuge will continue to meet its current wood duck banding quota of 125 ducks. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.A.4: During the life of the plan, protect wintering 

waterfowl from human disturbance by enforcing closure of waterfowl sanctuary areas. 

Discussion: Excessive human disturbance is a potential problem in the management of wintering 

waterfowl on any refuge. Relative to other bird groups, waterfowl are skittish, exhibit large flush 

distances, and tend to remain airborne for longer periods. They are also more cautious in returning 

to areas from which they are repeatedly disturbed. Thus, hunting, fishing, boating, wildlife 

observation, and other recreational activities can all pose disturbance threats to waterfowl if not 

properly managed. In addition to causing waterfowl to abandon otherwise suitable habitat, 

disturbance can negatively impact survival and productivity through the complex interrelationships of 

elevated energy demands, increased susceptibility to hunting or predation, poorer foraging efficiency, 

diminished physiological condition, prolonged molt, and interruption of courtship activities and rest 

periods. It is unknown if pedestrian use of the impoundment levees represents a disturbance 

concern (i.e., flushing resting waterfowl). If so, public use restrictions may need to be considered to 

provide a relatively disturbance-free sanctuary—especially during waterfowl seasons. Several areas 

on the refuge are seasonally closed from November 25 to March 15 to limit disturbance to migratory 

waterfowl. These include the impoundments and portions of the Pee Dee River. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor waterfowl use throughout refuge habitats to assess whether disturbance might be an 

issue and if certain “limited disturbance" areas (i.e., public use restrictions) may be warranted. 

y Increase regular patrols and enforcement. 

II.B. Shorebirds 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.B.1: Over the life of this plan, manage water levels 

within the impoundments to provide shorebird foraging habitat during spring and fall migrations. 

Discussion: Although the refuge does not support breeding populations of the highest priority species 

and employs multi-species management techniques, its role in providing stopover habitat during 

spring and (especially) fall should not be understated. Availability of foraging habitats during key 

migratory periods has been shown to be critical for the persistence of long distance migrant shorebird 

species. Thus, one habitat goal stated in the Southeast Coastal Plain–Caribbean Shorebird 

Conservation Plan is to provide dedicated, high quality managed habitat to support energetic 

requirements of in-transit migrants. If resources or conditions permit only one drawdown per year, a 

late summer/fall drawdown would take priority. 

Strategies: 

y Incorporate shorebirds into multi-species management of the impoundments. 

y Maintain water levels to maximize availability of peak foraging conditions in portions of the 

impoundments (bare substrate or sparse vegetation and water depths 0–8 inches [0–16 cm]) 

starting in April and ending in late May and starting in early July and ending in late September. 

y Promote the buildup of invertebrate prey between migration seasons (May through early July 

and October through March) by holding water in the impoundment as high as possible. 

Decreased shorebird use despite optimal water levels might indicate the need to "rest" the 

impoundment for a cycle to revitalize the prey base. 

y Consider drawdowns of fishing ponds to create mudflats starting in late July through mid-August. 
52 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.B.2: Over the life of the plan, monitor and protect 

shorebirds utilizing the refuge. 

Discussion: Shorebird use of the refuge varies seasonally, and continued data collection and 

analysis is required to determine what the population trends are on the refuge. In addition, 

shorebirds are susceptible to disturbance. Human disturbance can result in decreased foraging rates 

among shorebirds, resulting in reduced fat reserves required for migration. 

Strategies:

y Expand waterfowl surveys to include collecting shorebird data during early fall and spring 

migration periods. 

y Minimize public use impacts to shorebirds, including seasonal closures of key areas. 

y Increase regular law enforcement patrols of shorebird areas. 

II.C. Wading Birds 

Wildlife and Habitat Objective II.C.1: Over the life of this plan, manage refuge impoundments to 

provide high quality foraging habitat for wading birds using water level manipulation. 

Strategies: 

y Expand foraging habitat availability to cover the entire nesting season. 

y Draw down one of the impoundments to promote depths of 8–14 inches (18–28 cm) during 

late April. Hold water levels in this range until June. 

y When using mechanical means to remove encroaching woody vegetation from the 

impoundments, consider leaving small patches (~1 acre or 0.4 hectare) to provide or develop 

into potential nest sites for wading birds. Likely patches would be in areas where human or 

other disturbance would be minimal and where impoundment operations would remain 

unimpacted. 

Wildlife and Habitat Objective II.C.2: Within the next three years, begin gathering data to make 

decisions regarding wading bird conservation and management effectiveness. 

Discussion: Wading bird use of the refuge varies seasonally, and continued data collection and 

analysis is required to determine what the population trends are on the refuge. In addition, wading 

birds are susceptible to disturbance. Human disturbance can result in decreased foraging rates 

among wading birds, resulting in reduced fat reserves required for migration. 

Strategies:

y Increase monitoring of wading bird use of impoundments through weekly or biweekly driving 

surveys, especially with regard to responses of birds to any management activities. Priority 

should be given to conducting surveys during the spring and fall migrations. 

Wildlife and Habitat Objective II.C.3: Over the life of the plan, manage the refuge’s existing great 

blue heron rookery by limiting access to the rookery site between March–August to protect nesting 

wading birds from excessive human disturbance 

 

Discussion: A new great blue heron rookery was established in 2006 near Arrowhead Pond. Two 

nests were observed. The rookery is in a swampy area not easily accessed, so disturbance by the 

public has not been an issue. The refuge will work to limit disturbance if that becomes necessary. 

Wading birds are especially vulnerable to disturbance during the nesting season. If repeatedly 

disturbed, they may abandon the nest site, which will likely result in a reproductive failure for the pair 

since the breeding season is relatively short in North Carolina, permitting little time to establish a new 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

nest site. If birds ware disturbed while tending nestlings, they may not be able to adequately feed 

their young resulting in malnourishment or starvation of the chicks. 

Strategies: 

y Through regular periodic visual surveys, assess wading bird use (i.e., numbers of birds, 

species, and locations) of the rookery site and adjacent impoundments to determine if 

seasonal closure is necessary to minimize potential disturbance to nesting wading birds. 

y Monitor public use of the areas in the vicinity of the rookery and limit disturbance as needed. 

y If wading birds begin nesting in the impoundments, maintain a 300-foot (100-m) buffer zone 

around nest sites to restrict human encroachment (including foot traffic) during active nesting. 

y If wading birds begin nesting in the natural areas of the refuge, a 300-foot (100-m) buffer 

around the wading bird colony should be established. 

Wildlife and Habitat Objective II.C.4: Within the next three years, work with the Service’s 

Southeast Regional Migratory Bird Program to develop population and/or habitat objectives that more 

explicitly link the refuge's contributions to Joint Venture objectives for priority species. 

Discussion: Pee Dee NWR provides foraging and potential nesting habitat for a variety of colonial 

nesting wading birds. Primary species include the great blue heron, great egret, little blue heron, 

green heron, least bittern, and American bittern. Several of these are identified as priorities for 

conservation attention in national and regional waterbird plans due to declining trends, threats to 

habitats, etc. Colonial wading birds forage for small aquatic organisms in the open portions of 

freshwater marshes, creeks, and shallow lake habitats of the refuge. The impoundments offer the 

best opportunity for active management focused on wading birds. Here, the mosaic of vegetation 

and open water provides excellent foraging habitat for all of the wading bird species mentioned 

above. For wading birds, the most important management activity for the refuge is providing high 

quality foraging habitat during the nesting season (March through June). This is particularly important 

late in the nesting season when adult wading birds have large young in the nest and energetic 

requirements are at their highest. Timing of breeding and peak nesting varies by species, and may 

vary annually based on weather, habitat conditions, and food resource availability. However, most 

species are well into the breeding cycle by late April. 

Several planning documents address wading bird conservation and provide specific 

recommendations on habitat management, disturbance management, and survey implementation 

that are relevant for Pee Dee NWR. The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, the 

Southeastern U.S. Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan all 

identify priority wading bird species and conservation actions that can be taken to contribute to state, 

regional and larger scale population goals. These plans also identify key habitats and provide 

recommendations for management activities to enhance wading bird use, as well as methodology 

and protocols to properly conduct surveys. As with all management actions recommended in this 

report, the effectiveness of techniques used to generate desired plant community responses and bird 

use should be fully document and evaluated. Based on these evaluations, approaches should be 

continued, adjusted, or no longer used, as warranted. 

Because Pee Dee NWR provides potential to enhance wading bird foraging opportunities through 

habitat management—especially in the impoundments—the development of specific population or 

habitat goals for wading bird conservation on the refuge is possible. The aforementioned planning 

documents are helpful in providing an appropriate context for considering the refuge's waterbird 

conservation role within the greater landscape, but more specific guidance will be needed to translate 

higher scale habitat or population objectives into meaningful objectives for Pee Dee NWR. The 

Southeast Regional Migratory Bird Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can provide 

assistance in this respect. 
54 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

The Southeast Regional Migratory Bird Program has plans to work even more closely with the 

Division of Refuges to hold habitat objective workshops geared towards helping individual refuges 

more clearly define their role in the bird conservation landscape. In the interim, Pee Dee NWR 

should continue to generally support population and habitat goals of existing waterbird plans through 

protecting (quality and quantity) foraging habitats, and increasing potential nesting habitat availability. 

II.E. Land Birds 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.E.1: During the first ten years of the plan, restore 

and maintain approximately 5,400 acres (2,185 hectares) of mixed pine hardwoods, upland pine and 

bottomland forests. 

Strategies: 

y Define future desired conditions of various upland habitats, especially pine-dominated 

uplands. Absent specific desired characteristics, average initial target conditions across 

pine-dominated habitats should approximate minimum basal areas of 40–70 square feet 

per acre (ft2

/acre), greater than or equal to (≥) 60% grass/forb cover, and less than (<) 

40% shrub in the midstory. The basal area recommendation is offered in the context of 

maintaining relatively low stem densities that are compatible with red-cockaded 

woodpecker foraging guidelines. 

y Apply growing season prescribed burns to approximately 3,500 upland acres (1,416 upland 

hectares) per year on a 3-year average burn interval to begin restoring (or otherwise 

maintaining) habitats to the above conditions. 

y On sites with heavy midstory encroachment (greater than [>] 60% coverage), consider 

following up initial dormant season burns with a growing season burn 12–18 months later. 

Alternatively, consider sparing use of mechanical methods (e.g. chopping, mowing) 

subsequent to growing season burns to physically control midstory. 

y Continue aggregating burn units into larger compartments to add efficiency to burn operations 

and promote patchier burns. Favor hand ignition over aerial ignition; or use sparser ignition 

rates in aerially applied burns. Continue elimination of slash/loblolly plantations. Identify sites 

where conditions favor restoration of longleaf pine; promote this species accordingly. 

y Explore management options for protecting significant oak hammocks or shrub stringers 

during burn operations to maintain important resource components within the pine upland 

matrix. Ensure that these components are not severely reduced or eliminated from the 

landscape, but manage where their dominance becomes excessive. Hammocks should not 

exceed 20% of the overstory stand composition; similarly for shrub cover in the midstory. 

y Thin sweetgum in bottomland hardwood forests to favor mast-producing species. 

y Conduct assessments to develop baseline estimates of current forest stand characteristics 

(overstory and midstory composition, basal area, percent grass cover, etc.). Periodically 

assess management effectiveness relative to this baseline and desired future conditions. 

y Integrate the strategies outlined here into existing or revised refuge-wide forest 

management plan. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.E.2: During the life of the plan, work with Partners in 

Flight, the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, the Service’s Southeast Regional Migratory Bird 

Program, and other partners to develop population and/or habitat objectives that more explicitly link 

the refuge's contributions to landscape scale objectives for landbirds. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.E.3: Within five years of plan adoption, monitor 

landbird presence, abundance, distribution, and responses to management activities. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Discussion: Through its conservation assessment process, Partners in Flight has identified 

numerous landbird priorities for the Southern Piedmont Physiographic Area. Priority landbirds found 

at Pee Dee NWR, and that the refuge can contribute meaningfully to the conservation of, include 

Henslow's sparrow, prairie warbler, brown-headed nuthatch, Swainson's warbler, prothonotary 

warbler, cerulean warbler, wood thrush, worm-eating warbler, whip-poor-will, and Kentucky warbler. 

Other species that are identified as priorities for this region are known or likely to occur within the 

refuge, but because of their inconspicuousness or a general lack of quantitative abundance data, it 

remains unclear to what extent they occur on the refuge or how significantly the refuge might 

contribute to their conservation. 

Refuge habitats of importance to landbirds include the few scattered grassy habitats (breeding and 

wintering sparrows), open pine and pine flatwoods (sparrows, American kestrel, brown-headed 

nuthatch, northern bobwhite), and forested wetlands (swallow-tailed kite, prothonotary warbler). 

Principal landbird conservation and management considerations involve: 

y prescribed burning of pine habitats to remove excessive hardwood midstory, to encourage 

more mature stands with herbaceous/grassy ground cover, and to promote longleaf pine 

where appropriate (northern bobwhite, American kestrel, chuck-will's-widow, brown-headed 

nuthatch, breeding and wintering sparrows); 

y continued monitoring to better document and quantify occurrence of priority landbird species 

on the refuge (breeding season surveys as well as nonbreeding surveys for wintering 

sparrows and painted bunting); 

y better defining linkages between national and regional landbird conservation plans and refuge 

objectives for landbird conservation; and 

y addressing priority information gaps and assessing management effectiveness through 

research, inventories and monitoring (all priority species). 

Unlike many refuges that primarily play a role in supporting breeding populations of priority 

species, Pee Dee NWR potentially plays a very important role in supporting populations of 

several of the species mentioned above through provision of essential wintering habitat (e.g., 

sparrows). Because wintering landbirds are more difficult to monitor and factors limiting their 

populations during nonbreeding periods remain poorly known, land managers and conservation 

planners are only just beginning to consider the incorporation of wintering landbird needs into 

objective-setting and management activities. Consequently, recommendations for wintering 

landbirds typically reflect attempts to balance the uncertainties with practical advice for what 

"seems" like the right thing to do. Implementation of such recommendations must recognize that 

uncertainties can affect whether anticipated conservation benefits are realized. This gives 

renewed importance to monitoring and assessment of management effectiveness in such cases; 

not only to justify continued refuge resource allocations in these directions, but to ensure that 

objectives are being met and to further assist in the general quest for information on how best to 

support bird conservation during nonbreeding seasons. Fortunately, most of the management 

activities that would be presumed to afford benefits to wintering landbirds at Pee Dee NWR are 

geared principally toward restoration (or maintenance) of upland pine and pine-oak systems. 

As alluded to above, the quantitative importance of these habitats to priority landbirds has yet to be 

defined, but qualitatively it is reasonable to assume that management could enhance their ability to 

support wood thrush, eastern wood-pewee, yellow-billed cuckoo, pileated wood pecker, and yellowthroated vireo.. Presently, the scarcity of grassy and herbaceous ground cover—or conversely, the 

encroachment by hardwood mid-story plants—is a principal limitation in the ability of such habitats to 

support these species, but there are other factors, too. Availability of mature pines that afford nesting 

cavities will affect suitability for American kestrel (true also for brown-headed nuthatch, but less so 

given their smaller size), whereas the presence of shrubby "stringers" and scattered oak hammocks 
56 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

can be a determinant of suitability for eastern towhee, and a variety of frugivorous and insectivorous 

species that may overwinter or pass through during migration. 

Approximately 1,500 acres (607 hectares) of uplands (and some wetlands) are burned on the refuge each 

year. Assuming an average return interval of three years, a maximum of approximately 800 acres (324 

hectares) of upland (i.e., 2,500 total upland acres or 1,012 hectares divided by 3) would need to be burned 

each year. An important distinction to point out here is the difference between management activities 

designed to restore degraded habitats, versus those designed to maintain habitats that more closely 

approximate desired conditions. The above burn intervals and acreages speak to averages that are most 

appropriate under a maintenance mode. Initial restoration activities may involve more (and more frequent) 

burning, as well as additional midstory removal, fuel reduction, or other activities (see below). 

In general, growing season (late March–June) burns will be more conducive to reducing mid-story 

hardwood encroachment, and may be more reflective of "natural" burn regimes (e.g., summer, lightningignited burns). In areas where mid-story hardwood encroachment really needs to be knocked back, it 

may be necessary to follow up initial dormant season burns with a growing season burn 18 months later. 

This burn pattern should not be sustained indefinitely; it is a short-term recommendation to advance 

restoration of pine habitats more rapidly into a maintenance mode where growing season burns on a 

three-year average return interval are the norm. Reduction of mid-story encroachment may also be 

accelerated through sparing use of mechanical means (e.g., mowing, chopping). Though less desirable 

than fire, these may be cost-effective solutions when burning is not an option, or to periodically enhance 

the hardwood reduction effects of prescribed burns. Mowing can decrease the height of woody 

undergrowth while preserving and even promoting grounD.C.over species. A hydro-ax can be used to 

mechanically clear tall, thick, monotypic areas to increase understory diversity. Soil disturbance and 

compaction in such operations are potential drawbacks, and should be minimized so as to avoid 

conditions favored by less desirable native and exotic herbs and grasses. 

The more that prescribed burns promote a grassy-herbaceous understory, the more likely they are to 

provide conditions suitable for breeding and wintering sparrows, northern bobwhite, American kestrel, 

chuck-will's-widow and other species that either forage in these substrates, or require the openness 

they afford for foraging/hunting over it. In conducting burns, it should be stressed that patchiness is 

preferred over cleanliness. Larger burns should promote diversity and patchiness in burn patterns on 

the landscape, and the continued aggregation of burn units into larger compartments should facilitate 

this. Patchiness will help ensure that hardwood and shrub components important to a number of bird 

and wildlife species are not entirely excluded from the landscape. Aerial ignition (at least at high 

ignition densities) may not afford desired patchiness, as numerous ignition points seem to result in 

cleaner burns. As a general consideration in refuge burn operations, the multitude of ignition points 

typical of aerial ignition techniques may also make it more difficult for wildlife to find suitable cover 

during or after fires. Hand ignition should be considered whenever practical. Some target habitat 

objectives for burns in upland pine systems (including flatwoods and areas with longleaf pine) would 

be to achieve a minimum basal area of approximately 40–70 ft2

/acre (and low stem densities), ≥60% 

grass/forb cover, and <40% shrub in the midstory. Longleaf pine should be promoted in areas where 

it could potentially be a dominant overstory species. 

The forested wetlands and hardwood forests are important to breeding neotropical migrant 

passerines, such as prothonotary warbler. Active management of these habitats is not required. 

Rather, the role that these habitats play locally (on the refuge) and regionally (on the landscape) in 

supporting priority species such as these needs to be recognized in actions on and off refuge that 

might impact their integrity (e.g., water use, water quality, forestry, adjacent burning, public use, etc.). 

As with waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds, there exists relevant conservation planning material 

for landbirds. The Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative has developed state-by-state habitat 

conservation objectives for quail, and coordination with this initiative can help specify acreage goals 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

for the refuge in support of quail restoration goals. Finally, the Partners in Flight North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan is helpful in identifying continental level landbird priorities and providing a 

relevant context for landbird conservation efforts at successively smaller scales. Though not 

prescriptive in its objectives and recommendations for local level (e.g., refuge-specific) landbird 

conservation efforts, this plan will provide much of the basis for ecoregional planning efforts that will 

clarify the specific landbird conservation roles of local partners, including refuges. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor bird population responses to prescribed burning and other management actions in 

pine "uplands" particular attention should be given to breeding northern bobwhite, American 

kestrel and Bachman's sparrow, and wintering sparrows. 

y Continue to conduct refuge's "breeding bird surveys" (point counts) in these habitats on a 

consistent basis with an objective of linking bird responses to management actions. Add 

additional survey points to adequately cover refuge pine habitats and areas where burning 

and other management is taking place. 

y Where not already part of other monitoring efforts to assess management effectiveness, 

employ transect surveys to document general occurrence and abundance of wintering 

sparrows in pine-grassland portions of the refuge. 

y The following techniques could be employed and are listed from most rigorous (and most 

intensive) to least: Breeding Biology Research and Monitoring Database (BBIRD) plots (a 

measure of both relative abundance and nest productivity, ideal for localized assessments of 

management efforts); point counts or transects within specific habitats of interest (measure of 

relative abundance); and checklist development/random searches (incorporating a method of 

acquiring information from local birdwatchers, including migration monitoring and occurrences 

of wintering birds). 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective II.E.4: Increase habitat patch size and provide 

connecting areas between similar habitat types of forests and/or scrublands to provide for the 

breeding, wintering, and stopover needs of several species of raptors. 

Discussion: Several species of raptors utilize the refuge, including the sharp-shinned hawk, redshouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, barn owl, great horned owl, and eastern screech owl. These species 

play an important ecological role in helping to control small mammal populations (primarily rodents). 

Strategies:

y Maintain all winter cover in early succession habitat areas for migrating and wintering raptors. 

y Maintain some native grassland in association with habitat in early successional stages. 

y Erect two barn owl boxes in old silos on refuge. Monitor use and expand as warranted. 

III. EXOTIC, INVASIVE AND NUISANCE SPECIES 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL III: Control and eliminate, where feasible, exotic, 

invasive, and nuisance species impacting the refuge to maintain and enhance the biological integrity 

of the refuge. 

Discussion: The occurrence of nonnative species and future colonization by these exotic plants and 

animals on the refuge has been identified by staff and governmental partners as an important 

management issue facing the refuge. It is important to constantly monitor the occurrence of exotic 

species on the refuge and to be alert to new species in the state and in the vicinity of the refuge. 

Exotic, invasive, and nuisance species that were identified as being ecologically important on Pee 

Dee NWR include nonnative aquatic and terrestrial plants; exotic aquatic animals; feral hogs; 

coyotes; and feral and free-roaming animals. 
58 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

III.A. Nonnative Aquatic Plants 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective III.A: During the life of the plan, continue to work with 

partners to identify, locate, control, and eliminate, where feasible, aquatic exotic, invasive, and 

nuisance species on at least 75% of the refuge. 

Discussion: Aquatic invasive plants such as alligator weed are becoming more common in refuge 

waters. These nonnative plants are managed by the refuge using annual drawdowns. Although 

nonnative aquatic plants may provide forage and shelter for native species, they have negative 

effects at high densities by crowding out native plants. 

Strategies: 

y Develop a GIS database for exotic aquatic plants on the refuge. 

y Manipulate water levels in impoundments to control exotic aquatic plants in favor of native 

plants. 

y Consider limited use of approved aquatic herbicides combined with mechanical means if 

needed. 

III.B. Nonnative Terrestrial Plants 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective III.B.1: Throughout the life of the plan, identify and 

locate new infestations of invasive upland plants and conduct initial effort with an emphasis on elimination. 

Discussion: State-wide, the spread of many nonnative terrestrial plants rises every year, and the 

occurrence of these species on the refuge will likely increase in the future. Currently, exotic terrestrial 

plants are not impacting a large portion of the refuge, and management can focus on detecting and 

eliminating new infestations. 

Strategies: 

y Routinely inspect refuge uplands for new infestations, especially along the refuge boundary. 

y Routinely inspect areas of soil disturbance (e.g., construction areas) for the presence of 

introduced plants. 

y Upon detection of invasive plants, mechanically remove and/or spray plants immediately. 

y Work with partners and apply for grants to support these efforts. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective III.B.2: During the 15 years following the plan's 

approval, control the spread of existing exotic, invasive, and nuisance species on refuge lands to less 

than 5% of the total landscape. 

Discussion: Existing nonnative plants (e.g., kudzu) are found primarily along roads and other 

disturbed areas. Management of existing populations of nonnative plants would focus on 

maintaining, and where possible, reducing the areas invaded. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct education and outreach to refuge neighbors concerning exotic, invasive, and 

nuisance species. 

y Use biologically safe herbicides and/or mechanical treatments to control exotic plant 

infestations. 

y Monitor spread of exotic or nuisance vertebrate species, and develop appropriate control 

measures to address these species individually. 

y Clean heavy equipment shared with other refuges or partners to limit the spread of exotic, 

invasive, and nuisance species. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

y Build relationships with neighboring land owners to foster information sharing regarding 

possible exotic species that may spread to refuge lands and work to develop a coordinated 

approach to address the spread of these exotic and/or invasive plants. 

y Work with partners and apply for grants to support these efforts.

III.D. Feral Hogs 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective III.D: Within five years of plan adoption, document 

feral hog population levels and distributions on the refuge, and during the life of the plan, control feral 

hog populations on the refuge. 

Discussion: Feral hogs are being been documented with increasing frequency on portions of the 

refuge. This species is found throughout North Carolina and will likely continue to colonize the refuge 

in the next 15 years. These animals can have serious negative effects on native wildlife and plants 

through predation and habitat destruction. In addition, their rooting activities and wallows can cause 

erosion and subsequent degradation of streams and lakes. 

Feral hogs could be controlled on the refuge as part of the deer hunt. This means feral hogs would be 

shot during deer hunts and would not be subject to a quota. Because this would not be a targeted hunt 

for feral hogs, it may not sufficiently control feral hog numbers if these nonnative animals increase 

substantially in the future. In addition to hunting, other control measures, including trapping, may be 

required to effectively manage feral hog numbers on the refuge during the course of the 15-year plan. 

Strategies: 

y Implement control through a specific feral hog hunt. 

y Consider alternative control methods (i.e., trapping, etc.) in addition to hunting. 

III.E. Coyotes 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective III.E: Within five years of plan adoption, document 

coyote population levels and distributions on the refuge, and during the life of the plan, control coyote 

populations on the refuge at or below current levels. 

Discussion: The coyote is a canine (in the dog family) originally found predominantly in the western United 

States. In the last 30 years, this species has colonized the eastern U.S., including North Carolina. It is a 

generalist and opportunistic predator whose diet can include fish, reptiles, birds, and larger prey such as 

deer. They are a top predator on the refuge, but their numbers and distribution are unknown. The refuge 

currently does not actively manage coyotes, but a documented increase in their population may warrant the 

implementation of control efforts if negative effects on refuge biodiversity have been determined. 

Strategy: 

y Coordinate with the state to evaluate the impacts of coyotes on wildlife and habitat diversity 

and control where necessary. 

III.F. Feral and Free-roaming Animals 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective III.F: Within five years of plan adoption, coordinate with 

partners to minimize adverse impacts of feral and free-roaming animals to native wildlife and habitats. 

Discussion: Feral and free-roaming animals are domesticated animals that have become wild 

and unsecured pets and livestock, including cats, dogs, goats, horses, cows, and poultry. These 
60 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

animals may have a negative impact on the refuge’s wildlife and habitats through predation, grazing, 

trampling, disease spread, and unwanted cross-breeding. 

Strategy: 

y Coordinate with partners to control feral and free-roaming animals to minimize adverse 

impacts to wildlife and habitat. 

IV. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL IV: Protect, manage, and enhance the refuge's 

diverse natural habitats to ensure that fish and wildlife populations remain naturally self-sustaining. 

IV.A. Mixed Pine Hardwood 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.A: During the life of the plan, restore and maintain 

the appropriate pine-to-hardwood ratio in upland mixed pine hardwood stands.

Discussion: Approximately 1,820 acres (737 hectares) of mixed pine hardwood exist on the refuge. 

Historically, these areas were upland hardwoods that were converted to agriculture. After 

establishment of the refuge, these areas were planted with pine and natural hardwood regeneration 

took place. In order to optimize this habitat for wildlife, the canopy needs to be opened up (e.g., via 

selective thinning and prescribed burns) which will allow an understory to grow. 

Strategies:

y Work with partners to determine the appropriate pine-to-hardwood ratio in upland stands. 

y Alter the fire regime to achieve the appropriate pine-to-hardwood ratio. 

y Implement monitoring program to measure and record habitat conditions and effects of 

management treatments. 

y Update GIS forest inventory data every 10 years. 

IV.B. Upland Pine Forest 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.B: During the life of the plan, restore and maintain 

1,700 acres (688 hectares) of upland pine forests. 

Discussion: Upland pine forests cover approximately 1,736 acres (703 hectares) of the refuge. They 

need to be restored and maintained to enhance their suitability for wildlife and to increase plant 

diversity. This can be accomplished primarily through prescribed burning and mechanical thinning. 

Currently, many of these areas are overstocked which increases competition between trees, leading 

to stunting. The closed canopy also limits the abundance and diversity of grounD.C.over. 

Overstocked forests are also at greater risk of destructive wildfires and beetle infestations. 

Strategies: 

y Implement monitoring program to measure and record habitat conditions and effects of 

management treatments. 

y Use prescribed fire on a three-year rotation. 

y Implement midstory hardwood control through mechanical or herbicidal means. 

y Utilize commercial thinning in overstocked areas to reduce basal area to an average of 60–80 

square feet per acre (5.6–7.4 square meters per 0.4 hectare). 

y Implement comprehensive set of GIS databases. 

y Update GIS forest inventory data and update every 10 years.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

IV.C. Flooded Crop Impoundments

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.C: Over the life of the plan, work to convert 25% of 

the flooded crop impoundments to moist soil units. 

Discussion: Flooded crop impoundments are planted with corn, which is a supplemental food source 

for waterfowl. It is beneficial to replace them with a natural food source (waterfowl are unable to 

utilize corn protein as well as that from natural sources). Moist soil units act more like natural 

wetlands and can be used to grow a variety of natural forage plants for waterfowl. The refuge 

contains approximately 100 acres (40 hectares) of flooded crop impoundments. 

Strategy: 

y Target the Ringneck and Patterson impoundments for conversion to moist soil units. 

IV.D. Moist Soil Units 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.D: During the life of the plan, increase the acreage of 

moist soil units by at least 75% to provide native wetland vegetation as forage for wintering waterfowl. 

Discussion: Although moist soil units require more intensive management than flooded crop 

impoundments, they provide higher nutritional value forage to waterfowl. The refuge contains ~75 

acres (~30 hectares) of moist soil units. 

Strategies:

y Conduct vegetation transects during September 1-November 1 for each year for moist soil 

units. Record dominant plant species and percent occurrence for each plant species in 1 m2

plots. 

y Evaluate the potential for the creation of additional impoundments to support wildlife and 

habitat diversity. 

y Evaluate and record the timing and effectiveness of managements activities (disking, mowing, 

burning) to determine which methods produce the desired outcome. 

y Determine timing for setting back succession/improving amounts and diversity of desirable 

wetland plants beneficial to waterfowl. 

IV.E. Green Tree Reservoir 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.E: Over the course of the plan, maintain 135 acres 

(55 hectares) of a green tree reservoir to provide resting and feeding areas for wintering waterfowl. 

Discussion: Green tree reservoirs (GTRs) are bottomland hardwood forests that have been 

impounded with levees and are temporarily flooded during fall and winter to provide food and habitat 

for wintering waterfowl (Rudolph and Hunter 1964). Research has suggested that this practice can 

negatively impact bottomland hardwood stands, leading to decreases in mast production (Francis 

1983), tree vigor and growth (King 1995), and regeneration (Young et al. 1995). There is also 

evidence that the artificial flooding regimes applied to green tree reservoirs can shift tree species 

composition towards more flood-tolerant species (Karr et al. 1990; King 1995). Problems associated 

with these sites can often be tied to inundation that extends into the growing season (Wigley and Filer 

1989), reducing soil aeration, killing less water-tolerant tree species, and increasing overstory 

mortality (King and Allen 1996). If managed properly, GTRs can provide a valuable habitat, including 

feeding and resting areas for waterfowl. The refuge contains 135 acres of a GTR. 
62 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies:

y Keep GTR dry once every 3 years to maintain forest health. 

y Vary timing, depth, and duration of inundation of GTR to mimic “natural” conditions (flood only 

during the trees’ dormant season). 

y Use silvicultural practices as needed to maintain stand health and vigor based on recent 

timber inventory. 

y Monitor mast production annually. 

y Ensure sufficient water levels in the GTR to support enhanced wildlife and habitat diversity. 

IV.F. Bottomland Hardwoods 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.F.1: Maintain existing Natural Heritage Significant 

Program designation for the Brown Creek Bottomland Forest (2,000 acres [809 hectares]). 

Discussion: Bottomland hardwood forests are among the rarest and most vulnerable habitats in North 

Carolina. These riparian forests provide wildlife habitat for a variety of species. In addition, bottomland 

forests help reduce the damaging effects of floods and can maintain or improve water quality by 

preventing shoreline erosion. The refuge contains 2,895 acres (1,172 hectares) of bottomland hardwood 

forests, primarily along Brown Creek, and has the largest contiguous tract of this habitat in the state. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.F.2: Over the life of the plan, remove 50% of 

sweetgum to increase productivity of mast-producing species. 

Discussion: Sweetgum trees have reached high densities in several areas of the bottomland 

hardwoods on the refuge. Sweetgum seeds do not provide food for many wildlife species, and these 

trees compete with more beneficial tree species. By crowding out desirable mast tree species, 

sweetgum decreases their crown size and productivity. Thinning sweetgum in hardwood bottom 

forests would favor mast-producing species, improve the wildlife value of this habitat, and increase 

the tree diversity of these areas. Thinned stands would temporarily allow an increase in the 

canebrake understory, but as the canopy closes the canebrake would decrease. 

IV.G. Grasslands/Old Fields/Rights-of-Way 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.G: Within five years of plan adoption, work with 

partners to maintain grasslands and early successional scrub/shrub habitats on rights-of-way and in 

old fields within the refuge boundary. 

Discussion: Grasslands and rights-of-way are characterized as grassy, weedy areas with some low 

shrubs. They are man-made habitats created by frequent plowing and/or mowing, which prevents 

larger woody plant species from taking hold. These habitats host insects as well as small reptiles and 

mammals. Several smaller bird species may forage in grassy areas and feed on insects, fruit, and 

seeds. The largest contiguous ruderal area on the refuge is the powerline right-of-way. Currently 

these areas are seeded, mowed, burned, and mechanically/herbicidally treated for invasive exotic 

plants. Grassland areas can be further enhanced for forage by migratory birds. 

Strategies: 

y Schedule prescribed fire, mowing, and disking to provide optimal response of native 

vegetation. 

y Seed with native plants. 

y Establish a cooperative agreement with Progress Energy and the Pee Dee Electric 

Membership Cooperative to restore the power and gas line easements on the refuge to native 

grasses. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

y Eliminate the spreading of nonnative grass seeds as ground cover following dirt work on 

the refuge. 

y Limit mowing to fall, spring, and/or as needed to prepare for prescribed burning. 

y Currently maintain old field areas in early successional growth with both shrubby vegetation 

and grassland. 

IV.H. Croplands 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.H: During the life of the plan, continue to maintain 

approximately 1,161 acres (470 hectares) of croplands under the cooperative farming program to 

benefit wildlife species. 

Discussion: Approximately 1,161 acres (470 hectares) are planted in corn, soybeans and wheat 

under the Cooperative Farming Program, with 20% of the crops left unharvested for wildlife and field 

borders (15 feet or 4.6 meters wide) left unplanted, fallow, or seeded by refuge staff with annuals as 

wildlife food. Roundup herbicide is used and fertilizers are applied as needed. 

IV.I. Native Warmwater Fish 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.I: During the life of the plan, work with partners to 

document the native warmwater fish species present on the refuge, the habitats used by them, and 

their health and current population sizes. 

Discussion: Warmwater fish generally are those that are able to survive water temperatures above 

80o F and are generally more tolerant of poor water quality (low dissolved oxygen, high 

sedimentation). Typically, these are species that inhabit ponds, lakes, and slow-moving shallow 

rivers. On the refuge, warmwater fish include largemouth bass, sunfish, and catfish. Warmwater fish 

are part of the aquatic community and a prey-base for other wildlife such as birds and otters. Many of 

these fish species are also targeted by anglers. 

IV.J. Herpetological Species 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.J.1: Within five years of plan adoption, document 

the herpetofaunal species present on the refuge, the habitats used by them, and their health and 

current population sizes. 

Discussion: The wide diversity of habitats on the refuge support a correspondingly high number of 

reptile and amphibian species. Approximately 31 species of amphibians and reptiles are likely to occur 

on the refuge or within the refuge’s acquisition boundary, based on a 1983 species list published for the 

refuge. Information on populations and distributions of species on the refuge are poorly known. 

Improving this knowledge base will help in the future management and protection of these species. 

Strategies: 

y Work with universities and colleges to develop inventory/research partnerships to obtain 

historic and existing data for herptiles on the refuge (species lists, distribution in refuge 

habitats, population numbers if available). 

y Encourage partners to conduct quantitative surveys for specific herpetofaunal species or of 

specific habitats (i.e., isolated ponds). 

y Enlist volunteers and the help of the NCWRC’s Piedmont Herp Survey Biologist to coordinate 

with staff on amphibian and reptile monitoring/research opportunities. 

y Develop Calling Amphibian Survey routes for refuge impoundments and/or bottomlands and 

wetlands using volunteers. 
64 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective IV.J.2: During the 15-year plan, conduct 

management practices on refuge habitats in such a manner as to minimize adverse impacts to 

herpetofaunal species. 

Strategy: 

y Whenever possible, use a hydro-ax instead of a roller-chopper when clearing undergrowth to 

minimize impacts to reptiles and amphibians. 

V. WATER QUANTITY, WATER QUALITY, AND MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL V: Work with the partners to ensure adequate 

water quantity and quality and minimum flows and levels to support wildlife and habitat objectives 

of the refuge. 

V.A. Water Quantity 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective V.A.1: Within 10 years of plan adoption, work with 

partners to ensure adequate water levels exist to support wildlife and habitat objectives of the refuge. 

Discussion: The refuge needs adequate water quantities in order to sustain wildlife, maintain 

habitats, and management of impoundments. Impoundments are filled with water from Brown Creek 

and the Pee Dee River. As regional water use increases, ensuring that future proper water quantities 

are maintained on the refuge will become increasingly important. 

 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective V.A.2: Within two years of plan adoption, annually 

quantify volumes of water used to fill impoundments, and document when low streamflow 

precludes filling. 

Discussion: The refuge needs adequate water quantities in order to sustain wildlife, maintain 

habitats, and management of impoundments. As regional water use increases, ensuring that future 

proper water quantities are maintained on the refuge will become increasingly important. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor water levels in Brown Creek. Work with the North Carolina Division of Water 

Resources (NCDWR) and the U.S. Geological Survey to design a simple staff gage for 

measuring the flow of Brown Creek as it enters the Pee Dee River. Measure flow on a regular 

basis and provide these data to the NCDWR. 

y Work with the Regional Refuge Ecologist and partners to conduct a GIS analysis of the Brown 

Creek watershed to determine status and trends of land usage (urban, agriculture, forested) 

and the effect this has on flows of Brown Creek. Use findings to determine cooperative water 

management agreements for Brown Creek. 

y Consider additional options, including subsurface pumping to maintain needed water levels. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective V.A.3: Within 10 years of plan adoption, develop a 

water use plan for the refuge. 

V.B. Water Quality

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective V.B.1: During the next 3 years, work with the 

Regional Refuge Ecologist to complete a survey of all streams and rivers to ensure that sufficient filter 

strips and other best management practices are being followed to minimize runoff of sediments, 

nutrients, and pesticides. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Discussion: Water quality is a measure of dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and levels of pollution. 

Ensuring adequate water quality is essential for maintaining aquatic species and other wildlife 

species, as well as habitats dependent on the water supply. Water quality is generally poor in refuge 

streams (Progress Energy 2005a) with low dissolved oxygen levels and high amounts of sediment. 

Currently, water quality on the refuge is dictated by land use activities (farming, development, etc) 

upstream. Through future cooperative agreements, outreach programs and increased interagency 

coordination, the refuge aims to promote land use activities in upstream watershed areas that will 

improve water quality on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Work with landowners and other partners to protect upstream watershed areas (e.g., establish 

appropriate riparian buffers on lands upstream of the refuge). 

y Work with counties to overlay wider buffer requirements such as conservation easements on 

all streams flowing into refuge 

y Develop a water quality monitoring program for refuge waters. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objective V.B.2: During the life of this plan, work with partners 

to set appropriate targets for biotic integrity scores on all refuge streams following the NCIBI protocol. 

Discussion: The North Carolina Index of Biological Integrity (NCIBI) method was developed for 

assessing a stream’s biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. 

NCIBI incorporates information about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish 

abundance, and fish condition to derive a score that is a measure of a particular stream's ecological 

health and water quality. The NCIBI method does not require detailed water chemistry data to be 

analyzed to determine the environmental status of a stream. Almost all streams on the refuge were 

determined to have poor NCIBI scores (Progress Energy 2005a). The refuge would work with 

partners to set targets for biotic integrity scores and use these as benchmarks for stream restoration. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Resource protection goals include the refuge’s acquisition boundary, conservation focus areas, and 

archaeological and historical resources. 

I. LAND ACQUISITION 

RESOURCE PROTECTION GOAL I: Look for opportunities to expand refuge lands within the 

acquisition boundary to help meet refuge habitat, management, and population goals for federal trust 

resources. 

Resource Protection Objective I: Within three years of plan adoption, develop a priority list for 

acquisitions by 2013. 

Discussion: One of the most effective conservation biology tools is setting aside land for protection. 

Within the Pee Dee NWR acquisition boundary, several small tracts are privately owned. The refuge 

will continue to evaluate these properties for their conservation value and consider them for purchase 

as they become available. 

Strategies:

y Work with local land trusts and nongovernmental organizations to identify willing sellers to 

acquire additional refuge lands. Also, consider a land-timber exchange program to meet this 

goal. 
66 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Explore opportunities to place easements on lands near the refuge that will compliment refuge 

objectives. 

y Consider larger landscape conservation planning efforts (e.g., the Greater Uwharries 

Conservation Partnership coordinated by the NCWRC) to help guide acquisitions, easements, 

and habitat linkages. 

y Develop relationships with adjacent landowners. 

II. GAPS AND CORRIDORS 

RESOURCE PROTECTION GOAL II: Work to protect important habitats and wildlife corridors.

Resource Protection Objective II: During the 15-year life of the plan, document important habitats 

and wildlife corridors and work with partners to create at least one wildlife corridor. 

Discussion: Wildlife corridors are an increasingly important conservation tool in a heavily developed 

landscape. These corridors provide safe passages for wide-ranging species. In addition, these 

habitats may be utilized by smaller resident species and by migratory birds. Working with the state, 

wildlife corridors could be established that provide greater connectivity among a network of refuges 

and other conservation lands. 

III. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 

RESOURCE PROTECTION GOAL III: Manage easements to protect characteristic habitats and 

wildlife of the area. 

Resource Protection Objective III.A: During the course of the plan, manage these easements to 

protect and to conserve the wetland characteristics for the benefit of migratory birds and waterfowl, 

primarily wood ducks. 

Discussion: Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge has the designated responsibility of managing 20 

conservation easement properties totaling approximately 1,300 acres (526 hectares) in eight North 

Carolina counties. These easements range in size from 14 to 224 acres (5.7–90.6 hectares) and most 

contain wetlands. All easements are administered by the National Wildlife Refuge System under the 

Service and Pee Dee NWR retains the right, at its sole discretion, to manage the easement areas, 

including the right of ingress and egress to conduct wetlands management, monitoring and easement 

enforcement activities. The vegetation or hydrology of either easement area will not be altered in any way 

or by any means or activity on the properties conveyed by the deeds, or property owned or under the 

control of the landowners, including (1) cutting or burning; (2) cultivation; (3) harvesting wood products; (4) 

burning; (5) placing of refuse, wastes, sewage, or other debris; (6) draining, dredging, channeling, filling, 

disking, pumping, diking, impounding and related activities; or (7) diverting or affecting the natural flow of 

surface or underground waters into, within, and out of the easement areas. The above conditions are 

subject to the discretion of the easement (refuge) manager and can be put into effect or not, depending 

on the needs of the habitat enhancement operations. 

Resource Protection Objective III.B: During the 15-year plan, map easement boundaries and 

identify and describe habitats within these easements. 

Resource Protection Objective III.C: During the 15-year plan, develop habitat management plans 

for these easements. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

IV. COOPERATIVE EFFORTS WITH NEARBY PRIVATE LANDOWNERS 

RESOURCE PROTECTION GOAL IV: Work with private landowners near the refuge to promote 

refuge goals and objectives for federal trust resources. 

Resource Protection Objective IV: Within 15 years of plan approval, coordinate annual meetings 

with the Service’s Partners Program in the Raleigh Ecological Services Office and the Sandhills Suboffice to identify opportunities to enter into Cooperative Wildlife Management Agreements with private 

landowners near the refuge in the PFW focus areas. 

Strategies:

y Explore opportunities to improve habitat management on neighboring lands through farm bill 

programs, forest stewardship program, etc. 

y Work with District conservationists, Cooperative Extension, NCWRC Technical Guidance and 

Wildlife Diversity biologists, the Service’s Partners biologist, and others to prioritize lands 

surrounding the refuge suitable for restoration or enhancement for wildlife. 

y Refuge staff should at least once annually participate in the Greater Uwharries Conservation 

Partnership Working Group meetings. 

V. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

RESOURCE PROTECTION GOAL V: Protect the archaeological and historical resources of the 

refuge that represent over 12,000 years of history. 

Resource Protection Objective V: During the 15-year life of the plan, work with the Service’s 

Regional Archaeologist and the State Historic Preservation Office and coordinate with partners to 

protect the archaeological and historical resources of the refuge. 

Discussion: Historical and archeological resources have been well documented on the refuge 

through several surveys and studies (Cooper and Derting 1976; Garrow 1979; Joy 1994; Anderson 

and Bryant 2000). Evidence in the form of stone tools and other artifacts collected on the refuge 

during these studies indicate that these lands were utilized since at least 8,000 years ago. More 

recently, the refuge lands were inhabited by European settlers, followed by various peoples during 

the later stages of America's history as indicated by the remnants of bridges, homesteads and other 

structures. Protecting these valuable archaeological and historical resources for posterity is an 

important objective of the refuge. 

Strategies:

y Continue regular patrols and enforcement. 

y Conduct an archeological review prior to excavation projects. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Visitor services include the welcoming and orientation of visitors; hunting; fishing; wildlife photography 

and observation; environmental outreach and education; other recreational opportunities; the Friends 

group; volunteer programs; and litter. 
68 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

I. VISITOR WELCOME AND ORIENTATION 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL I: Continue to welcome and provide information for the public. 

Visitor Service Objective I: During the first five years of the plan, add two new kiosks and focus the 

message on wildlife and habitat diversity. 

Strategies:

y Continue to maintain 3 kiosks, visitor contact station, website, and provide brochures and 

maps. 

y New kiosks would be located at Sullivan’s Pond and Richmond County. 

y Focus message on wildlife and habitat diversity. 

y Add directional and entrance signs. 

y Develop informational video. 

II. HUNTING 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL II: Continue to provide a quality hunting experience. 

Discussion: Various units on the refuge provide good habitat for game species such as white-tailed 

deer, turkey, and small game. Achievement of habitat and population management objectives is 

essential to providing high quality hunting opportunities. Reviewing and updating the refuge hunt 

plan based on recorded biological data is essential to the continuation and expansion of hunting on 

the refuge. A well developed hunt program will enable land managers to control population levels, 

make use of a renewable resource, provide opportunities for traditional, high quality wildlifedependent recreation activities, and will not substantially impact wildlife populations. As of the writing 

of this plan, the NCWRC is monitoring for Chronic Wasting Disease statewide.

II.A. Turkey Hunting Opportunities 

Visitor Services Objective II.A: Within three years of plan adoption, expand turkey hunting to 

include Richmond County tracts. 

Discussion: Turkey populations on the refuge have steadily increased over the years, and a turkey 

hunt has been in place on the Anson County portion of the refuge. Public interest has been 

expressed to expand turkey hunting to include areas of the refuge in Richmond County. Turkey 

populations on those lands could sustain a hunt; and the refuge would work with the NCWRC to 

determine appropriate quota levels. 

II.B. Deer Hunting Opportunities 

Visitor Services Objective II.B: Within five years of the plan’s approval, work with the NCWRC and 

SCWDS to evaluate the refuge’s deer population and health status to set harvest quotas. 

Discussion: There are currently 8,000 acres (3,237 hectares) open to deer hunting. Deer hunting 

opportunities consist of a managed quota hunt that includes 13 days of gun hunting (1,250 permits) 

and 42 archery days (1,100 permits). Annual deer surveys help determine deer population status 

and trends, and the NCWRC is monitoring for Chronic Wasting Disease statewide. Without natural 

predators to control their numbers, deer can become overpopulated. At high densities, deer can 

inflict major economic losses in forestry, agriculture, and transportation and contribute to the 

transmission of several animal and human diseases. Their impact on natural ecosystems is also 

dramatic but less quantified. By foraging selectively, deer affect the growth and survival of many 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

herb, shrub, and tree species, modifying patterns of relative abundance and vegetation dynamics. 

Cascading effects on other species extend to insects, birds, and other mammals. In forests, 

sustained overbrowsing reduces plant cover and diversity, alters nutrient and carbon cycling, and 

redirects succession to shift future overstory composition (Cote et al. 2004). Hence, deer population 

management is critical to maintaining the refuge’s wildlife and habitat diversity. 

Strategies: 

y Update the Refuge Hunt Plan. 

y Evaluate deer population for disease issues. 

y As needed, provide NCWRC with deer tissue samples for disease coordination. 

y Institute cooperative state/refuge hunt regulation and enforcement meetings on an annual 

basis. 

y Estimate the refuge’s deer population. 

y Collect all deer harvest information at hunter check stations. 

y Close the deer hunt areas to all other users during hunt days. 

y Adjust hunting as adverse impacts are experienced by deer, other wildlife, and/or habitats. 

II.C. Small Game Hunting Opportunities 

Visitor Services Objective II.D: Within three years of plan adoption, implement quail population 

monitoring to determine number of hunting days and bag limit. 

Discussion: Because quail are declining across much of their range due to changes in land use 

(Williams et al. 2004), the refuge has reduced the daily bag limit from six to two birds and limits the 

hunt to nine days (versus the 90 days allowed by the state). In order to ensure future hunting 

opportunities for this small game species, the refuge will work to manage the population at 

sustainable levels and adjust the hunt as necessary. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor population status and trends. 

y Consider adjusting hunt days, bag limit, and number of hunters according to quail population 

estimates. 

III. FISHING 

 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL III: Optimize the fishery resources of the refuge in accordance with the 

refuge’s primary goals and objectives. 

III. Improving Fishing Opportunities 

Visitor Services Objective III: During the 15-year plan, improve fishing opportunities on the refuge. 

Discussion: Fishing for largemouth bass, bream, crappie, and catfish occurs on the refuge. Bank 

fishing is a popular activity on refuge ponds, Brown Creek, and the Pee Dee River. Boat access to 

the Pee Dee River is limited with the nearest boat ramp located at the Route 109 bridge, three miles 

(4.8 km) east of refuge. Some of the fish caught on the refuge are used for consumption. A Service 

study determined that all fish sampled (catfish, sunfish and largemouth bass) from two refuge ponds 

contained mercury (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007), with largemouth bass having the highest 

concentrations of mercury. Mercury is toxic and can cause developmental and neurological disorders 

at high concentrations. Since mercury is present everywhere at various levels, the North Carolina 

Division of Public Health has issued a statewide advisory for fish consumption (North Carolina 

Department of Health and Human Services 2007). 
70 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y In consultation with county, state, and federal partners, revise and update the refuge fisheries 

management plan to provide a quality fishing experience. 

y Periodically monitor fishing impacts on migratory birds, waterfowl, and threatened/endangered 

species. 

y Evaluate the need for and location of a public boat ramp on the refuge. 

y Continue to estimate the number of visits and hours spent at the refuge for the purpose of 

recreational fishing.

y Monitor fish populations by standard sampling techniques, keeping records of public use 

activity, and conducting creel census when possible. 

y Maintain signs directing the public to open fishing areas. 

y Investigate the possibility of improving fishing access for the handicapped. 

y Keep brochure of maps and fishing regulations available to the public and up to date. 

y Continue to use the refuge news release program to inform the public of fishing events (e.g., 

Youth Fishing Day), refuge policies and special events. 

y Continue to provide and maintain fishing access areas around ponds. 

y Continue to patrol fishing areas to ensure compliance with fishing regulations. 

y Post current state advisory information and risk management recommendations from the 

Service’s 2007 fish mercury study at popular fishing locations on each refuge. 

IV. WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND PHOTOGRAPHY 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL IV: Wildlife observers and photographers of all abilities can enjoy the 

diversity of refuge wildlife and support efforts to maintain high quality habitat. 

IV.A. Improving Wildlife and Photography Opportunities 

Visitor Services Objective IV.A: During the course of the plan, work to increase wildlife 

photography and observation opportunities by adding additional photoblinds and evaluate potential 

for additional birding trails. 

Discussion: Pee Dee NWR is part of the North Carolina Scenic Byway, specifically the Pee Dee Valley 

Drive. The National Scenic Byways Program is administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration. The program is a grass-roots collaborative effort established to help 

recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. In addition to public 

roads, the refuge offers several trails through bottlomland hardwoods and mixed pine-hardwood 

habitats and a photo-blind. Additional wildlife viewing opportunities could be created by adding trails 

along wetlands. These wetland trails would be seasonally closed to limit disturbance to migratory birds. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain and enhance observation sites to attract wildlife. 

y Evaluate the need for and location of a public boat ramp on the refuge. 

Visitor Services Objective IV.B: Within the first year of plan adoption, incorporate Pee Dee 

National Wildlife Refuge into the North Carolina Birding Trail Program. 

Discussion: The North Carolina Birding Trail program (NCBT) is a cooperative efforts between 

several federal and state agencies as well as conservation organization (USFWS, NCWRC, 

Audubon, etc.) that aims to "... conserve and enhance North Carolina's bird habitat by promoting 

sustainable bird watching activities, economic opportunities and conservation education." Pee Dee 

NWR has been approved by NCBT as a site along the Piedmont region of the trail. Full incorporation 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

of Pee Dee NWR into the Piedmont portion of the NCBT will increase awareness of the refuge, as 

well as provide connectivity for a regional bird watching trail system. 

Strategies: 

y Provide outreach materials regarding the refuge’s incorporation into the NCBT (including the 

Piedmont Regional Trail Guide). 

y Add signs to designate NCBTP appropriate trails on the refuge. 

V. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL V: Establish a formal environmental education/outreach program at 

the refuge. 

V.A. Environmental Education and Interpretation Opportunities 

Visitor Services Objective V.A: During the 15-year plan, construct a 10,000 square foot (743 m2

) 

environmental education center on the refuge. 

Discussion: Environmental education is a cost-effective way of educating the public about the role 

and importance of the refuge in the landscape. Currently 6 million people live within a 100-mile (161-

km) radius of the refuge and many areas near the refuge are experiencing fast-growing population 

rates. The increased populations will have adverse impacts on the natural environment, including the 

refuge. By fostering greater awareness of the refuge and the need to conserve and protect natural 

areas, individuals can work to reduce their impact. Currently, the nearest Service environmental 

education center is located five hours away. An environmental education center on the refuge would 

provide a valuable resource to the North Carolina Piedmont. A separate environmental assessment 

or environmental impact statement would be conducted to assess the potential impacts of the 

construction and operation of such a facility. 

Visitor Services Objective V.B: Over the 15-year plan, continue to expand the environmental 

education and interpretation program. 

Strategies: 

y Develop onsite and offsite curriculum-based educational programs with messages focused on 

the role and importance of the refuge in the landscape 

y Hire a full-time Environmental Education/Outreach Park Ranger. 

y Develop and conduct outdoor classroom activities. 

y Manage the refuge website from the refuge to improve information provided therein. 

y Disseminate refuge brochures, and environmental education and interpretation materials. 

y Train staff, volunteers, and teachers to conduct onsite and offsite educational and interpretive 

programs. 

y Develop lesson plans and train local teachers to use the refuge as an outdoor classroom. 

y In addition to the request for Service money, continue to work with the Friends group to look at 

other funding sources. 

V.B. Number of Interpretive Trails 

Visitor Services Objective V.B: During the first five years of plan adoption, add two hiking trails 

near the future environmental education center. 

Discussion: Current trails are Brown Creek and Tall Pines. New trails would complement the future 

education center. One would feature wetland habitat and the other hardwood bottom forest. 
72 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

VI. OTHER RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL VI: All public use activities will be appropriate and compatible and 

visitors will support priority public use activities that minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance.

VI. Horseback Riding 

Visitor Services Objective VI: Within one year of plan adoption, continue to limit horseback riding 

on gravel roads by special use permit only. 

Discussion: Horseback riding provides a quiet and natural way for visitors to enjoy the refuge. This 

activity is only permitted on public roads, and no negative effects have been documented. If this 

activity causes serious problems in the future, it would be curtailed or possibly eliminated. 

VII. OUTREACH 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL VII: Through increased outreach activities, the refuge will be locally 

recognized and its purposes supported.

Visitor Services Objective VII: Within ten years of plan approval, increase recognition of the refuge 

by local residents by 10%. 

Strategies: 

y Expand outreach programs via the media, website, and conservation groups. 

y Continue to maintain a positive working relationship with local newspapers. 

y Create sampling protocols and data sheets. 

y Work with the Friends group and volunteers to assist in sampling efforts. 

VIII. FRIENDS OF THE PEE DEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL VIII: The Friends of the Pee Dee NWR will be an advocate for the 

refuge, supporting refuge goals and objectives, and providing financial and volunteer staff support 

for refuge programs. 

Visitor Services Objective VIII: Over the 15-year life of the plan, the refuge will continue to maintain 

a close working relationship with the Friends of the Pee Dee NWR, assisting in promoting the growth 

in membership and financial revenues, providing input on refuge needs, and working to align 

interests. 

Strategies: 

y Actively recruit additional members for the Friends group. 

y Maintain positive working relationship with the Friends group through meeting attendance and 

refuge support of Friends programs. 

IX. VOLUNTEERS 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL IX: A sufficient number of skilled and trained volunteers will be available 

to support the refuge in meeting its mission and purposes.

Visitor Services Objective IX: Within five years of plan approval, increase volunteer hours to 5,000 hours 

annually and provide volunteers with adequate training to perform assigned duties with minimal supervision. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

Discussion: Pee Dee NWR volunteers currently contribute approximately 2,500 hours in general 

maintenance, assistance with refuge programs, administrative work, and biological data collection. 

Strategies: 

y Improve recreational vehicle (RV) hookup sites with cement pads. 

y Actively recruit resident volunteers, and interns. 

Develop a volunteer program that consists of resident and local volunteers and interns. 

X. CONTROL OF TRASH AND LITTER 

Visitor Services Goal X: Provide refuge wildlife and visitors with a litter-free environment. 

Visitor Services Objective X: During the 15-year plan, decrease litter on the refuge through 

public awareness.

Discussion: Trash and litter are unsightly and cause problems for wildlife. Plastic bags can be 

ingested by larger species, causing suffocation or fatal intestinal blockage. Bottles can cause 

entrapment of small animals and invertebrates. Six-pack rings and other plastic strapping materials 

can cause entanglement in birds and other wildlife. Most visitors will unfavorably rate their 

experience if they experience high levels of trash and litter. 

Strategies:

y Increase the number of cleanups through coordination with area service groups and schools. 

y Ensure that refuge is included in area cleanup projects. 

y Increase public awareness on the problems associated with trash. 

y Increase law enforcement surveillance. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Refuge administration includes infrastructure, staffing, and intergovernmental coordination. 

I. REFUGE MANAGEMENT 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION GOAL I: Provide sufficient refuge infrastructure and staff, and 

collaborate with intergovernmental partners to implement a comprehensive refuge management 

program to protect and manage the natural and cultural values of the refuge’s wildlife and habitats.

I.A. Administrative Facilities, Utilities, Equipment, and Signs 

Refuge Administration Objective I.A: Within one year of plan adoption, focus repairs and/or new 

administrative facilities, utilities, equipment, and signs to implement management activities that 

enhance habitat and wildlife diversity and support public use activities. 

Strategies: 

y Deferred maintenance priorities and percentages will reflect a wildlife and habitat diversity 

management focus. 

y Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) work orders will reflect and 

support the management priorities of the refuge. 
74 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

I.B. Staff 

Discussion: The refuge currently does not have a biologist and the Assistant Refuge Manager 

position has been targeted for elimination. In addition, there are insufficient maintenance, fire 

management, and education/outreach staff to manage the refuge in accordance with its purposes 

and goals. There is an immediate need to complete basic inventory and begin monitoring refuge 

habitats and wildlife populations. Future increases in visitors and additional impacts from an 

increasingly developed landscape surrounding the refuge necessitate an adequately staffed refuge. 

I.B.1. Assistant Refuge Manager 

Refuge Administration Objective I.B.1: Within one year of the plan, restore the Assistant Refuge 

Manager position. 

I.B.2. Biologist 

Refuge Administration Objective I.B.2: Within two years of this review approval, add one 

additional Biologist to conduct biological inventorying/monitoring, monitor hydrology, and assist 

collaborative research efforts. 

I.B.3. Forestry Technician 

Refuge Administration Objective I.B.3: Within four years of plan adoption, add one additional 

Forestry Technician to conduct forestry practices on the refuge, 80% of which is forested. 

I.B.4. Maintenance Workers 

Refuge Administration Objective I.B.4: Within one year of plan adoption, reinstate two additional 

maintenance workers to conduct maintenance operations on the refuge. 

Discussion: Maintenance activities on the refuge include maintaining 30 miles (48 km) of roads, 

managing impoundment water levels, planting 50 miles (80 km) of field borders, and a variety of 

other projects. 

I.B.5. Park Ranger 

Refuge Administration Objective I.B.5: Within two years of plan adoption, add a Park Ranger 

(Outdoor Recreation Planner) to carry out education/outreach and volunteer coordination programs 

associated with the development and operation of the proposed environmental education center. 

II. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION GOAL II: Foster a strong and effective working relationship with 

existing partners and new partners for the purposes of accomplishing refuge management goals and 

protecting natural and cultural resources of the refuge's habitats. 

Discussion: The public has an expectation that more of the Service’s goals be accomplished through 

partnerships and that government must become more efficient. The Director of the Service has 

stated that the Service must emphasize working cooperatively with others; develop a more integrated 

approach to problem-solving and share resources to get the job done; and make choices and find 

efficiencies in both resource and business management practices. This focus reinvigorates the 

refuge’s current intergovernmental coordination efforts. Numerous federal, state, and local agencies 

could be considered partners for the refuge. However, more could be done to inform and educate the 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

partners of the value of the refuge and the refuge’s goals. In the same vein, the Service is willing to 

help other agencies with issues, such as fire management, nuisance wildlife, exotic plant control, and 

specific wildlife conservation issues. Much of this coordination could be accomplished by regular 

meetings and by developing personal relationships with individuals within other agencies. 

II. Collaboration with the State and USGS to Monitor and Survey Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Objective II: Within six years of plan adoption, collaborate with the State 

of North Carolina and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to monitor and survey the following fish 

and wildlife on the refuge and/or adjacent to the refuge: 

 

y Red-cockaded woodpecker 

y Stream fish 

y Diadromous fish 

y Freshwater mussels 

y Schweinitz’s sunflower 

y State-listed plants 

y Deer (including population health) 

y Exotic and invasive species 

Discussion: The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and 

USGS already have monitoring and survey programs in place for several species of fish and wildlife. 

Increased data-sharing and agreements to expand these programs to include areas of the refuge 

would be an effective way to fulfill refuge goals and objectives. 
76 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. Congress has distinguished a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national 

wildlife refuges. National wildlife refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation 

of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Priority projects 

emphasize the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, but 

considerable emphasis is placed on balancing the needs and demands for wildlife-dependent 

recreation and environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this plan for Pee Dee National 

Wildlife Refuge, this chapter identifies the projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, 

partnership opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management 

plan, and plan review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their associated costs for fish and wildlife 

population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge 

administration over the next 15 years. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs identified 

by the public, planning team, and refuge staff based upon available information. These projects were 

generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and strategies. The primary linkages 

of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Project 1 

Standardize surveys and monitoring of little blue herons, loggerhead shrikes, red-cockaded 

woodpeckers, Rafinesque's big-eared bats, stream and diadromous fish, freshwater mussels, 

migratory birds (including waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and land birds), mammals, warmwater 

fish, and herpetofauna. 

Systematic surveys based on standardized protocols would be conducted to determine presence and 

distribution of priority wildlife species and to provide baseline data to assist managers in habitat 

management practices. A full-time wildlife biologist would be employed to assist in implementing the 

monitoring program. Information to be collected is the foundation for implementing the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, formulating habitat management, and developing adaptive 

management strategies for species of conservation concern. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: ID, IE, IF, IG, IH, II, IJ, IIA2, IIB2, IIC2, IID3, IVI, IVJ1 

Visitor Services Objectives: IIB, IIC, IID

Refuge Administration Objectives: IB2, II

Project 2 

Build and maintain databases containing biological resource data, habitat management activities and 

spatial relationships for the refuge and surrounding environments. 

A fully implemented geographic information system is not in use at Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 

This project would develop an up-to-date data management, storage, and retrieval system; obtain 
78 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

spatial information from appropriate sources; develop geographic layers for refuge management 

programs; and facilitate spatial analysis and creation of maps by the refuge staff. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: II, IJ, IIIA, IVA, IVB, IVF 

Refuge Administration Objective: IB3 

Project 3 

Identify, locate and control (eliminate where possible) nonnative plants. 

Invasive plant species are expanding onto refuge lands. Current known locations are along refuge 

roads and trails. Aquatic exotic plants are controlled through water manipulation of impoundments, 

but without a comprehensive control plan that includes all habitats, exotic plant species will continue 

to colonize areas of the refuge, degrading habitat for the several listed species, migratory birds, and a 

variety of herpetofauna. This project would identify invasive plant species, determine their 

distribution, and treat affected areas using appropriate control measures. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: IIIA, IIIB1, IIIB2, IIIC, IIID, IIIE 

Refuge Administration Objective: IB2 

Project 4 

Expand forest and old field management to maintain/restore these communities. 

An expanded prescribed burning and tree thinning program is essential to maintain diverse wildlife 

habitats, reduce fuel loads that could lead to devastating wildfires and minimize pine beetle 

outbreaks. In order to properly manage a wide array of species, including protected species such as 

the loggerhead shrike, it is critical that refuge lands be burned on a regular schedule and under 

controlled conditions. Pee Dee NWR hosts dozens of bird species throughout the year. Restoring 

these habitats, through the use of controlled burns, reduces the potential of wildfire, while enhancing 

habitat for priority migratory birds. Prescribed burning is also an effective tool to minimize the spread 

of invasive exotic plant species. In addition, bottomland forest habitats need to be managed to 

maintain their plant diversity and usefulness to certain wildlife. For instance, sweetgum need to be 

thinned because their densities are too high in certain areas, limiting the mast production of tree 

species which are more beneficial to wildlife. Prescribed burning and planting native grasses can be 

used to maintain and restore old fields and rights-of-way, increasing their wildlife value. A variety of 

techniques, including a full-time permanent forestry technician, would be used to maintain hardwood 

forests on the refuge. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: IC, ID, IE, II, IJ, IID1, IID3, IID4, IVA, IVB, IVF1, 

IVF2, IVG, IVJ2 

Refuge Administration Objective: IB3 

Project 5 

Use prescribed fire and/or water level manipulation to manage impoundments and the green tree 

reservoir and develop a refuge impoundment management plan. 

The impoundments on Pee Dee NWR are utilized by a large number of waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds as well as other wildlife species and have been managed with these in mind. Through 

prescribed fire, water level manipulation, and other techniques, the refuge will help ensure a variety of 

wetlands conditions in the impoundments and impounded bottomland hardwoods needed by a 

diverse array of bird and other wildlife species. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: IA, IB, IJ, IIA, IIA3, IIB1, IIC1, IVC, IVD, IVE 

Refuge Administration Objective: IB2 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

Project 6 

Coordinate with partners to implement sustainable water and land use practices in upstream areas of 

the watershed to protect water resources on the refuge. 

Water resources in North Carolina are being diverted and degraded through human uses. Ensuring 

adequate, clean water is critical for the long-term health of the refuge. Developing a water 

management plan for the refuge will help establish a framework for protecting and utilizing this 

precious resource. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Objectives: IF, IG, IH, IVI, VA1, VA2, VA3, VB1, VB2 

Refuge Administration Objective: IB1 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Project 7 

Consider small properties within the refuge acquisition boundary for purchase as they become available; 

improve oversight of FSA easements, and document conservation focus areas and wildlife corridors. 

Through this project the refuge would determine the wildlife value of small properties within the refuge 

acquisition boundary as they become available, obtain more information regarding FSA easements, 

and work towards improving management of these lands. Furthermore, the refuge would document 

conservation focus areas and wildlife corridors in the vicinity of Pee Dee NWR and work to build 

conservation management agreements for these lands. 

Resource Protection Objectives: II, III, IVA, IVB, IVC, V

Refuge Administration Objective: IB1 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Project 8 

Improve or expand hunting and fishing opportunities on the refuge. 

Currently, fishing and hunting (for deer, turkey, and small game) are permitted on designated areas of 

the refuge. As part of this project, the refuge would expand the turkey hunt to include the Richmond 

County portion. In addition, quail would be more intensively monitored to determine appropriate bag 

limits. As part of this project, refuge hunting and fishing plans would be updated. 

Visitor Services Objectives: IIA, IIB, IIC, III 

Refuge Administration Objective: IB1 

Project 9 

Increase outreach and environmental education and interpretation 

Pee Dee NWR hosts more than 30,000 visitors annually and is within a 100-mile radius of over 6 

million people. The main focus of this project would be to construct an 10,000 square foot (929 m2 ) 

environmental education and interpretation facility on the refuge and build additional trails. In 

addition, the project would enable the refuge to employ an outreach and visitor services specialist to 

manage the education center and reach additional residents, tourists, and school children to explain 

the refuge's role in the Piedmont ecosystem, as well as ecological threats to the refuge and its 

resources. This position would improve partnership opportunities and expand educational and 

interpretive programs by working with sources, such as the Friends group, volunteers, and other 

organizations and individuals. Refuge resources would be appropriately interpreted and 

communication with outside audiences via news releases, web media, and special events would be 

coordinated. One full-time Park Ranger for Environmental Education and Outreach will be hired to 

develop education/outreach programs and train staff and volunteers to run the programs. 

Visitor Services Objectives: I, IVA, IVB, VA, VB, VC, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X
80 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Administration Objective: IB5

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Project 10 

Improve maintenance operations and facilities management.

This project would provide two maintenance workers to improve refuge operations and facilities 

maintenance, including trails, roads and parking lots, kiosks, signs, and water control structures. The 

workers would assist with maintenance of refuge buildings infrastructure and facilities. In addition, 

the workers would maintain over 30 miles of planted field borders to benefit wildlife. 

Refuge Administration Objectives: IA, IB4

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Implementation of this plan will require increased funding and personnel support that will come from a 

variety of internal and external sources. New projects and maintenance needs for existing facilities 

and projects are identified through the Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). 

This plan outlines proposed projects that are not substantially above current budget allocations. 

Table 6 lists the proposed projects, their costs and associated staffing. The plan does not constitute 

a commitment (from Congress) for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or 

funding for future land acquisition, but represents wildlife resource needs based on sound biological 

science and input from the public. 

Table 6. Project costs and staffing. 

# PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR 

COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL COST STAFF (FTEs) 

1 Surveys and Monitoring 30,000 20,000 Biologist 

2 GIS Database 20,000 10,000 Forestry Technician

3 Exotic Plant Control 10,000 10,000 Biologist 

4 Forest and Old Field Management 40,000 50,000 Forest Technician 

5 Impoundment Management 30,000 30,000 Biologist 

6 Water Quantity and Quality 5,000 5,000 Assistant Refuge 

Manager 

7 Land Acquisition, Easements, 

and Gaps/Corridors 5,000 5,000 Assistant Refuge Manager 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

# PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR 

COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL COST STAFF (FTEs) 

8 Hunting and Fishing 20,000 20,000 Assistant Refuge 

Manager 

9 Outreach, Education, and 

Interpretation 50,000 50,000 Park Ranger 

10 Maintenance and Operations 150,000 150,000 Maintenance 

Workers 

According to predictions based on the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) database, the 

refuge staff will need to increase from a total of 5 in Fiscal Year 2007, to a total of 10 by year 2016 

(Figure 13). This increase in staff will also necessitate an increase in base funding above standard 

yearly increases that allow only for inflation. 

PARTNERSHIPS AND VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES 

A key element of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to establish partnerships with local 

volunteers, landowners, private organizations, and State and Federal natural resource agencies. In 

the immediate vicinity of the refuge, opportunities exist to increase partnerships with the Friends of 

the Pee Dee NWR, volunteers, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, University of North Carolina 

at Greensboro, Audubon, Uwharrie National Forest, Ansonville Historical Society, and Anson and 

Richmond counties. At regional and State levels, partnerships may be established or enhanced with 

organizations such as NCWRC, North Carolina Department of Forestry, North Carolina Natural 

Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Catawba Indian Nation, North 

Carolina Division of Water Resources, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina 

State Parks, Gaddy’s Goose Pond, Whitetails Unlimited, Progress Energy, Quail Unlimited, USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Wild Turkey Federation, U.S. Geological Survey, 

and Ducks Unlimited. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

While the comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the 

Refuge, a step-down management plan provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, 

and visitor services management. These plans (Table 7) are also developed in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives and 

public review and involvement prior to their implementation. 
82 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 13. Proposed organizational chart, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Table 7. Pee Dee NWR step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of 

the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Habitat Management Plan 2009 

Integrated Exotic Plant Management Plan 2011 

Wildlife Inventory Plan 2011 

Endangered Species Monitoring Plan 2011 

Fire Management Plan (Update) 2009 

Law Enforcement Plan 2011 

Visitor Services Plan 2008 

Forest Management Plan 2011 

Archaeological Resource Protection Plan 2011 

Impoundment Management Plan 2011 

Water Quality Improvement Plan 2011 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is 

directed over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More 

specifically, adaptive management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan will be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s 

annual work plans and budget. It will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision 

will occur if and when conditions change or substantial new information becomes available, such as a 

change in ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. The final plan will be augmented by 

detailed step-down management plans to address the completion of specific strategies in support of 

the Refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the stepdown management plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
84 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 85

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Environmental Assessment for Pee 

Dee National Wildlife Refuge in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act requires the development of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) for all 

refuges. Following a public review and comment period on the Draft CCP (Section A), a final decision 

will be made by the Service that will guide the refuge’s management actions and decisions over the 

next 15 years; provide greater public understanding about the refuge and its management activities; 

and incorporate information and suggestions from the public and refuge partners. 

The Draft CCP proposes a management direction, which is described in detail through a set of 

goals, objectives, and strategies. It also addresses the refuge’s current management issues, 

provides long-term management direction and guidance for the refuge, and satisfies the 

legislative mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. While the 

plan provides general management direction, subsequent step-down plans will provide more 

detailed management direction and actions. 

The environmental assessment determines and evaluates a range of reasonable management 

alternatives. The intent is to support informed decision-making regarding future management of the 

refuge. Each alternative presented in this environmental assessment was generated with the 

potential to be fully developed into a final comprehensive conservation plan. The predicted biological, 

physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each alternative are analyzed in this 

environmental assessment. This analysis assists the Service in determining if the alternatives 

represent no significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact; 

or if the alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more detailed analysis through an 

Environmental Impact Statement and a Record of Decision. Following public review and comment, 

the Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 

This plan is needed to address current management issues, to provide long-term management 

direction for the refuge, and to satisfy the legislative mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, which requires the preparation of a comprehensive conservation plan for 

all national wildlife refuges. There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent 

and integrated management of the refuge, thus necessitating the need for this plan. 

The Service identified the refuge’s issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the 

public, agency managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning 

team identified a range of alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing 

each, and selected Alternative C as the proposed management action. In the opinion of the 

Service, Alternative C is the best approach to guide the refuge’s future direction and best serves 

the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals. 
86 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of developing the CCP is to ensure that Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge: 

y serves as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds; 

y protects natural resources; 

y manages, restores, and conserves wildlife and habitat resources; 

y conserves and restores the diversity, structure, and function of refuge habitats; 

y manages the impoundments to support multiple species, including waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds, marsh birds, other birds, amphibians, and fish; 

y maintains the Green Tree Reservoir to support wood ducks and other native species; 

y conserves endangered, threatened, and imperiled species; 

y controls and eliminates exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; 

y contributes to water quality; 

y supports migrating and overwintering waterfowl, shorebirds, and landbirds; 

y supports priority breeding landbirds; 

y maintains and protects herpetological diversity and populations; 

y supports native fish and other native aquatic species; 

y provides high quality opportunities for the enjoyment of appropriate and compatible wildlifeoriented recreation; 

y promotes awareness and appreciation of natural resources; 

y promotes support for refuge management activities; 

y enhances volunteer programs and the Friends group; 

y coordinates with a wide variety of governmental and nongovernmental partners; 

y protects and preserves archaeological and historical resources; 

y provides sufficient staff, volunteers, facilities, and equipment to support refuge management 

activities, vision, and goals; and 

y provides for appropriate and compatible scientific research. 

This environmental assessment addresses the need to adopt a 15-year management plan for Pee 

Dee National Wildlife Refuge that provides guidance for future refuge management and that meets 

the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Service will select an alternative to 

implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. The 

finalized CCP will include a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which is a statement explaining 

why the selected alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. 

This determination is based on an evaluation of the mission of the Service and the Refuge System; 

the purposes for which the refuge was established and its vision and goals; and other legal 

mandates. Assuming that no significant impact is found, implementation of the plan will begin after 

the FONSI is signed, and the plan will be monitored annually and revised when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge covers a total of 8,443 acres and is located in south-central North 

Carolina, approximately 70 miles east of Charlotte in Anson and Richmond counties (see Figure 1). 

The refuge is owned in fee title by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Most of the refuge is comprised 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 87

of forested wetlands that border Brown Creek and the Pee Dee River, mixed pine hardwoods, upland 

pine forests, impoundments, and croplands. The refuge includes over 2,895 acres of bottomland 

hardwood forest, representing the largest contiguous tract of this rare habitat in North Carolina. 

This environmental assessment will identify management on refuge lands, as well as for those lands 

proposed for management or acquisition by the Service. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

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

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The refuge staff achieved compliance with this Act 

through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of an environmental assessment in this 

document, with a description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives (Chapters III and IV in this section). When fully implemented, the 

plan will strive to achieve the purposes, vision, and goals of Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System includes federal lands and waters managed primarily to provide 

habitat for a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants. National wildlife refuges are established under many 

different authorities and funding sources for a variety of purposes. The purposes for these refuges 

are established by specific legislation, through presidential orders, or in special agreements. 

Additional authorities delegated by Congress, federal regulations, executive orders, and several 

management plans guide the operation of a refuge. Appendix C lists the key laws, orders, and 

regulations that provide a framework for the proposed action. 

The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

The laws that established the refuge and provided the funds for acquisition state the purposes. Fish 

and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows and 

encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or does not 

detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes. 

COMPATIBILITY 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands 

and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be 

found to be appropriate and compatible. A compatible use is defined as one that “... will not 

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

purposes of the refuge.” In addition, “wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a 

refuge when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety.” Appropriate use forms and 

compatibility determinations were prepared for boating; deer and feral hog hunting; turkey hunting; 

small game hunting; fishing; wildlife observation and photography; environmental education and 

interpretation; bicycling and jogging; horseback riding; timber harvest; and cooperative farming. 

Please refer to Appendix E for the findings of appropriate use and Appendix F for the compatibility 

determinations for those public uses approved for the refuge. 

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. If additional properties are acquired for 

the refuge, interim compatibility determinations would provide for interim use of the properties until 
88 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

they are added to the refuge’s management plans, at which time formal compatibility determinations 

would be prepared or the use(s) would be incorporated into existing compatibility determinations. 

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 the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. This plan has been written with input and 

assistance from interested citizens; conservation organizations; and local, state, and federal 

agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting 

the management direction for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Preplanning activities began in 2006. A wildlife and habitat management review was conducted at 

the refuge in July 2006. This was later followed by a visitor services review conducted in August 

2006. Preplanning continued with information gathering and the identification of data gaps. A Notice 

of Intent to prepare a CCP for the refuge was published in the Federal Register on November 7, 

2006. The refuge then held a public scoping meeting on January 25, 2007. Attendees included 21 

members of the public, one North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) representative, 

three Service personnel, and one Service contractor. In addition to the comments that were collected 

at the public scoping meeting, other comments were received through e-mail, regular mail, and fax. 

On March 20, 2007, an intergovernmental scoping meeting was held at the refuge to identify the key 

issues facing the refuge. Attendees included representatives from the NCWRC, North Carolina 

Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, and Anson County, as 

well as Service staff from the refuge, Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge, and one Service 

contractor. Staffs from the Catawba Indian Nation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service were unable to attend the meeting, but submitted comments via 

other means. The priority issues were identified later on the same day by Service staff, in 

collaboration with NCWRC representatives. 

A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified and addressed during the 

planning process. All public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues 

that are important to the public are beyond the scope of the Service’s authority and cannot be 

addressed within this planning process. The planning team did consider all issues that were raised 

throughout this planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the refuge’s 

management priorities based on best management practices, best available information, and the 

competing opinions regarding important issues. 

A complete summary of these issues and concerns is provided in Appendix D, Public Involvement. 

For more detailed information about the planning process and the identification of issues, please refer 

to Chapter III, Plan Development, in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A). 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 89

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, please refer to Chapter II, Refuge Overview, in the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A). 
90 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 89

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge's purposes, vision, and goals identified in the CCP; the goals and 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Alternatives are formulated to address the priority issues, concerns, and problems identified by the 

Service and the public during public scoping. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection, restoration, and management of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other 

resources, as well as to provide for high quality opportunities for appropriate and compatible wildlifedependent recreation. Refuge staff assessed the biological conditions and analyzed external factors 

affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the development of refuge goals and, in turn, 

helped to formulate the alternatives. As a result, each alternative represents different sets of 

objectives for reaching refuge goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on how much progress it 

would make towards achieving the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge and how it would 

address the priority issues related to wildlife and habitat management, resource protection, visitor 

services, and refuge administration. Please refer to Chapter III, Plan Development, in the Draft CCP 

(Section A) for summaries of the priority issues. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Several elements of refuge management are common to all of the alternatives. All management activities 

that could impact natural resources, including subsurface mineral reservations, utility lines and 

easements, soil, water, air, contaminants, and archaeological and historical resources would be managed 

to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. All alternatives are subject to all applicable 

future permit requirements. Individual projects may require additional consultation with the Service’s 

Regional Archaeologist and the State of North Carolina Historic Preservation Office. Additional 

consultation, surveys, and clearance may be required where project development would be conducted on 

the refuge or when activities would affect properties eligible for the National Historic Register. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, goals were developed to help achieve the refuge’s purposes 

and vision and the mission of the Refuge System. Each alternative represents a different set of 

objectives. Objectives are desired conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this 

planning effort, consolidated under three alternatives. These alternatives represent different 

management approaches for managing the refuge over a 15-year timeframe. Three alternatives were 

developed and analyzed, including the no action and proposed action alternatives. Alternative A 

continues current management similar to recent activities and levels on the refuge. Alternative B 

focuses refuge management actions on the needs of trust resources (e.g., migratory birds, federally 

listed species) as well as other priority (e.g., state-listed) species. Alternative C, the proposed action, 

focuses refuge management actions on maintaining and enhancing wildlife and habitat diversity. 
90 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

The three alternatives are described below. 

ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

This is the “status quo” alternative. Under this alternative, no new actions would be taken. The 

refuge would continue its management activities and programs at levels similar to those that have 

been taken during the recent past, as summarized below. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Regarding endangered, threatened, and imperiled species, the refuge would maintain foraging 

habitat and potential future nest trees to support bald eagles. Impoundments would be managed and 

surveyed for multiple species, including state-listed wading birds such as the little blue heron. Old 

field areas would be maintained to provide habitat for loggerhead shrikes. In addition, approximately 

(~) 1,000 acres of upland forest would continue to be managed to potentially support red-cockaded 

woodpeckers. Bat surveys would continue to document the presence of Rafinesque's big-eared bats. 

Management for listed stream fish and freshwater mussels would be limited to a 2005 baseline 

survey. There would be no active management for state-listed plant species, and management for 

Schweinitz's sunflower would be limited to a 2003 baseline survey. 

For migratory birds, in addition to regular surveys, the refuge would maintain approximately 150 acres 

in flooded crop impoundments and moist soil units, using a management approach for multiple 

species, including waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds. Approximately 135 acres of a green tree 

reservoir (GTR) would be managed for waterfowl. In addition, ~1,000 acres of uplands would 

continue to be managed for passerines (subject to breeding bird surveys). Unharvested crops would 

provide additional forage for migratory birds under the cooperative farming program, and field borders 

would continue to be planted with seed-producing species. 

Control of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species would include the use of approve herbicide on 

croplands, and impoundments would be drained once a year to control exotic plant species. Feral 

hogs would be controlled under the deer hunt program, but there would be no active management of 

coyotes or feral and free-roaming animals. 

Habitat management would include forest stand monitoring (following a 2006 GIS timber inventory). 

Upland forest habitat management would include timber stand improvement of approximately 1,820 acres 

of mixed pine hardwoods and 1,736 acres of pine forest through prescribed burning and selective 

thinning. Flooded crop impoundments (~100 acres) would be managed through water manipulation and 

planted with corn. Approximately 37 acres of moist soil units would be maintained through periodic 

flooding, disking, mowing, and burning. Green tree reservoir habitat (135 acres) would be maintained 

through water manipulation and be allowed to dry on a three-year rotation. Management of 2,895 acres 

of bottomland hardwoods would be limited to periodic timber inventories. Approximately 732 of 

grasslands, old fields, and rights-of-way would be maintained through burning, mowing, haying, and 

disking. Croplands (~1,161 acres) would continue to be planted in corn, wheat, and soybeans under the 

cooperative farming program, with 20% of crops left standing after harvest to benefit wildlife. Refugeapproved fertilizers and herbicides would be used to improve crop production. 

Management of other wildlife species would include occasional stocking and surveys of sport fish. A 

baseline herpetological survey is planned for 2007. 

Water resources would be managed at levels similar to past levels. Water levels in the 

impoundments and GTR would be managed for multiple species. Minimum flow requirements for the 

Pee Dee River would continue to be provided to Progress Energy as part of the re-licensing process. 

There would be no active management for water quality. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 91

Resource Protection 

Resource protection would include the continued demarcation of the refuge boundary following the 

2007 survey. In addition, small private properties within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary 

would continue to be assessed for their biological value and considered for purchase. There would 

be no management regarding habitat gaps and wildlife corridors. Approximately 1,306 acres would 

continue to be protected in easements. Following extensive previous surveys, protection of 

archaeological and historical resources would be limited to occasional law enforcement patrols. 

Visitor Services 

Visitor services would continue at levels similar to past management activities. The visitation in 2006 

was estimated at 35,000, although this number is considered to be lower than actual numbers. 

Turkey quota hunts (five days per year) would continue. Waterfowl hunting would not be permitted. 

About 7,000 acres would continue to be open to two seasonal deer hunts (i.e., 42-day archery and 

13-day firearm). Small game hunts for mourning dove, raccoon/opossum, gray squirrel, quail, and 

rabbit totaling 93 days would continue. Seasonal fishing activities would continue with management 

limited to periodic sportfish surveys and stocking of refuge ponds. The refuge would continue to 

annually conduct 28 educational programs. The refuge would continue to maintain three information 

kiosks; the visitor contact station at the refuge’s administrative offices; one observation blind; 3.5 

miles of trails; a 2.7-mile scenic wildlife drive; and ~25 miles of gravel roads. Horseback riding 

opportunities on vehicular roads with a special use permit would continue to be provided. All-terrain 

vehicle (ATV) use would be limited to persons with disabilities. Local outreach would continue to 

occur with six news releases annually to promote special events and 12 refuge presentations per 

year to civic groups. The membership of the Friends of the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge and 

volunteer numbers would likely remain at current levels and programs. Control of trash and litter 

would continue to be moderately effective. 

Refuge Administration 

Refuge administration would continue similar to past management with five full-time employees 

(FTEs): 1 Wildlife Refuge Manager, 1 Assistant Refuge Manager (slated for elimination), 1 

Administrative Office Assistant, 1 Engineering Equipment Operator, and 1 Law Enforcement (LE) 

Park Ranger. Refuge offices would continue to be housed at the administrative office that also 

includes the visitor contact station and the adjacent Friends Building. The refuge would continue to 

rely on existing utilities, and repairs to equipment and facilities would be made according to funding 

allocations. The refuge would attempt to maintain its refuge boundary signs and signs supporting 

visitor services. Regular intergovernmental coordination efforts would include working with the 

Greater Uwharries Conservation Partnership. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B places refuge management emphasis on the protection of trust resources (migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species) as well as several state-listed species. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Under this alternative, management for endangered, threatened, and imperiled species would be 

increased. The refuge would maintain foraging habitat and minimize disturbance to potential nesting sites 

for bald eagles. Management of freshwater marshes and impoundments for multiple species would 

continue, including little blue herons. To further support little blue herons, the refuge would allow 

additional acres of foraging habitat to remain flooded throughout the year. Suitable undisturbed habitat for 

little blue heron rookery sites would be provided. For loggerhead shrikes, the refuge would increase 

surveys to four times per year. Shrubs and trees that are preferred by loggerhead shrikes for nesting and 

larders would be planted, and some agricultural areas would be allowed to revert to old fields. The refuge 

would enhance habitats suitable for the development of red-cockaded woodpecker clusters and consider 

opportunities for reintroduction. Management for Rafinesque’s big-eared bats would include 
92 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

implementing annual surveys to document their presence. Management of listed stream fish and 

freshwater mussels would increase and include acquiring small upstream tracts of available private lands 

within the refuge acquisition boundary to protect the watershed. Furthermore, the refuge would work to 

implement five-year surveys and develop a water quality monitoring program. For state-listed plant 

species and Schweinitz's sunflowers, the refuge would work with partners to document their presence or 

absence and adjust habitat management as necessary. The Service would work with partners to 

establish Schweinitz's sunflower populations on the refuge. 

Management for migratory birds would increase under this alternative. Surveys and monitoring 

frequencies would increase, as would regular law enforcement patrols. The refuge would increase 

the acreage of flooded crop impoundments and moist soil units, using a management approach for 

multiple species, including waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds. For wading birds, nest surveys 

would be conducted, spring and fall survey would be implemented, and additional areas would be 

allowed to remain flooded to increase habitat. Seasonal closures would be implemented to limit 

disturbance. Approximately 135 acres of a green tree reservoir (GTR) would be managed for 

waterfowl. In addition, ~1,000 acres of uplands would be restored for passerines (subject to breeding 

bird surveys). Sweetgum in hardwood bottom forests would be thinned to favor mast-producing 

species. Bird presence, abundance, distribution and responses to management activities would be 

monitored. Population and habitat objectives would be established to determine the refuge’s 

contribution regional and national bird conservation plans. The extent of cowbird nest parasitism on 

the refuge would be evaluated and appropriate control measures developed. Unharvested crops 

would provide additional forage for migratory birds under the cooperative farming program, and field 

borders would continue to be planted with seed-producing species. 

Control of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species would include the use of approved herbicides on 

croplands. The effects of exotic aquatic plants on migratory birds would be researched, and the 

impoundments would be drained once a year to control exotic plant species. Upland exotic plant 

control efforts would focus on high priority habitats for listed species and migratory birds. The refuge 

would consider a specific feral hog hunt or alternative population control measures, including 

trapping. For coyotes, it would coordinate with the state to evaluate potential adverse impacts and 

control where necessary to migratory birds and listed species. The refuge would work with partners 

to control feral and free-roaming animals and minimize their effects on trust species. 

Under Alternative B, habitat management would focus on improving conditions for migratory birds as 

well as endangered, threatened and imperiled species. The refuge would monitor trust species 

presence, abundance, distribution and responses to management activities. Upland forest 

management projects would be scheduling around critical seasons for identified species. The refuge 

would restore and maintain key habitats for migratory birds and listed species. Working with partners, 

the refuge would develop a comprehensive flora and fauna list for the refuge and update its 

Geographic Information System (GIS) forest inventory data every 10 years. There would be a 

reduction in the acreage of flooded crop impoundments, as some of these would be converted to 

moist soil units. The refuge would implement moist soil management strategies to enhance wetland 

habitat conditions and evaluate the potential for the creation of additional impoundments to support 

priority species. In the GTR, the refuge would monitor listed species presence, abundance, 

distribution and responses to management activities. Public use impacts to trust species would be 

minimized (including seasonal closures of key areas). The refuge would consider conversion of GTR 

areas to natural bottomland hardwood to benefit migratory birds as well as potential listed species. 

Sweetgum would be thinned in hardwood bottom forests to favor mast-producing species and 

increase the canebrake understory. In old fields, grasslands, and rights-of-way, the refuge would 

schedule maintenance disturbances such as prescribed fire, disking, and mowing to minimize impacts 

to migratory birds and listed species that utilize or are adjacent to these habitats. In addition, the 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 93

refuge would provide for optimal responses of native vegetation and invertebrates for that are utilized 

by trust species. Some croplands would be converted back to old fields consisting of native 

vegetation. 

Management of other wildlife species would include occasional stocking and surveys of sport fish. 

Management practices on refuge habitats would be conducted in such a manner as to minimize 

adverse impacts to herpetological species. 

Management of water resources would be increased under this alternative. In addition to managing 

water levels in the impoundments and GTR for multiple species, the refuge would work with the 

partners to determine and ensure adequate water levels to support migratory bird listed species' 

objectives of the refuge and consider additional water-supply options, including subsurface pumping. 

Minimum flow requirements for the Pee Dee River would continue to be provided to Progress Energy 

as part of the re-licensing process. The refuge would work with the partners to ensure adequate 

water quality to support migratory bird and listed species' objectives of the refuge. 

Resource Protection 

Resource protection management would be increased and the refuge would evaluate the biological 

value of small, non-refuge properties within the acquisition boundary, specifically with respect to their 

value to trust resources. The refuge would locate and evaluate important gaps and corridors and 

work with the partners to protect these important habitats and connections serving threatened and 

endangered species and migratory birds. For conservation easements, the refuge would locate and 

develop a GIS database. It would evaluate the contribution that these areas provide to migratory 

birds and listed species and ensure that these sites adhere to easement conditions and management 

objectives. With respect to archaeological and historical resources, the refuge would develop an 

outreach plan to increase awareness of their importance on the refuge. 

Visitor Services 

Visitor services would decrease compared to current management activities. The refuge would place 

emphasis of messages to focus on migratory birds and listed species and add directional and 

entrance signs. An informational video would be developed. Under this alternative, various hunting 

programs currently available would be altered. The refuge would collaborate with the state and other 

partners to conduct surveys and research to determine game species population levels and their 

effects on trust resources and would adjust the harvest of game species as needed. The refuge 

would also work with the partners to evaluate the potential effects of hunting on trust resources, and 

would alter these activities accordingly. The refuge would remain off-limits to waterfowl hunting. 

Seasonal fishing activities would be decreased with the seasonal closure of additional areas to 

reduce disturbance to waterfowl. Wildlife viewing and photography opportunities would be slightly 

diminished as additional areas would be closed to limit disturbance to migratory birds and listed 

species. The refuge would develop onsite and offsite curriculum-based educational programs with 

messages focused on trust resources. Horseback riding opportunities on vehicular roads with a 

special use permit would continue to be provided (as long as no adverse effects were determined on 

trust species) and ATV use would be limited to persons with disabilities. Local outreach would 

continue at present levels with messages focused on the conservation of listed species and migratory 

birds. In addition, the refuge would work to increase Friends group membership and the volunteer 

base and focus their efforts and activities to benefit these trust resources. Trash and litter control 

efforts would be stepped-up and focused on the protection of migratory birds and listed species. 

Refuge Administration 

Refuge administration efforts would increase under Alternative B. Refuge infrastructure maintenance 

would focus on items needed for migratory birds and listed species management activities. Under 

this alternative, staff levels would increase to a total of 10 FTEs. The following additional staff would 

be added to the existing positions: 1 Assistant Refuge Manager, 1 Wildlife Biologist, 1 Forestry 
94 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Technician, 2 Maintenance Workers, and 1 Park Ranger (education/outreach and volunteer 

coordination). Regular intergovernmental coordination efforts would be expanded (e.g. to collaborate 

with the state to determine the effects of coyotes and feral animals on trust species, and work with 

partners to determine and ensure adequate water resources and protect important habitats and 

connections to serve these priority species). 

ALTERNATIVE C: PROPOSED ACTION 

Alternative C focuses refuge management on native wildlife and habitat diversity and maintaining the 

biological integrity of the refuge. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Under this alternative, wildlife and habitat diversity management activities would be increased. The 

refuge would maintain foraging habitat and minimize disturbance to potential nesting sites for bald 

eagles. Management of freshwater marshes and impoundments for multiple species would continue, 

including little blue herons. The refuge would allow additional acres of foraging habitat to remain 

flooded throughout the year to further support little blue herons. Undisturbed habitat would be made 

available as potential little blue heron rookery sites. The refuge would increase bird surveys to four 

times per year for loggerhead shrikes. Open grasslands and old fields would be managed for shrubs 

and trees that are preferred by loggerhead shrikes for nesting and as larders. For red-cockaded 

woodpeckers, the refuge would monitor their presence or absence and coordinate with partners to 

monitor the proximity of active clusters near the refuge. Upon establish of active clusters on the 

refuge, management would be adapted as necessary. Management for Rafinesque’s big-eared bats 

would include implementing annual surveys to document their presence. Management of listed 

stream fish and freshwater mussels would increase. The refuge would work with landowners and 

other partners to protect upstream watershed areas and implement five-year surveys. A water quality 

monitoring program would be developed. For state-listed plant species and Schweinitz's sunflowers, 

the refuge would work with partners to document their presence or absence and adjust habitat 

management as necessary. The Service would work with partners to establish Schweinitz's 

sunflower populations on the refuge. 

Migratory bird management efforts would be expanded under this alternative. The refuge would 

increase regular patrols and enforcement, and intensively manage and monitor impoundments for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. Some of the cornfield impoundments would be converted to 

moist soil units with native vegetation. The refuge would increase the acreage of seasonally flooded 

impoundments. During the fall and spring migrations, water levels would be manipulated to support 

shorebird use. The number of survey days would be increased to cover the spring and fall 

migrations. Management of wading birds would include minimizing public use impacts (including 

seasonal closures of key areas) and increasing the number of survey days to cover spring and fall 

migrations. The refuge would allow additional acres of foraging habitat to remain flooded throughout 

the year to further support wading birds. Under this alternative, the refuge would restore and 

maintain upland habitats. In hardwood bottom forests, sweetgum would be thinned to favor mastproducing species. Some native grassland in the early successional growth stages would be 

maintained. The refuge would monitor bird presence, abundance, distribution and responses to 

management activities. It would work to develop population and habitat objectives to determine the 

refuge’s contribution regional and national bird conservation plans. 

The refuge would survey and monitor wetlands and aquatic areas to identify and locate invasive hot 

spots. Where feasible, exotic aquatic plants would be eliminated to maintain and enhance the 

biological integrity of the refuge. The refuge would work with partners to limit reintroduction from 

nearby lands. For upland exotic plant control, the refuge would survey and monitor to identify and 

locate new infestations. It would conduct initial attack with an emphasis on elimination. The refuge 

would control the spread of existing invasive, exotic and nuisance plants to reduce adverse impacts 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 95

to refuge habitats. To control feral hogs, the refuge would consider a specific feral hog hunt or 

alternative population control measures, including trapping. For coyotes, the refuge would coordinate 

with the state to evaluate and control where necessary. The refuge would coordinate with partners to 

control feral and free-roaming animals to minimize adverse impacts. 

Under Alternative C, habitat management would focus on increasing the biological diversity on the 

refuge and improving its biological integrity. The refuge would implement a monitoring program to 

measure and record habitat conditions and effects of management treatments. It would work with 

partners to develop comprehensive flora and fauna lists and implement a comprehensive GIS 

database. The refuge would restore and maintain habitats to enhance wildlife and habitat diversity 

and update its GIS inventory data every 10 years for mixed hardwoods, pine uplands, and bottomland 

hardwoods. It would manage pine-dominated community types to promote understory plant species 

diversity, and implement a monitoring program to measure and record habitat conditions and the 

effects of management treatments. The refuge would manage water levels in flooded crop 

impoundments and implement moist soil management strategies to provide quality habitat for a 

variety of native plants and wildlife species. The refuge would evaluate the potential for the creation 

of additional impoundments to support wildlife and habitat diversity. Some flooded crop 

impoundments would be converted to moist soil units. The refuge would inventory and monitor flora 

and fauna of the GTR. It would manage water levels and work to ensure future water supplies in the 

GTR to support enhanced wildlife and habitat diversity. For bottomland hardwoods, the refuge would 

thin sweetgum to favor mast-producing species and increase the canebrake understory and tree 

diversity. The refuge would schedule maintenance disturbances such as prescribed fire, disking, and 

mowing in old fields, grasslands, and rights-of-way to provide for optimal response of native pioneer 

vegetation and invertebrates. Additional acreage of open fields would be converted to native warm 

season grasses. Croplands would continue to be managed at current levels. 

Management of other wildlife species would include working with partners to survey fish and 

herpetological species present on the refuge, the habitats used by them, and their health and current 

population sizes. The refuge would conduct management practices on refuge habitats in such a 

manner as to minimize adverse impacts to native fish, amphibians, and reptiles. 

Management of water resources would be increased under this alternative. In addition to managing 

water levels in the impoundments and GTR for multiple species, the refuge would work with partners 

to determine and ensure adequate water levels to support its wildlife and habitat diversity objectives 

and consider additional water supply options, including subsurface pumping. Minimum flow 

requirements for the Pee Dee River would continue to be provided to Progress Energy as part of the 

re-licensing process. The refuge would work with partners to ensure adequate water quality to 

support the biological diversity and integrity objectives of the refuge. 

Resource Protection 

Under Alternative C, resource protection management would be increased and the refuge would 

evaluate the biological value of small, non-refuge properties within the acquisition boundary, 

specifically with respect to their habitat and wildlife diversity value. The refuge would locate and 

evaluate important gaps and corridors and work with partners to protect these important habitats and 

connections to protect and improve biodiversity. For conservation easements, the refuge would 

locate and develop a GIS database. It would evaluate the contribution of these areas as wildlife 

habitats and ensure that these sites adhere to easement conditions and management objectives. 

With respect to archaeological and historical resources, the refuge would develop an outreach plan to 

increase awareness of their importance on the refuge. 

Visitor Services 

Visitor services would be increased. The refuge would place emphasis on messages that focus on 

wildlife and habitat diversity, and add directional and entrance signs. A public informational video 
96 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

would be developed. The refuge would ensure that there are no adverse impacts to wildlife and 

habitat diversity from turkey hunting. Management to improve biodiversity would benefit turkey 

populations. The refuge would work to expand turkey hunt areas to include refuge lands in Richmond 

County. The refuge would work with the state and other partners to evaluate the status, trends, and 

health of its deer herd. It would increase the total number of hunting days to reduce deer numbers to 

protect wildlife and habitat diversity. The refuge would implement a quail population monitoring 

program to determine the number of hunting days and appropriate bag limit. For fishing 

opportunities, the refuge would work to increase boat access to the Pee Dee River and consider 

additional stocking of fish in refuge ponds. Wildlife viewing and photography opportunities would 

increase and the refuge would install three additional photoblinds and evaluate the potential for 

additional birding trails. The refuge would develop onsite and offsite curriculum-based educational 

programs with messages focused on the role and importance of the refuge in the landscape. It would 

train staff, volunteers, and teachers to conduct educational programs and build an onsite 

environmental education center (a separate environmental assessment or environmental impact 

statement would be conducted to assess the potential impacts of the construction and operation of 

the proposed facility on the refuge and nearby environments). The refuge would add interpretive 

signs to trails to emphasize biodiversity and expand trails in the vicinity of the environmental 

education center. Horseback riding opportunities and ATV use would be managed at current levels. 

Local outreach efforts would focus on wildlife and habitat diversity and increase awareness of the 

refuge and the Refuge System. The refuge would train the Friends group members and volunteers to 

assist with outreach activities. The refuge would work to increase Friends group membership and the 

volunteer base and focus their efforts and activities to benefit wildlife and habitat diversity. Trash and 

litter control efforts would be stepped up and focused to maintain and improve biodiversity. The 

refuge would increase the number of litter cleanups through coordination with local service groups 

and schools, and ensure that the refuge is included in area cleanup projects. 

Refuge Administration 

Refuge administration efforts would increase under Alternative C. The refuge’s infrastructure 

maintenance would include items needed for wildlife and habitat diversity management activities. 

Under this alternative, staff levels would increase to a total of 10 FTEs. The following additional staff 

would be added to the existing positions: 1 Assistant Refuge Manager, 1 Wildlife Biologist, 1 Forestry 

Technician, 2 Maintenance Workers, and 1 Park Ranger (education/outreach and volunteer 

coordination). Regular intergovernmental coordination efforts would increase. The refuge would 

coordinate with the state to determine the effects of coyotes and feral animals on biodiversity. The 

refuge would work with partners to determine and ensure adequate water resources and protect 

important habitats and connections. In addition, the refuge would work with Anson and Richmond 

County planners to define and protect important conservation areas. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Table 8 compares each of the three alternatives by management issues for Pee Dee National Wildlife 

Refuge. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Table 8. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

ENDANGERED, THREATENED & IMPERILED SPECIES Bald Eagle Prescribed fire and timber 

management (1,000 ac/yr). No nests known to exist. 

Expand Alternative A. Minimize disturbance of nest sites if nesting were to occur. 

Expand Alterdisturbance owere to occu

Little Blue Heron Maintain water levels in 

impoundments to accommodate wading bird foraging habitat. Provide suitable habitat for rookery sites. Annual Christmas Bird Count (CBC). 

Expand Alternative A. Allow additional acres of forage habitat to remain flooded throughout the year. Provide suitable habitat for rookery sites. Limit disturbance around rookery. 

Expand AlterAllow additiohabitat to remthroughout thsuitable habiLimit disturba

Loggerhead Shrike Christmas Bird Count, currently 

maintain old field areas in early successional growth with both shrubby vegetation and grassland. 

Expand Alternative A. Increase bird surveys to four times per year. Plant shrubs and trees preferred for nesting and as larders. Allow some agricultural areas to revert to old fields. 

Expand AlterIncrease bird per year. Magrasslands ashrubs and trnesting and a

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Prescribed fire and timber management (1,000 ac/yr). No active clusters known to exist. CBC. 

Expand Alternative A. Enhance habitats suitable for the development of clusters. Maintain a frequent fire interval. Monitor status and trends. Consider opportunities for reintroduction. 

Expand AlterMonitor preseCoordinate wmonitor the pclusters. Witactive clustermanagement 
98 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Rafinesque's Bigeared Bat Baseline bat survey performed in 2007 with future surveys 

planned. 

Expand Alternative A. Implement annual bat surveys. 

Expand AlterImplement an

Stream Fish Baseline survey completed in 

2005. No till agriculture to limit siltation and other runoff. 

Expand Alternative A. Implement five-year surveys. Develop a water quality monitoring program. 

Expand AlterWork with lanpartners to pwatershed aryear surveysquality monit

Diadromous Fish Baseline survey completed in 

2005. No till agriculture to limit siltation and other runoff. 

Expand Alternative A. Implement five-year surveys. Develop a water quality monitoring program. 

Expand AlterWork with lanpartners to pwatershed aryear surveysquality monit

Freshwater Mussels Baseline invertebrate survey 

performed in 2005. 

Expand Alternative A. Implement five-year surveys. Develop a water quality monitoring program. 

Expand AlterWork with lanpartners to pwatershed arImplement fivDevelop wateprogram. 

Schweinitz’s Sunflower Baseline survey performed in 

2003; species not documented on the refuge. 

Expand Alternative A. Work with partners to document presence or absence and adjust habitat management as necessary. Work with partners to establish populations on the refuge. 

Expand AlterDocument prand adjust hanecessary. Establish poprefuge. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

State-listed Plants No active management. Expand Alternative A. 

Work with partners to document presence or absence and adjust habitat management as necessary. 

Expand AlterDocument prand adjust hanecessary. 

MIGRATORY BIRDS Waterfowl Manage impoundments 78 

ac/yr, moist soil units (78 ac/yr), GTR (135 ac/yr). Monitor 50 wood duck nest boxes. Survey every 2 weeks, NovMar. Waterfowl sanctuary closed Nov 25 – Mar 15 to public use. LE patrol area along Pee Dee River closed to hunting. Allow additional acres of forage habitat to remain flooded throughout the year. Increasing acreage of seasonally flooded impoundments. 

Expand Alternative A. Increase regular patrol and enforcement. Intensively manage and monitor impoundments for waterfowl. Allow additional acres of forage habitat to remain flooded throughout the year. Increasing acreage of seasonally flooded impoundments. 

Expand Alterregular patroIntensively mimpoundmenConvert somimpoundmenwith native veacreage of seimpoundmen
100 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Shorebirds Manage moist soil units (78 

ac/yr). Survey: CBC late Dec. or early Jan. 

Expand Alternative A. During fall and spring migration manipulate water levels to support shorebird use. Minimize public use impacts to shorebirds (including extending seasonal closures of key areas). Intensively manage and monitor (increase number of survey days to cover spring and fall migration) impoundments for migratory birds. 

Expand AlterDuring fall anmanipulate wshorebird usemanage and impoundmenIncrease numcover spring 

Wading Birds Manage moist soil units (78 

ac/yr); allow additional acres of forage habitat to remain flooded throughout the year. Survey: CBC 

Expand Alternative A. Conduct nesting surveys. Increase number of survey days to cover spring and fall migration. Minimize public use impacts to wading birds (including seasonal closures of key areas). Allow additional acres of forage habitat to remain flooded throughout the year. 

Expand Altermanage and impoundmenMinimize pubwading birds closures of knumber of suspring and faadditional acto remain flooyear. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Land Birds Prescribed fire and timber 

management (1,000 ac/yr). Maintain field borders. Plant seed-producing species. Maintain old field areas in early successional growth. Allow GTR to remain on a three year cycle. Survey: CBC 

Expand Alternative A. Restore and maintain upland habitats. Thin sweetgum in hardwood bottom forests to favor mast-producing species. Monitor bird presence, abundance, distribution and responses to management activities. Develop population and habitat objectives to determine the refuge’s contribution regional and national bird conservation plans. Evaluate level of cowbird nest parasitism and develop appropriate control measures. 

Expand Alterand maintain Thin sweetgubottom forestproducing spsome native successional presence, aband responseactivities. Dehabitat objecrefuge’s contnational bird 

EXOTIC, INVASIVE & NUISANCE SPECIES Control of Exotic Aquatic Plants 

Drain impoundments once/yr. Expand Alternative A. Work with 

partners to research and evaluate the effects of exotic aquatic plants on migratory birds and listed species. 

Expand Altermonitor to idehot spots. Cwhere feasibplants to maithe biologicarefuge. Work reintroduction 
102 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Control of Exotic Terrestrial Plants 

All farm fields (1,100 ac) use RoundUp. 

Expand Alternative A. Focus exotic plant control efforts on high priority habitats for migratory birds and listed species. 

Expand Altermonitor to ideinfestations oplants. Condan emphasis Control spreainvasive, exoplants to reduto refuge hab

Control of Feral Hogs Control through managed deer 

hunt. 

Expand Alternative A. Consider a specific feral hog hunt or alternative population control measures, including trapping. 

Same as Altespecific feral alternative pomeasures, in

Control of Coyotes No active management. Expand Alternative A. 

Coordinate with the state to evaluate and control where necessary if adverse impacts are determined. 

Expand AlterCoordinate wevaluate and necessary. 

Control of Feral and Free-roaming Animals 

No active management. Expand Alternative A. 

Coordinate with the partners to control feral and free-roaming animals to minimize adverse impacts. 

Expand Alterwith the partnand free-roamminimize adv
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

WILDLIFE & HABITAT DIVERSITY Mixed Pine Hardwood 1,820 acres. Timber-stand 

improvement through thinning and prescribed low intensity burning in areas where limited hardwood damage would occur. Monitor forest stand inventory. Baseline GIS timber inventory completed in 2006. 

Expand Alternative A. Restore and maintain ~1,820 acres of mixed pine hardwood. Monitor migratory bird and listed species presence, abundance, distribution and responses to management activities. Coordinate forest management project scheduling around critical seasons for identified species. Restore and maintain key habitat for identified species. Work with partners to develop comprehensive flora and fauna list for refuge. Update forest inventory data (GIS) every 10 years. 

Expand Alterand maintain mixed pine hpartners to dcomprehensifor refuge. Mdominated copromote unddiversity. Impprogram to mhabitat condimanagement forest invento10 years. 

Upland Pine Forest 1,736 acres. Timber-stand 

improvement through thinning and prescribed burning to control mid-story hardwood. Monitor forest stand inventory. Baseline GIS timber inventory completed in 2006. 

Expand Alternative A. Monitor migratory bird and listed species presence, abundance, distribution and responses to management activities. Coordinate forest management project scheduling around critical seasons for identified species. Restore and maintain key habitat for identified species. Update forest inventory data (GIS) every 10 years. 

Expand Altermonitoring prand record heffects of matreatments. Wdevelop comfauna list for comprehensidatabases. Rthese habitatand habitat dforest invento10 years. 
104 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Flooded Crop Impoundments 

Maintain 100 acres through water manipulation (flood from Nov – Mar) and plant corn. Ditched are not mowed during bird breeding season. 

Decrease Alternative A. Implement monitoring program to measure and record habitat conditions and effects of management treatments. Manage water levels in impoundments and implement moist soil management strategies to provide quality habitat for a variety of native plants and wildlife species. Replace some flooded crop impoundments with moist soil units. 

Decrease AltImplement mmeasure and conditions anmanagement water levels implement mstrategies to habitat for a vplants and wReplace somimpoundmenunits. 

Moist Soil Units Manage 37 acres through 

periodic flooding, disking, mowing, and burning. 

Expand Alternative A. Implement moist soil management strategies to enhance wetland habitat conditions. Evaluate the potential for the creation of additional impoundments to support listed species and migratory birds. 

Expand AlterEvaluate the creation of adimpoundmenand habitat dmoist soil unImplement mstrategies to habitat condi
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Green Tree Reservoir Maintain 135 acres through 

water manipulation (flood Nov – Mar), allow to remain dry on a three-year rotation. Baseline GIS timber inventory completed in 2006. Wood duck boxes are provided in GTR. 

Expand Alternative A. Monitor migratory bird and listed species presence, abundance, distribution and responses to management activities. Minimize public use impacts to listed species and migratory birds (including seasonal closures of key areas). Consider conversion of GTR to natural bottomland hardwood to benefit certain listed species. 

Expand Alterand monitor fGTR impounManage wateto support a vand wildlife ssufficient watto support enhabitat divers

Bottomland Hardwoods 

2,895 acres. Baseline GIS timber inventory completed in 2006. Maintain contiguous hardwood bottom habitat.

Expand Alternative A. Thin sweetgum in hardwood bottom forests to favor mast-producing species. Thin stands to increase crown size and increase canebrake understory. 

Expand AlterThin sweetgubottom forestproducing spincrease crowcanebrake un

Grasslands/Old fields/Rights-of-Way 

Prescribed burning, mowing, haying, and disking of 732 acres. Maintain field borders. Maintaining native warm season grass fields. 

Expand Alternative A. Reintroduce native warm season grasses. Schedule maintenance disturbances such as prescribed fire and disking and mowing to minimize disturbance to trust species that utilize or are adjacent to these habitats. Provide for optimal response of native vegetation and invertebrates listed species and migratory birds. 

Expand AlterSchedule madisturbances fire and diskiprovide for onative pioneeinvertebratesacreage of owarm season 
106 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Croplands Approximately 1,161 acres 

planted in corn, soybeans and wheat under the Cooperative Farming Program. 20% of crops left for wildlife. Field borders (15 ft wide) left unplanted, fallow, or seeded by refuge staff with annuals as wildlife food. Use Roundup herbicide and fertilizers. 

Decrease Alternative A. Convert some croplands back to old fields consisting of native vegetation. 

Same as Alte

Native Warmwater Fish 

Survey ponds and stock with channel catfish as needed for public use. Fish samples were collected in 2005 for mercury analysis. 

Expand Alternative A. Target fish stocking consistent with migratory bird and endangered, threatened and imperiled species' needs. 

Expand AlterWork with the fish species phabitats used current popumanagement habitats in suminimize advnative fish. 

Herpetological Species (e.g. frogs, toads, snakes, and lizards) 

Herp survey scheduled for 2007. Expand Alternative A. 

Survey and develop management measures as appropriate to target priority herpetological species. Evaluate the effects of migratory bird management efforts on herpetological species and adapt management as necessary. 

Expand AlterWork with paherpetologicathe refuge, hhealth and cusizes. Condupractices on such a mannadverse impaspecies. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

WATER QUALITY & QUANTITY Water Quantity Monitor and manage water 

levels in impoundments and GTR. Provide minimum flow requirements for the Pee Dee River to Progress Energy during FERC re-licensing meetings for two Pee Dee River dams. 

Expand Alternative A. Work with the partners to determine and ensure adequate water levels to support migratory bird and listed species' objectives of the refuge. Consider additional options, including subsurface pumping. 

Expand AlterWork with the determine anwater levels thabitat objecConsider addincluding submaintain nee

Water Quality No active management. Expand Alternative A. 

Work with the partners to ensure adequate water quality to support listed species and migratory bird objectives of the refuge. 

Expand AlterWork with the determine anwater quality wildlife and hthe refuge. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

ACQUISITION BOUNDARY Refuge Boundary Refuge boundary was surveyed 

in 2007. 

Same as Alternative A. Maintain boundary signs. 

Same as AlteMaintain bou

Land Acquisition Consider purchase of properties 

within the acquisition boundary from willing sellers as these become available. 

Change Alternative A. Focus potential future land acquisition on properties within the acquisition boundary from willing sellers based on the value they could provide to trust species. 

Change AlterFocus land aproperties wiboundary frobased on enhhabitat divers
108 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

CONSERVATION FOCUS AREAS & EASEMENTS Gaps/Corridors No active management. Expand Alternative A. 

Locate and evaluate important gaps and corridors. Work with the partners to protect important habitats and connections serving migratory birds and listed species. 

Expand AlterLocate and egaps and corpartners to phabitats and 

Easements 1,306 acres protected in 

easement. 

Expand Alternative A. Locate and develop GIS database for these properties. Evaluate the contribution that these areas provide to listed species and migratory birds. Ensure that these sites adhere to easement conditions and management objectives. 

Expand AlterLocate and dfor these procontribution tprovide to widiversity. Enadhere to eaand manage

CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological and Historical Resources 

Extensive archeological surveys conducted on refuge. Occasional law enforcement patrols. 

Same as Alternative A. Expand Alter

Develop outrawareness oand historicarefuge. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

VISITOR SERVICES 

VISITOR ORIENTATION Providing Information to the Public 

Maintain 3 kiosks, visitor contact station and website. Provide brochures and maps. 

Same as Alternative A. Place emphasis of messages to focus on listed species and migratory birds. Add directional and entrance signs. Develop informational video. 

Expand AlterPlace emphafocus on wilddiversity. Adentrance signinformational 

HUNTING & FISHING Turkey Hunting Opportunities 

Manage quota hunts. Five days per year. 100 permits issued 

Change Alternative A. Work with partners to evaluate the population status on the refuge and the effect of turkeys on trust resources. Adjust turkey hunting accordingly. 

Expand Alterthere are no wildlife and hManagement biodiversity wpopulations. areas to incluRichmond Co

Waterfowl Hunting No waterfowl hunting is allowed 

on the refuge. This includes the waters of the Pee Dee River from the confluence of Pressley Creek to the confluence of Brown Creek. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alte
110 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Deer Hunting Opportunities 

Manage quota hunt. Firearm: 13 days per year. 1,250 of permits issued. Archery: 42 days per year. 1,100 hunters. Approximately 20% of the refuge is off-limits to deer hunting during the migratory bird season. Participate in Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study. 

Change Alternative A. Work with partners to evaluate the population status on the refuge and the effect of deer on trust resources. Adjust deer hunting accordingly. 

Expand Alterthe state to eand herd heanumber of hudeer numberand habitat d

Small Game Hunting Opportunities 

Mourning Dove: ~10 days annually, approximately 400 hunters.

Raccoon/Opossum: ~40 days, approximately 500 hunters.

Gray Squirrel: ~20 days, approximately 500 hunters.Quail: 9 days, approximately 

500 hunters. Two quail limit per hunter.Rabbit: ~14 days, approximately 500 hunters.No small game hunting permitted in waterfowl sanctuary area from Nov. 25–March 15. Note: small game hunting is permitted in Anson County only. 

Change Alternative A. Work with partners to evaluate the population status on the refuge and the effects of small game on trust species. Adjust hunting of these species (opossum, quail, rabbit, raccoon and squirrel) accordingly. 

Expand AlterImplement qumonitoring to hunting days 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Fishing Opportunities Five ponds and several 

creek/river sites open 7 months per year (closed Oct 15 – Mar 15), two ponds open year-round throughout the refuge. Annual Youth Fishing Day held. 

Decrease Alternative A. Limit access to additional waterfowl areas to reduce disturbance. 

Expand AlterIncrease boaDee River anstocking of fis

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION & PHOTOGRAPHY Wildlife Viewing and Photography Opportunities 

Maintain 2.75 mile wildlife drive, three hiking trails (3.5 miles total), ~25 miles of public gravel roads. Not all areas are open year-round. One observation/photography blind at Sullivan Pond. 

Decrease Alternative A. Limit access to additional waterfowl areas to reduce disturbance. 

Expand AlterInstall three aand evaluate additional birpublic boat aRiver. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & INTERPRETATION Environmental Education Opportunities and Interpretive Programs 

Conduct 28 programs annually on station, 8 offsite. 

Expand Alternative A. Develop onsite and offsite curriculum-based educational programs with messages focused on migratory birds and listed species. Train staff, volunteers and teachers to conduct education programs. 

Expand Alteronsite and ofbased educamessages foimportance olandscape. Tand teachers programs. Benvironmenta(potential impthis planned evaluated unEIS). 
112 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Number of Interpretive Trails 

Three interpretive trails. Expand Alternative A. 

Add interpretive signs to trails to emphasize migratory birds and listed species. 

Expand AlterAdd interpretemphasize btrails in the venvironmenta(see above). 

OTHER RECREATIONAL USES Horseback Riding Opportunities 

Permitted on roads open to vehicles by SUP only. 

Decrease Alternative A. Limit areas open to horseback riding or eliminate this activity if it is determined to have negative effects on refuge trust species. 

Same as Alte

ATV Use ATV use permitted for hunters 

with disabilities. SUP required. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alte

OUTREACH Local Residents At least six news releases 

annually to promote special events. Present approximately 12 refuge programs to civic groups annually. Provide refuge information booths at local events. 

Expand Alternative A. Focus outreach efforts on migratory birds and listed species. 

Expand AlterFocus outreaand habitat dawareness oRefuge SysteFriends groumembers/voloutreach effo
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

FRIENDS GROUP & VOLUNTEERS Friends of PDNWR 100 Friends members. Expand Alternative A. 

Focus Friends group’s efforts and activities to benefit trust species. Support increases to the number of Friends members and level of activities. Increase number of active volunteers and focus projects to benefit migratory birds and listed species. 

Expand AlterFocus Friendactivities to bhabitat diversincreases to Friends memactivities. 

Volunteers 30 volunteers / 2,500 hours 

annually 

Expand Alternative A. Increase number of active volunteers and focus projects to benefit migratory birds and listed species. 

Expand Alternumber of acfocus projectand habitat d

LITTER Control of Trash and Litter 

Signs and trash cans maintained by volunteers and staff. LE patrol of public use areas. 

Expand Alternative A. Focus and schedule trash and litter control efforts to benefit trust species. Increase number of cleanups through coordination with area service groups and schools. Ensure that refuge is included in area cleanup projects. 

Expand AlterFocus and sclitter control ewildlife and hIncrease numthrough coorservice groupEnsure that rarea clean-u
114 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

REFUGE MANAGEMENT Administrative Facilities, Utilities, Equipment, and Signs 

Repairs to refuge equipment and facilities are made as funding is allocated. Facility maintenance projects and improvement that will cost more than the refuge annual maintenance allocation are input into the SAMMS database for consideration of funding under Deferred Maintenance by the Regional and Washington offices. Administrative office, shop, Friends building, fire cache, 2 dozers, 1 grader, 3 farm tractors, 1 backhoe, 3 trucks, and 5 entrance signs. 2 portable water pumps. 

Change Alternative A. Equipment and facility repairs will include items needed for migratory bird management activities. SAMMS project descriptions will be reviewed to ensure migratory bird and listed species management priorities of the refuge are considered. 

Change AlterEquipment ainclude items management Wildlife and HSAMMS projbe reviewed habitat manathe refuge ar
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

Staffing 5 total FTEs (one of which is 

targeted for elimination) Wildlife Refuge Manager Assistant Wildlife Refuge Manager, targeted for elimination) Admin Office Assist Engineering Equip Operator Park Ranger (LE) Total Staff = 5 FTE Total Recurring Cost = $ 350,000 

Expand Alternative A. In addition to current staff: Assistant Wildlife Refuge Manager Biologist Forestry Technician 2 Maintenance Workers Park Ranger (education/outreach and volunteer coordination) Total Staff = 10 FTE Total Recurring Cost = $ 800,000 

Expand AlterIn addition to Assistant WilBiologist Forestry Tec2 MaintenancPark Ranger and volunteeTotal Staff = Total Recurri$ 800,000 
116 Pee Dee N

KEY TOPICS Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Al

(Prop

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Intergovernmental Coordination 

Work with Greater Uwharries Conservation Partnership. 

Expand Alternative A. Coordinate with the state to determine the effects of coyote and feral animals on endangered, threatened and imperiled species. Work with the partners to determine and ensure adequate water levels, quality and quantity to support endangered, threatened and imperiled species objectives of the refuge. Work with the partners to protect the important habitats and connections serving endangered, threatened and imperiled species. Work with partners to integrate PDNWR in NCDENR Green Infrastructure Plan. 

Expand AlterCoordinate wdetermine thand feral animWork with the determine anwater levels, to support widiversity objeWork with the the important connections habitat diversand Richmondefine and prconservation partners to inNCDENR GrPlan. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 117

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can 

be reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the three alternatives described in Chapter 

III of this environmental assessment. Specific environmental and social impacts of implementing 

each alternative are discussed in Table 8 under four broad management categories: wildlife and 

habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge administration. Outlined are 

the anticipated impacts over the 15-year life of the CCP that could result from the implementation of 

the actions described in alternatives A, B, and C. Alternatives B and C are compared to Alternative 

A, the No Action alternative. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects will be the similar under each alternative. These are summarized under six 

categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, cultural resources, Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act payments, and other effects. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations,” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information 

and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

None of the management alternatives described in this environmental assessment will 

disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on 

minority and low-income populations. Implementation of any action alternative that includes 

public use and environmental education is anticipated to provide a benefit to all residents residing 

in the surrounding communities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies with 

land management responsibilities under its direction to consider the potential impacts of climate 

change as part of their long-range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperatures commonly referred to as global warning. In relation to comprehensive planning for 

national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be 

considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Research and 
118 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “... the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 

Natural areas play an essential part in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts—

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert—are effective both in preventing 

carbon emissions and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon dioxide (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2007). The conclusions of the Department of Energy’s 1999 report noted that 

ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent the loss of 

carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges such as Pee Dee NWR. The habitats on Pee Dee NWR will continue to play a role in 

carbon sequestration, particularly its bottomland hardwoods (Hupp and Noe 2006). All the 

alternatives proposed in this environmental assessment would preserve or restore land and 

water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This, in turn, contributes positively to 

efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate changes. 

The impacts of climate change on Pee Dee NWR during the first 15 years of implementation are likely 

to include an increased risk of vegetation shifts (Morse et al. 1993; Shugart et al. 2003); drought (Dai 

et al. 2004); the spread of nonnative species (Mooney and Hobbs 2000); and tropical cyclones or 

hurricanes (Webster et al. 2005). 

Changes in temperature, rainfall, wind patterns, and other factors that affect the distribution of plant 

communities are affected by climate and will respond accordingly. Vegetation communities are 

predicted to shift with conifer-dominated forests being replaced by those consisting mostly of 

hardwood species (Shugart et al. 2003). Changes in evapotranspiration and a predicted increase in 

pine beetles will favor several oak species, while the pine forests are expected to move northward. 

Although the refuge will not be able to prevent the shift of habitats, the various management 

techniques outlined in the CCP will help protect the vegetation communities found on the refuge and 

minimize loss of biological diversity. 

Droughts will affect the refuge in two major ways: by reducing water quantity and increasing the risk 

of wildfires. Improved coordination with partners will help to maintain adequate water levels and 

safeguard this valuable resource on the refuge. A comprehensive prescribed burning plan will 

minimize the frequency and intensity of wildfires during periods of drought. 

Tropical cyclones negatively affect Pee Dee NWR through flooding and tree damage. Flooding can 

damage refuge infrastructure and affect habitat by removing vegetation and increasing stream 

sedimentation. The proposed increase of impoundments may help reduce the intensity of flooding on 

the refuge by serving as temporary stormwater retention areas. Nesting birds, including listed 

species may be adversely affected by high winds and tree-falls. Potential nest sites of listed species 

(e.g., bald eagles) can be checked after storms to assess damage and potentially rescue fledglings. 

Global warming is predicted to increase the number and abundance of exotic species (Walther et al. 

2002). Warmer winters and a longer growing season will allow more exotic species to colonize areas 

that were too cold for them in the past. Many of these nonnative plants and animals will compete for 

space with native species while others will prey on native wildlife, causing ecological harm. The CCP 

details several strategies to mitigate the effects of nonnative species and protect the native plants 

and wildlife of the refuge. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 119

All management activities that could affect the refuge’s natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, soils, water, and air would be managed to comply 

with all laws and regulations. In particular, any existing and future oil and gas exploration, extraction, 

and transport operations on the refuge would be managed identically under each of the alternatives. 

Thus, the impacts would be the same. Under each of the three alternatives, the Service would work 

to minimize the impacts of any such activities. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for managing archaeological and historical 

resources found on refuge lands. Since cultural resource surveys on the refuge have been limited, 

additional surveys would be conducted prior to any new construction or excavation on refuge lands in 

order to fully satisfy provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and all applicable 

cultural resource laws and policies. Potentially negative impacts from construction of trails or facilities 

would require review by the Service’s Regional Archaeologist and consultation with the North 

Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. Determining whether a particular management action has 

the potential to affect cultural resources is an ongoing process that would occur during the detailed 

planning stages of every project. Service acquisition or management of land with known or potential 

archaeological or historical sites provides three major types of protection for these resources: 

protection from private development (e.g., into single-family homes); protection from damage by 

federal activities; and protection from vandalism or theft. The Service’s policy is to preserve these 

resources in the public trust, avoiding impacts whenever possible. Minimal or no negative impacts 

are anticipated for any particular cultural resources on the refuge under any of the alternatives. As a 

whole, positive impacts are expected to the cultural resources due to management and protection of 

these resources under all of the alternatives. 

All three alternatives afford additional land protection and low levels of development, thereby 

producing little negative effect on the refuge’s cultural and historic resources. Potentially negative 

effects could include logging, construction of new trails or facilities, and development of water 

impoundments. In most cases, these management actions would require review by the Service’s 

Regional Archaeologist in consultation with the State of North Carolina Historic Preservation Office, 

as mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the determination 

of whether a particular action within an alternative has the potential to affect cultural resources is an 

ongoing process that would occur during the planning stages of every project. 

REFUGE REVENUE SHARING ACT PAYMENTS 

 

The Service provides Anson and Richmond counties with Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments in 

lieu of property tax income. Annual Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments to Anson and Richmond 

counties would continue at similar rates under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to 

the refuge, the payments would increase accordingly. 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Each of the alternatives would have similar positive effects or minimal to negligible effects on the 

soils; water quality and quantity; noise; transportation; human health and safety; children; hazardous 

materials; waste management; aesthetics and visual resources; and utilities and public services. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE 
120 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

The following section describes the environmental consequences of implementing each refuge 

management alternative. Table 9 summarizes and addresses the likely outcomes for the specific 

issues and is organized by broad issue categories. 

Each of the alternatives is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. Impacts 

anticipated under the implementation of each alternative are summarized for soils; air quality; 

hydrology and water quality; and biological resources. 

ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A are anticipated to have net neutral to positive 

impacts on soils. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A are anticipated to have net neutral impacts 

on hydrology and water quality. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high quality habitats supporting 

native wildlife and habitat diversity. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Implementation of Alternative B is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are anticipated to have net neutral to positive 

impacts on soils. Restoring and managing habitats would have a positive impact on soils. Expanding 

impounded wetlands would have minor negative impacts on soils and soil formation processes. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to water quality and hydrology. Positive hydrology and water quality impacts would result from the 

acquisition, protection, and management of additional lands. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high quality habitats supporting 

increased numbers of migratory birds and native wildlife and wildlife diversity. 

ALTERNATIVE C: PROPOSED ACTION 

Implementation of Alternative C is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on soils and soil formation processes. The positive effects of restoring upland areas and more 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 121

intensively managing habitats would offset the moderately negative effects of creating additional 

impounded wetlands. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to hydrology and water quality. Positive hydrology and water quality impacts would result from the 

acquisition, protection, and management of additional lands. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high quality habitats supporting 

native wildlife and wildlife diversity. 

COMPARISON OF EFFECTS FROM IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVES 

While the three alternatives share similarities, their differences result in varying types and levels of 

impacts. None of the proposed management activities would lead to a violation of federal, state, or local 

laws imposed for the protection of the environment. Alternative A does not propose any change in the 

refuge’s present management direction. As such, Alternative A serves as the baseline for comparing the 

other alternatives. Without funding and staffing to support needed programs and to provide protection for 

the resources, Alternative A provides the least support for long-term productivity and sustainability of the 

refuge. Alternative C provides the most benefits to the refuge, the natural resources supported by the 

refuge, and the local community, supporting long-term productivity and sustainability of the refuge. 

Alternative C was selected as the proposed action based on the analysis in the environmental 

assessment and its ability to best serve the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. 

Adaptive management is a key component of each alternative. As such, the actions outlined would 

not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, nor represent a decision in 

principle about future considerations. Refuge management activities are constantly adapted as new 

research, data, and information become available. 

Table 9 summarizes and compares the environmental consequences for each of the three 

alternatives under four categories: wildlife and habitat management, resource protection, visitor 

services, and refuge administration. 
122 Pee Dee N

Table 9. Summary of environmental consequences by alternative, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND IMPERILED SPECIES Bald Eagle Neutral 

No change in eagle habitat to support stable populations. 

Positive Decreased wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

Positive Decreased wildlidisturbance. 

Little Blue Heron Positive 

Active management to maintain suitable foraging habitat and increasing potential rookery areas. 

Positive Active management to increase suitable foraging habitat availability and increasing potential rookery areas. 

Positive Active managemsuitable foraging and increasing pareas.

Loggerhead Shrike Neutral 

Obtaining information. Maintaining foraging and nesting habitat. 

Positive Increasing information. Increasing foraging and nesting habitat.

Positive Increasing informforaging and nes

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Neutral Maintaining upland forest habitat. No active clusters known to exist. 

Neutral to Positive Active management to support natural recruitment or reintroduction. Increased information. 

Neutral to PositivActive managemrecruitment or reIncreased inform

Rafinesque's Bigeared Bat Neutral No active management. Neutral to Positive Increased information. Neutral to Positiv

Increased inform

Stream Fish Neutral 

Maintaining water quality. 

Positive Improving water quality. Increased information. 

Positive Improving water information. 

Diadromous Fish Neutral 

Maintaining water quality. 

Positive Improving water quality. Increased information. 

Positive Improving water information. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

Freshwater Mussels Neutral 

Maintaining water quality. 

Positive Improving water quality. Increased information. 

Positive Improving water information. 

Schweinitz’s Sunflower

Neutral Potential suitable relocation sites identified. 

Positive Increased information. Establishing populations on the refuge. 

Positive Increased informpopulations on t

State-listed Plants Neutral 

No active management. 

Positive Improving water quality. Increased information. 

Positive Improving water information. 

MIGRATORY BIRDS Waterfowl Positive 

Increasing available habitat to support increasing populations. 

Positive Increased available habitat would support increasing waterfowl populations. Increased information and decreased disturbance. 

Positive Active managemavailable habitat increasing waterIncreased informdisturbance. 

Shorebirds Neutral 

Management of impoundments maintains variable habitat acres for shorebirds. 

Positive Active management of impoundments to support increasing populations of shorebirds. Decreased disturbance. 

Positive Active managemto support increashorebirds. Decand increased in

Wading Birds Positive 

Increased habitat available supporting increased populations. 

Positive Increased information. Decreased disturbance. Increased habitat available supporting increased populations. 

Positive Active managemincreasing populbirds. Decrease
124 Pee Dee N

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

Land Birds Neutral to positive 

Increasing available for some land bird species. 

Positive Increase in suitable habitat and active management should support increasing populations. Increased information. 

Positive Increase in suitamanagement shincreasing popuinformation. 

EXOTIC, INVASIVE AND NUISANCE SPECIES Control of Exotic Aquatic Plants 

Neutral Current management results in stable populations of exotic aquatic plants. 

Positive Increased information. Increased coordination with partners and active management should result in decreased exotic aquatic plant populations benefiting migratory birds and listed species. 

Positive Increased informmanagement shdecreased exotic populations benehabitat diversity. 

Control of Exotic Terrestrial Plants 

Neutral to Positive Maintaining or decreasing terrestrial plants. 

Positive Active management should control terrestrial exotic plants and benefit trust species. 

Positive Increased informmanagement shcontrol exotic plaincrease in wildlidiversity. 

Control of Feral Hogs 

Neutral Incidental control helps reduce negative impacts of feral hogs. 

Positive Feral hog control would help reduce negative impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered species. 

Neutral to PositivIncreased informcontrol would heimpacts to wildlifdiversity. 

Control of Coyotes Neutral to Negative 

Without active management increasing coyote populations could negatively affect refuge species and habitats. 

Neutral to Positive Increased information. Coyote control would help reduce negative impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered species. 

Neutral to PositivIncreased informwould help reducto wildlife and ha
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

Control of Feral and Free-roaming Animals 

Negative Without active management increasing feral and freeroaming animal populations could negatively affect refuge species and habitats. 

Positive Concerted control of harmful feral and free-roaming animals would help increase populations of migratory birds and protect listed species. 

Positive Concerted contrfree-roaming anincrease wildlife 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT Mixed Pine Hardwood 

Neutral to positive Maintaining habitat, increased information. 

Positive Increased information. Habitat management efforts to improve conditions for listed species and migratory birds will increase mixed pine hardwood habitat quality. 

Positive Increased informmanagement effbiodiversity will ihardwood quality

Upland Pine Forest Neutral to positive 

Maintaining habitat, increased information. 

Positive Increased information. Active management to support trust species would result in improved upland pine forest quality. 

Positive Increased informmanagement to in wildlife and haresult in improvequality. 

Flooded Crop Impoundments 

Neutral Current management would maintain impoundments at stable levels. 

Neutral Management for migratory birds and listed species would maintain impoundments at stable levels. 

Negative Increased informManagement for would reduce the impoundment ac

Moist Soil Units Neutral 

Current management would maintain moist soil units at stable levels. 

Positive Management for listed species and migratory birds would increase quality and quantity of moist soil units. 

Positive Management for biodiversity wouand quantity of m
126 Pee Dee N

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

Green Tree Reservoir 

Neutral Current management would maintain present GTR acreage. 

Positive Management for migratory birds would increase the quality of the GTR. 

Positive Management for biodiversity wouof the GTR. 

Bottomland Hardwoods 

Neutral Current management would maintain present bottomland hardwood acreage. 

Positive Management for migratory birds and listed species would increase the quality of the bottomland hardwoods. 

Positive Management for biodiversity wouof the bottomlan

Grasslands/Old fields/Rights-of-Way 

Neutral Current management would maintain present acreage. 

Positive Management for trust species would increase the quality of these areas. 

Positive Management for biodiversity wouof these areas. 

Croplands Neutral 

Current management would maintain present cropland acreage. 

Negative Management for migratory birds and listed species would decrease cropland acreage. 

Negative Management for biodiversity wouacreage. 

Native Warmwater Fish 

Neutral Current management would maintain native warmwater fish populations at stable levels. 

Positive Management for listed species and migratory birds would increase populations of native warmwater fish. 

Positive Increased informnegative impacts practices to suppand habitat diver

Herpetological Species (e.g., frogs, toads, snakes, and lizards) 

Neutral Current management would maintain stable populations. 

Positive Increased information. Minimizing negative impacts of migratory bird and listed species management practices to support increasing herpetological populations. 

Positive Management for biodiversity wouherpetological sp
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY Water Quantity Neutral to Positive 

Increased information. Active management to maintain optimal water quantities in impoundments. Minimum flow on Pee Dee River required under FERC licensing. 

Positive Increased cooperation with partners. Increased information. Active management to maintain optimal water quantities. Secure adequate water supplies to support increasing populations of trust species. 

Positive Increased coopeIncreased informmanagement to water quantities. water supplies to wildlife and habi

Water Quality Neutral 

No active management. 

Positive Management activities (moist soil units) for migratory birds and listed species would have beneficial impacts to water quality. 

Positive Management acunits) for increashave beneficial iquality. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

ACQUISITION BOUNDARY Refuge Boundary Positive 

Increased information. 

Positive Increased information. 

Positive Increased inform

Land Acquisition Positive 

Increase in acreage. 

Positive Additional lands acquired within the acquisition boundary would benefit trust species. 

Positive New lands acqubiodiversity. 

CONSERVATION FOCUS AREAS AND EASEMENTS Gaps/Corridors Neutral Positive 

Increased information. Protecting gaps/corridors would benefit migratory birds and listed species. 

Positive Increased informgaps/corridors wbiodiversity and refuge. 
128 Pee Dee N

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

Easements Negative 

Insufficient management oversight. 

Positive Increased information and protection. 

Positive Increased inform

CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological and Historical Resources 

Neutral to Positive Increased information and some protection offered. 

Neutral to Positive Increased information and some protection offered. 

Positive Increased informprotection of archistorical resourc

VISITOR SERVICES

VISITOR ORIENTATION Providing Information to the Public 

Positive Information available to visitors. 

 Positive 

Visitors will gain awareness and uwildlife and habi

HUNTING AND FISHING Turkey Hunting Opportunities 

Neutral Neutral to Positive 

Increased information. 

Positive Increased turkey hunting opportun

Waterfowl Hunting Negative 

No opportunities for waterfowl hunting on refuge. 

Negative No opportunities for waterfowl hunting on refuge. 

Negative No opportunities on refuge. 

Deer Hunting Opportunities 

Neutral Adequate deer hunting opportunities exist on refuge. 

Neutral to Positive Increased information. 

Neutral to PositivAlthough increasexist, they would periods optimal f

Small Game Hunting Opportunities 

Neutral Adequate small game hunting opportunities exist on refuge. 

Neutral to Positive Increased information. 

Positive Increased inform
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND PHOTOGRAPHY Fishing Opportunities 

Positive Current fishing opportunities exist on refuge. 

Negative Fishing opportunities would decrease on the refuge. 

Positive Fishing opportunon the refuge 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION Wildlife Viewing and Photography Opportunities 

Positive Current wildlife viewing and photography opportunities exist. 

Negative Reduced wildlife viewing and photography opportunities. 

Positive Increased wildlifphotography opp

Environmental Education Opportunities and Interpretive Programs 

Neutral Current environmental education and interpretation opportunities would be maintained. 

Positive Increased environmental education and interpretation opportunities. 

Positive Increased enviroand interpretatio

Number of Interpretive Trails 

Neutral Current interpretive trail would be maintained. 

Neutral to Positive Number of interpretive trails might be increased. 

Positive Number of interpincreased. 

OTHER RECREATIONAL USES Horseback Riding Opportunities 

Positive Horseback opportunities exist on refuge. 

Neutral to Positive Horseback opportunities exist on refuge. 

Positive Horseback opporefuge. 

ATV Use Negative 

Regular ATV activities do not exist on the refuge. 

Negative Regular ATV activities do not exist on the refuge. 

Negative Regular ATV actthe refuge. 

OUTREACH Local Residents Positive Positive 

Local outreach would increase. 

Positive Local outreach w
130 Pee Dee N

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

FRIENDS GROUP AND VOLUNTEERS Friends of PDNWR Neutral to Positive 

Friends of PDNWR membership and activity level would remain stable or increase. 

Positive Friends of PDNWR membership and activity level would increase. 

Positive Friends of PDNWactivity level wou

Volunteers Neutral to Positive 

Volunteer activity level and number of projects would remain stable or increase. 

Positive Volunteer activity level and number of projects would increase. 

Positive Volunteer activitprojects would in

LITTER Control of Trash and Litter 

Negative Litter cleanup and control would be maintained at current levels. 

Positive Litter cleanup and control would increase. 

Positive Litter cleanup anincrease. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION

REFUGE MANAGEMENT Administrative Facilities, Utilities, Equipment, and Signs 

Neutral to Negative Additional facilities, utilities, equipment, and signs are needed. 

Positive Increased facilities, utilities, equipment, and signs. 

Positive Increased facilitiequipment, and 

Staffing Neutral to Negative 

No change in the levels of biological support and wildlife and habitat protection. 

Positive Increased staff in all refuge programs to meet refuge goals and objectives. Enhanced information and habitat management. 

Positive Increased staff ito meet refuge gEnhanced informmanagement. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

KEY 

Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alte

(Propo

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Intergovernmental Coordination 

Neutral Positive 

Increased level of intergovernmental coordination. 

Positive Increased level ocoordination. 
132 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES 

Under Alternative A, No Action alternative, there are numerous unavoidable impacts, including law 

enforcement that is not adequate for protecting existing and increasing visitor use; continued 

degradation of the biological functions of native plant communities and wildlife habitat due to the 

invasion of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; and a continued decrease in biodiversity. Over 

time, if these issues are not addressed, they will continue to negatively impact refuge resources. 

Alternative C, the Proposed Action, also has some unavoidable impacts. These impacts are expected to 

be minor and/or short-term in duration. However, the refuge will attempt to minimize these impacts 

whenever possible. The following sections describe the measures the refuge will employ to minimize the 

potential impacts that would result from implementation of the Proposed Action. 

WATER QUALITY FROM SOIL DISTURBANCE AND USE OF HERBICIDES 

Soil disturbance and siltation due to water management activities; road and levee maintenance; trails 

and photo-blinds; and cooperative farming programs are expected to be minor and of short duration. 

To further reduce potential impacts, best management practices will be used to minimize the erosion 

of soils into water bodies. 

Foot traffic on new and extended foot trails is expected to have a negligible impact on soil erosion. 

To minimize the impacts from public use, the refuge will include informational signs that request trail 

users to remain on the trails in order to avoid causing potential erosion problems and impacts to 

adjacent habitats. 

Long-term herbicide use for exotic plant and agricultural weed control could result in a slight decrease 

in water quality in areas prone to exotic plant infestation and near cooperative farming lands. 

Through the proper application of herbicides, however, this is expected to have a minor impact on the 

environment, with the benefit of reducing or eliminating exotic plant infestations and by increasing 

crop production (a percentage of which is made available to benefit wildlife). 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of the 

activity involved. While some activities such as wildlife observation may be less disturbing than 

others, all of the public use activities proposed under the Proposed Action will be planned to avoid 

unacceptable levels of impact. 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the Proposed Action are not considered to be 

significant. Nevertheless, the refuge will manage public use activities to minimize impacts. Providing 

access for fishing opportunities allows the use of a renewable natural resource without adversely 

impacting other resources. Hunting will also be managed with restrictions that ensure minimal 

impacts on other resources. General wildlife observation may result in minimal disturbance to wildlife. 

If the refuge determines that impacts from the expected additional visitor uses are above acceptable 

levels, those uses will be modified, discontinued, restricted, or rerouted to other less sensitive areas 

to minimize the impacts. 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Negative impacts could result from the creation, extension, and maintenance of trails that require the 

clearing of non-sensitive vegetation along their lengths. This is expected to be a minor short-term impact. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 133

Increased visitor use may increase the potential for the introduction of new exotic species into areas (e.g., 

when visitors do not comply with boating regulations at the proposed boat ramp and other access points 

or with requests to stay on trails). The refuge will minimize these impacts by enforcing the regulations for 

access to the refuge’s water bodies and by installing informational signs that request users to stay on the 

trails. Further, through environmental education and interpretive programs, the refuge and its partners will 

be able to increase awareness and understanding of the impacts of exotic, invasive, and nuisance 

species, which will help minimize their introduction, spread, and impacts. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use increases, unanticipated conflicts between different user groups could occur. If this 

should happen, the refuge will adjust its programs, as needed, to eliminate or minimize any public 

use issues. The refuge will use methods that have proven to be effective in reducing or eliminating 

public use conflicts. These methods could include establishing separate use areas; different use 

periods; and limits on the numbers of users, in order to provide safe, high quality, appropriate, and 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to negatively affect the owners of private 

lands adjacent to the refuge. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property values, 

less intrusion of invasive exotic plants, and increased opportunities for viewing more diverse wildlife. 

However, some negative impacts that may occur include a higher frequency of trespass onto 

adjacent private lands and noise associated with increased traffic. To minimize these potential 

impacts, the refuge will provide informational signs that clearly mark refuge boundaries; maintain the 

refuge’s existing parking facilities; use law enforcement; and provide increased educational efforts at 

the visitor contact station. 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 

Land acquisition efforts by the Service could lead to changes in land use and recreational use 

patterns. Most of the non-Service-owned lands within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary are 

currently undeveloped, and these lands are already privately held and managed. If additional lands 

are acquired, they would be maintained in a natural state, managed for native wildlife populations, 

and opened to wildlife-compatible public uses, where feasible. 

Potential development of the refuge’s buildings, trails, and other improvements could lead to minor 

short-term negative impacts on plants, soils, and some wildlife species. When building structures, 

efforts would be made to use recycled products and environmentally-sensitive treated lumber. All 

construction activities would comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; the 

National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and other 

applicable regulatory requirements. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of which agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes 

such other actions (40 Code of Federal Regulations, 1508.7). 
134 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts 

can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can 

also accumulate over the course of time, from actions in the past, the present, and the future. 

Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially canceling out each other’s effect on a 

resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an 

incremental impact on the resource. In addition, sometimes the overall effect is greater than merely the 

sum of the individual effects, such as when one more reduction in a population crosses a threshold of 

reproductive sustainability and threatens to extinguish the population. 

A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects, because actions do not 

take place in a vacuum: there are virtually always some other actions that have affected that resource 

in some way in the past, or are affecting it in the present, or will affect it in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. So any assessment of a specific action’s effects must in fact be made with consideration of 

what else has happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else will likely happen to it. 

The refuge is not aware of any past, present or future planned actions that would result in a 

significant cumulative impact when added to the refuge’s proposed actions, as outlined in the 

Proposed Action. Building additional impoundments, hunting, fishing, increased visitation, and 

prescribed burning would have negligible cumulative impacts. 

Construction of new impoundments would not have any substantial cumulative effects. Additional 

impoundments would help improve water quality in Brown Creek and the Pee Dee River due to their 

sediment retention capacity. Water flow, quantity, and hydrology of refuge waterways and ponds 

would not be significantly impaired by increased impoundment acreage. 

Deer hunting would not have any long-term or far-reaching effects on the regional deer population 

since the home ranges of deer limit them primarily to the refuge. Hunting seasons would not coincide 

with breeding and nesting seasons of migratory birds, so cumulative effects caused by huntinginduced disturbance would be minimal. There would be minimal negative effects to other wildlife, 

including listed species. Conflicts between hunters and other consumptive and non-consumptive 

users are not expected to occur. Experience has proven that time and space zoning (e.g., separate 

use areas and use periods) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Expanding the turkey hunt to include the Richmond County portion of the refuge is unlikely to incur 

any negative cumulative impacts for the same reasons outlined above. 

Fishing would not cause any cumulative effects. State catch limits and periodic stocking would 

ensure that fish stocks on the refuge would not be depleted. Fishing would be limited to certain areas 

to minimize any associated wildlife disturbance effects. 

 

The cumulative impacts of increased visitation would be minimal. Although nonconsumptive users 

can impact wildlife through disturbance, the seasonal closure of vulnerable areas (e.g. where wildlife 

are foraging or nesting) and use of natural "screens" (vegetation barriers) would minimize these 

adverse effects. 

The cumulative effects of prescribed burning would be minimal. The use of relatively small, 

prescribed burns timed with favorable winds would maintain air pollution at acceptable levels. These 

managed burns would reduce fuel loads and help prevent or manage catastrophic wild fires that 

would have the potential to cause serious air quality problems. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 135

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance, but still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

The actions proposed for implementation under the Proposed Action include minor facility 

development; wildlife and population management; resource protection; public use; and 

administrative programs. These actions would result in both direct and indirect effects. The various 

programs proposed in this plan would likely lead to increased public use, a direct effect; and it, in 

turn, would lead to potential indirect effects such as increased littering, noise, and vehicular traffic. 

Other indirect effects that may result from implementing the Proposed Action include minor impacts 

from siltation expanding the water control structures, as well as expanding or creating new foot trails 

and providing greater visitor access through construction of a boat ramp. 

None of the direct or indirect effects are anticipated to be significant. 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions outlined under the Proposed Action are dedicated to 

maintaining the long-term productivity of refuge habitats. The benefits of this plan for long-term 

productivity far outweigh any impacts from short-term actions, such as the creation of new trails. 

While these activities could cause short-term negative impacts, the educational values and 

associated public support gained from the improved visitor experience would produce long-term 

benefits for the refuge’s entire ecosystem. 

The key to protecting and ensuring the refuge’s long-term productivity is to find the threshold where 

public uses do not degrade or interfere with the refuge’s natural resources. The activities outlined 

under the Proposed Action have been carefully conceived to ensure that the threshold is not passed. 

Therefore, implementing the Proposed Action would lead to long-term benefits for wildlife protection 

and land conservation that far outweigh any short-term impacts. 
136 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 137

V. Consultation and Coordination 

INTRODUCTION 

The comprehensive planning process for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge involved a wide variety of 

participants, including federal, state, and local governments; universities and other researchers; 

private nonprofit groups; and the Friends of the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, as well as local 

residents, local businesses, concerned citizens from all over the country, universities, and state and 

national organizations. Outreach efforts by the refuge and news coverage by the media have spread 

across the country. The list of participants, beyond those individuals and organizations providing 

comments during the public scoping process, includes the Core CCP Planning Team; the Wildlife and 

Habitat Management Review Team; the Visitor Services Review Team; the Wilderness Review 

Team; the Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team; and other parties. 

CORE CCP PLANNING TEAM 

The Core CCP Planning Team included representatives from the refuge and the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission, as well as the Dynamac Corporation, a Service contractor. The 

team met as a whole to review all issues, determine the priority issues, and identify potential 

solutions or approaches. A subset of the Core Planning Team, consisting of the refuge staff and 

the Service contractor, developed the Draft CCP/EA, based on the information and direction 

provided by the Core Planning Team. 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Jeffrey Bricken, Refuge Manager 

y Greg Walmsley, Assistant Refuge Manager 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

y Ken Knight, Supervising Wildlife Biologist 

y Jonathan Shaw, Wildlife Biologist 

Dynamac Corporation (Contractor) 

y Oliver van den Ende, Environmental Scientist/Ecologist 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT REVIEW TEAM 

The Wildlife and Habitat Management Review Team included a core group of Service staff with 

invited participants and was organized by staff at the refuge and the Service’s Southeast Regional 

Office. The invited participants included local and regional experts, researchers, and individuals with 

intimate knowledge of and experience regarding the resources of the refuge. These participants 

included representatives from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina 

Forest Service, Ducks Unlimited, and Gaddy’s Goose Pond. The wildlife and habitat management 

review was conducted in July 2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Jeffrey Bricken, Refuge Manager, Pee Dee NWR, Wadesboro, North Carolina 

y Pete Campbell, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Raleigh Ecological Services Sub-office, Southern 

Pines, North Carolina 

y Don Cockman, Deputy Refuge Manager, Carolina Sandhills NWR, McBee, South Carolina 
138 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Stephen Earsom, Regional Ecologist, Raleigh Ecological Services Office, Raleigh, North 

Carolina 

y Greg Walmsley, Assistant Refuge Manager, Pee Dee NWR, Wadesboro, North Carolina 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

y Joe Fuller, Migratory Bird Coordinator, NCWRC, Edenton, North Carolina 

y Mark Johns, Wildlife Biologist/North Carolina Partners in Flight Coordinator, Cary, North 

Carolina 

y Ken Knight, Supervising Wildlife Biologist, NCWRC, Albemarle, North Carolina 

y Jeff Marcus, Piedmont Faunal Diversity Biologist , NCWRC, Aberdeen, North Carolina 

y Terry Sharpe, Wildlife Biologist, NCWRC, Hoffman, North Carolina 

y Jonathan Shaw, Wildlife Biologist, NCWRC, Albemarle, North Carolina 

North Carolina Forest Service 

y Carl Griffin, Regional Forester, NCFS, Wadesboro, North Carolina 

y Tim Mc Fayden, Assistant Regional Forester, NCFS, Lilesville, North Carolina 

Other Invited Experts 

y Collin Smith, Regional Biologist, Ducks Unlimited, Greenville, North Carolina 

y Buck Wheless, Manager, Gaddy’s Goose Pond, Ansonville, North Carolina 

VISITOR SERVICES REVIEW TEAM 

The Visitor Services Review Team consisted of Service staff from Pee Dee NWR, the Southeast 

Regional Office, and other refuges. The review team met with the Refuge Manager, Jeffrey 

Bricken, and Assistant Refuge Manager, Greg Walmsley. The public use review for the refuge 

was conducted in August 2006. 

 

y Garry Tucker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Visitor Services and Outreach, 

Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

y Diane Barth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex, 

Lacombe, Louisiana 

y Ray Paterra, Cape Romain NWR 

WILDERNESS REVIEW TEAM 

The Wilderness Review Team consisted of staff from the Pee Dee NWR. The wilderness review was 

completed in June 2007. 

y Jeffrey Bricken, Refuge Manager, Pee Dee NWR 

y Greg Walmsley, Assistant Refuge Manager, Pee Dee NWR 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION PLANNING TEAM 

The participants of the Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team included local, state, and 

federal governmental field staff representatives involved with the resources at the local and regional 

levels, including representatives from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An intergovernmental scoping 

meeting was held in March 2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Allyne Askins, Refuge Manager, Carolina Sandhills NWR, McBee, South Carolina 

y Jeffrey Bricken, Refuge Manager, Pee Dee NWR, Wadesboro, North Carolina 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 139

y Pete Campbell, Wildlife Biologist, Sandhills Ecological Services Sub-office, Southern Pines, 

North Carolina 

y John Stanton, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Columbia Migratory Bird Field Office, Columbia, 

North Carolina 

y Greg Walmsley, Assistant Refuge Manager, Pee Dee NWR, Wadesboro, North Carolina 

y Oliver van den Ende, Environmental Scientist, Dynamac Corporation (Service contractor), 

Cape Canaveral, Florida 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (mailed comments) 

y Stephanie Goglia, District Conservationist, Wadesboro, North Carolina 

Native American Tribes (mailed comments) 

y Dr. Wenonah Haire, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Catawba Indian Nation, Rock Hill, 

South Carolina 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

y Ken Knight, Supervising Wildlife Biologist, NCWRC, Albemarle, North Carolina 

y Jonathan Shaw, Wildlife Biologist, NCWRC, Albemarle, North Carolina 

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 

y John Mintz, Archaeologist, NCD.C.R, Raleigh, North Carolina 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 

y Michael Shafale, Community Ecologist, Raleigh, North Carolina 

Anson County 

y Andy Lucas, County Manager, Wadesboro, North Carolina 

In addition, a variety of other governmental representatives were kept informed throughout the 

planning process, including the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Eastern Federal Lands Highway 

Division; the Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources; U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Geological Survey; North Carolina 

Division of Forest Resources; Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin Water Supply Planning; and the Anson 

County Agricultural Office. 
140 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 141

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in a management plan. Analysis of results helps 

managers determine whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated 

need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of objectives 

and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as biodiversity. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the 

national wildlife refuge [50 CFR 25.12 (a)]. A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan:

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: See Issue 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 
142 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for 

the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 

(Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the 

nature and extent of known cultural resources, previous research, 

management objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, 

and a general statement on how program objectives should be met 

and conflicts resolved. An overview should reference or incorporate 

information from a field office’s background or literature search 

described in Section VIII of the Cultural Resource Management 

Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Designated Wilderness 

Area:

An area designated by the U.S. Congress to be managed as part of 

the National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service Manual 

610 FW 1.5). 

Disturbance: Substantial alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be 

natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in 

the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or 

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 
Section C. Appendices 143

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose 

and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to 

prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no 

significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives.

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Informed Consent: The grudging willingness of opponents to “go along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision [e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K)]. 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative 

Management Concern: See Issue 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue 
144 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the environmental 

impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, 

and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision-making (40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service is 

required to develop 15-year comprehensive conservation plans for all 

national wildlife refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the six 

public uses given priority status within the Refuge System (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; game ranges; wildlife management areas; or 

waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the Refuge System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States. 

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (P.L. 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 
Section C. Appendices 145

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Making objectives attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

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. 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May occur from natural 

ignition or intentional ignition. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that require protective measures and/or 

management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority species 

include the following: (1) state-listed and candidate species; (2) species 

or groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines 

within a specific area or statewide by virtue of their inclination to 

aggregate (e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of recreation, 

commercial, and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

conservation planning process. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of federal, state, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 
146 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

“The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit.” For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 602 FW 106 S). 

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior, and recommended for designation by the 

President to Congress. These areas await only legislative action by 

Congress in order to become part of the Wilderness System. Such 

areas are also referred to as “pending in Congress” (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were not), 

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge 

Residuum Residue, often used in reference to soil origins. 

Siltation The deposition or accumulation of silt. 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that is medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, and safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP, the study area includes the lands within the 

currently approved refuge boundary and potential refuge expansion 

areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 
Section C. Appendices 147

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Unit Objective: See Objective 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other 

mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study area must meet the 

following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; and 

 Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3 
148 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ac acres 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DU Ducks Unlimited 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE environmental education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FR Federal Register 

ft feet 

FTE full-time equivalent 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also: Service) 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

ha hectares 

in inches 

m meters 

NCWAP North Carolina’s Wildlife Action Plan 

NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PDNWR Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

PFT Permanent Full Time 

PUNA Public Use Natural Area 

RM Refuge Manual 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

SCONC State Climate Office of North Carolina 

SSPDE Savannah-Santee- Pee Dee Ecosystem 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

USC United States Code 
Section C. Appendices 149

Appendix B. References and Literature Cited 

Alderman, J.M. 2005. Pee Dee Aquatic Inventory in North Carolina: Interim Report. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Challenge Cost-share study. 64 pp. 

Anderson, D.G. and M.R. Bryant. 2000. Archaeological Survey on the Pee Dee National Wildlife 

Refuge. Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida. SEAC 

Technical Report No. 7. 111 pp. 

Ballard, W. B, M. C. Wallace, J. H. Brunjes, R. Philips, D. Holdstock, G. Hall, R. Houchin, R. Huffman, 

J. Vacca, M. Miller, J. Bonner, C. Ruthven, R. Applegate and P. Gipson. 2003. Changes in 

Land Use Patterns and their Effects on Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in the Rolling Plains of Texas 

and Southwest Kansas (Annual Report, 2003). Submitted to the Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. 

Brundige, G.C. 1993. Predation Ecology of the Eastern Coyote (Canis latrans var.) in the Central 

Adirondacks, New York. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York, College of 

Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York. 194 pp. 

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Halieaeetus leucocephalus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The 

Birds of North America, No. 564. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Burger, J. 1978. Competition between cattle egrets and native North American herons, egrets and 

ibises. Condor 80:15-23. 

Cooper, P.P. II and K.M. Derting. 1976. Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Resources Survey of 

Proposed Impoundment Areas #1 and #2, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, Ansonville, North 

Carolina. Museum of Anthropology, Catawba College, Salisbury, North Carolina. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Purchase Order SFWB 52271. 106 pp. 

Crosby, G.T. 1972. Spread of egret in the western hemisphere. Bird–Banding 43:205-211. 

Dolbeer, R.A., P.P. Woronecki, A.R. Stickley, Jr. and S.B. White. 1978. Agricultural impact of a 

winter population of blackbirds and starlings. Wilson Bulletin 90:31-44. 

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 

1940. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 460 pp. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Currently Designated Non-attainment Areas for All Criteria 

Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl3.html 

Francis, J.K. 1983. Acorn Production and Tree Growth of Nuttall Oak in a Green Tree Reservoir. 

New Orleans, Louisiana: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest 

Experiment Station, Research Note SO-289. 3 pp. 

Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous Fishes !ntroduced into Inland Waters 

of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, 

New York, New York. 250 pp. 
150 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Gammons, D.J. 2004. Early fall coyote foods in Campbell and Bath counties, Virginia. Banisteria

23:45-47.f 

Garrow, P.H. 1979. A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, Anson 

and Richmond Counties, North Carolina. Prepared under contract with Interagency Archaeological 

Services, Atlanta Georgia, Order # PX 5880-8-0189. SSI Earth Systems Division. 36 pp. 

Garrott, R.A., P.J. White and C.A. Vanderbilt White. 1993. Overabundance: an issue for 

conservation biologists? Conservation Biology 7:946-949. 

Gowaty, P.A. 1984. House sparrows kill eastern bluebirds. Journal of Field Ornithology 55:378-380. 

Haag, W.R., D.J. Berg, D.W. Garton and J.L. Farris. 1993. Reduced survival and fitness in native 

bivalves in response to fouling by the introduced zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in 

western Lake Erie. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:13-19. 

Henke, S.E. 2002. Coyotes: friend or foe of northern bobwhite in southern Texas? Pages 57–60 in 

S.J. DeMaso, W.P. Kuvlesky, Jr., F. Hernandez and M.E. Berger, eds., Quail V: Proceedings of 

the Fifth National Quail Symposium. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. 

Hill, E.P., P.W. Sumner and J.B. Wooding. 1987. Human influences on range expansion of coyotes 

in the southeast. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:521-524. 

Hill, K.R. 1999. Evaluation of the Impact of Common Carp on an Intensively Managed Largemouth 

Bass, Channel Catfish, and Panfish Fishery. Federal Aid to Fish Restoration Completion Report: 

Small Reservoir Investigations, Project No. F-160-R. Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 

Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and 

Distribution. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 

Hooper, R.G., A.F. Robinson, and J.A. Jackson. 1980. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Notes on 

Life History and Management. U.S. Forest Service, Southeastern Area, State and Private 

Forestry, General Report SA-GR 9. 8 pp. 

Horton, J.W., Jr. and V.A. Zullo, eds. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas: Carolina Geological 

Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume. Knoxville, Tennessee: The University of Tennessee Press 

and Carolina Geological Society. 406 pp. 

Houben, J.M. 2004. Status and management of coyote depredation in the eastern United States. 

Sheep & Goat Research Journal 19:80-84. 

Hupp, C.R. and G.B. Noe. 2006. Sediment and nutrient accumulation within lowland bottomland 

ecosystems: an example from the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana. Pages 175–187 in 

Proceedings Hydrology and Management of Forested Wetlands. American Society of 

Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 

Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2007. Sus scrofa. Global Invasive Species Database, World 

Conservation Union. http://www.issg.org. Accessed 17 Dec. 2007. 

Joy, D. 1994. Archaeological Study at Site 31AN165 for the Replacement of Bridge 8 over Brown 

Creek TIP B-2506 in the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, Division of Highways, Planning and Environmental Branch, Raleigh, North 

Carolina. Permit Number 02-NC-1-94. 31 pp. 
Section C. Appendices 151

Karr, B.L., G.L. Young, J.D. Hodges and others. 1990. Effect of Flooding on Green Tree Reservoirs. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Completion Report G1571-03. 

Kerpez, T.A. and N.S. Smith. 1990. Competition between European starlings and native 

woodpeckers for nest cavities in saguaros. Auk 107:367-375. 

King, S.L. 1995. Effects of flooding regimes on two impounded bottomland hardwood stands. 

Wetlands 15:272-284. 

King, S.L. and J.A. Allen. 1996. Plant succession and green tree reservoir management: 

implications for management and restoration of bottomland hardwood wetlands. 

Wetlands 16: 503-511. 

Laycock, George. 1965. The Sign of the Flying Goose: A Guide to the National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. 299 pp. 

Leff, L.G., J.L. Burch and J.V. McArthur. 1990. Spatial distribution, seston removal, and potential 

competitive interactions of the bivalves Corbicula fluminea and Elliptio complanata in a coastal 

plain stream. Freshwater Biology 24:409-416. 

Miller, James H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for 

Identification and Control. Asheville, North Carolina: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS–62. 93 pp. 

 

Morse, L.E., L.S. Kutner, G.D. Maddox, J.T. Kartesz, L.L. Honey, C.M. Thurman and S.J. Chaplin. 1993. 

The Potential Effects of Climate Change on the Native Vascular Flora of North America: A 

Preliminary Climate-envelopes Analysis. Report TR-103330, Electric Power Research Institute, 

Palo Alto, California. 

Mott, D. 1980. Dispersing blackbirds and starlings from objectionable roost sites. Proceedings of 

the Vertebrate Pest Conference 9:38-42. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. Climate Report, National Weather 

Service, Greenville-Spartanburg, SC, 130 AM EST MON DEC 17 2007. National Weather 

Service Forecast Office. http://www.weather.gov/climate. Accessed 17 Dec. 2007. 

Nelson, H.K. and R.B. Oetting. 1981. Management of Canada geese and their recent urbanization. 

In Fourth International Waterfowl Symposium. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., New Orleans, 

Louisiana. 10 pp. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Standard Operating 

Procedure for Biological Monitoring: Stream Fish Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. 

Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Environmental Sciences Branch, Biological 

Assessment Unit. 34 pp. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2002a. North Carolina Water 

Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List, Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. Division of 

Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina. 184 pp. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2002b. Natural Heritage 

Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. Division of Parks and Recreation, 

Natural Heritage Program. 113 pp. 
152 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council. 2007. http://www.ncwater.org/drought/ 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2004. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 

Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.ncnhp.org/ 

Noss, R.F. and R.L. Peters. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report on America's 

Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.. 

Patterson, B.R. and F. Messier. 2003. Age and condition of deer killed by coyotes in Nova Scotia. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 81(11):1894-1898. 

Pine, W. E. III, T.J. Kwak, D.S. Waters and J.R. Rice. 2005. Diet selectivity of introduced flathead 

catfish in coastal rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:901-909. 

Progress Energy. 2005a. Fisheries Survey of the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge: Investigations 

of Brown Creek and Associated Tributaries on the Pee Dee River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Challenge Cost-share Agreement 1448-40181-02-G-251. 22 pp. 

Progress Energy. 2005b. Shallow Water Fish, Crayfish and Mussel Surveys of the Pee Dee River 

and Tributaries. Yadkin–Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project FERC, No. 2206. Water 

Resources Group Issue No. 1: Describe Current Resident River Aquatic Resources of 

Project Area. 88 pp. 

Quimby, P.C., Jr. and S.H. Kay. 1976. Alligatorweed and water quality in two oxbow lakes of the 

Yazoo River basin. Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Science 21 (supplement): 13. 

Radunzel, L.A., D.M. Muschitz, V.M. Bauldry and P. Arcese. 1997. A long-term study of the breeding 

success of eastern bluebirds by year and cavity type. Journal of Field Ornithology 68:7-18. 

Robinson, D. and W. Singleton. 1991. Forest Habitat Management Plan, Pee Dee National Wildlife 

Refuge, Anson and Richmond Counties, North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pee 

Dee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Rogers, J.J.W. 1999. History and Environment of North Carolina's Piedmont: Evolution of a Value 

Added Society. University of North Carolina. 107 pp. 

Rodgers, J. A., Jr., and H.T. Smith. 1995. Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea). In A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 145. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.. 

Rudolph, R.R. and C.G. Hunter. 1964. Green-trees and green-heads. Pages 611–618 in J.P. 

Linduska, ed., Waterfowl Tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. 

611-618. 

Côté, S.D., T.P. Rooney, J.P. Tremblay, C. Dussault and D.M. Waller. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer 

overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics (35):113-147. 

Shugart, H.H., R.A. Sedjo and B.L. Sohngen. 2003. Forests and Global Climate Change: Potential 

Impacts on U.S. Forest Resources. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia. 

Somers, C.M. and R.D. Morris. 2002. Birds and wine grapes: foraging activity causes small-scale 

damage patterns in single vineyards. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:511-523. 
Section C. Appendices 153

State Climate Office of North Carolina. 2006. General Summary of N.C. Climate. http://www.ncclimate.ncsu.edu/climate/ncclimate.html 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development. Office of 

Science, Office of Fossil Energy. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan: 

Ensuring the Future of Fossil Energy Systems through the Successful Deployment of Carbon 

Capture and Storage Technologies. Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory. 84 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Census Bureau. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. 

Washington, D.C.. 131 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan. Southeast Regional 

Office, Atlanta, Georgia. 32 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

Washington, D.C.. 24 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Restoration Plan for 

the Diadromous Fishes of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, North and South Carolina. 30 pp. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. North Carolina Drought Watch. 

http://www.NC.water.USGS.gov/drought. Accessed: 17 Dec. 2007. 

Walther, G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J.M. Fromentin, O. 

Hoegh-Guldberg and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature

416:389-395. 

Warren, M.L., Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart, Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, B.R. 

Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, 

distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fish of the southern United States. 

Fisheries 25:7-29. 

Wigley, T.B. and T.H. Filer, Jr. 1989. Characteristics of green tree reservoirs: a survey of managers. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:136-142. 

Williams J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservation 

status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22. 

Williams, C.K., F.S. Guthery, R.D. Applegate and M.J. Peterson. 2004. The northern bobwhite 

decline: scaling our management for the twenty-first century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

32:861-869. 

Young, G.L., B.D. Karr, B.L. Leopold and J.D. Hodges. 1995. Effects of green tree reservoir 

management on Mississippi bottomland hardwoods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:525-531. 
154 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of 

North America, No. 231. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 

The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 
Section C. Appendices 155

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and 

Executive Orders 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures Act (1946) Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal 

agencies with respect to identification of information to be 

made public; publication of material in the Federal Register; 

maintenance of records; attendance and notification 

requirements for specific meetings and hearings; issuance of 

licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 1906 Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, 

or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments, or 

objects of antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the 

United States. The Act authorizes the President to 

designate as national monuments objects or areas of 

historic or scientific interest on lands owned or controlled 

by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, 

express, and exercise their traditional religions, including 

access to important sites, use and possession of sacred 

objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonial 

and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities Act of 

1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American 

society more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act 

requires reasonable accommodations to be made in 

employment, public services, public accommodations, and 

telecommunications for persons with disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act 

of 1965, as amended 

Authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to enter 

into cooperative agreements with states and other non-federal 

interests for conservation, development, and enhancement of 

anadromous fish and contribute up to 50 percent as the 

federal share of the cost of carrying out such agreements. 

Reclamation construction programs for water resource 

projects needed solely for such fish are also authorized. 

Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act of 1979, as amended. 

This Act strengthens and expands the protective provisions 

of the Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological 

resources. It also revised the permitting process for 

archaeological research. 
156 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, 

or altered with federal funds, or leased by a federal agency, 

must comply with standards for physical accessibility. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act of 1940, as amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale or transport of any bald or 

golden eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as 

permitted by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or 

exhibition purposes, or for the religious purposes of Indians. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile 

sources. This Act and its amendments charge federal land 

managers with direct responsibility to protect the “air quality 

and related values” of land under their control. These 

values include fish, wildlife, and their habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, as 

amended 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the 

restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of 

the Act requires that federally permitted activities comply 

with the Clean Water Act standards, state water quality 

laws, and any other appropriate state laws. Section 404 

charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regulating 

discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land 

and Water Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior 

prohibition on such acquisitions. The Act requires the 

Secretary to establish a National Wetlands Priority 

Conservation Plan, required the states to include wetlands 

in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts 

equal to import duties on arms and ammunition. It also 

established entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and 

endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by federal 

action and by encouraging the establishment of state 

programs. It provides for the determination and listing of 

threatened and endangered species and the designation of 

critical habitats. Section 7 requires refuge managers to 

perform internal consultation before initiating projects that 

affect or may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990 This Act established the Office of Environmental Education 

within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop 

and administer a federal environmental education program in 

consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Section C. Appendices 157

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Food Security Act of 1985, as 

amended (Farm Bill) 

The Act contains several provisions that contribute to 

wetland conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state 

that farmers who convert wetlands for the purpose of 

planting after enactment of the law are ineligible for most 

farmer program subsidies. It also established the Wetland 

Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands through 

easements and restoration of the functions and values of 

wetlands on such easement areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 

1981, as amended 

The purpose of this law is to minimize the extent to which 

federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion 

of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Federal programs 

include construction projects and the management of 

federal lands. 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(1972), as amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for 

committees that provide advice to the federal government. 

Advisory committees may be established only if they will 

serve a necessary, nonduplicative function. Committees 

must be strictly advisory unless otherwise specified and 

meetings must be open to the public. 

Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1968 Established requirements for approval of federal highways 

through national wildlife refuges and other designated 

areas to preserve the natural beauty of such areas. The 

Secretary of Transportation is directed to consult with the 

Secretary of the Interior and other federal agencies before 

approving any program or project requiring the use of land 

under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1990, 

as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to 

designate plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with 

other federal, State and local agencies, farmers’ 

associations, and private individuals in measures to control, 

eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such weeds. 

The Act requires each Federal land-managing agency, 

including the Fish and Wildlife Service, to designate an 

office or person to coordinate a program to control such 

plants on the agency’s land and implement cooperative 

agreements with the states, including integrated 

management systems to control undesirable plants. 
158 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife resources policy with emphasis on the commercial 

fishing industry but also includes the inherent right of every 

citizen and resident to fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and 

betterment and to maintain and increase public 

opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to take such steps as may be required for the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, 

and protection of fish and wildlife resources including, but 

not limited to, research, development of existing facilities, 

and acquisition by purchase or exchange of land and water 

or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 

1980, as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, 

identify species of management concern, and implement 

conservation measures to preclude the need for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 

1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development 

programs by requiring consultation with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the state fish and wildlife agencies 

where the “waters of a stream or other body of water are 

proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be 

impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or modified” 

by any agency under federal permit or license. 

Improvement Act of 1978 This act was passed to improve the administration of fish 

and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, 

including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary to accept 

gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf 

of the United States. It also authorizes the use of 

volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry 

out volunteer programs. 

Fishery (Magnuson) Conservation 

and Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils 

comprised of federal and state officials, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. It provides for regulation of foreign 

fishing and vessel fishing permits. 
Section C. Appendices 159

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Freedom of Information Act, 1966 Requires all federal agencies to make available to the 

public for inspection and copying administrative staff 

manuals and staff instructions; official, published and 

unpublished policy statements; final orders deciding case 

adjudication; and other documents. Special exemptions 

have been reserved for nine categories of privileged 

material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as amended Originally designed to help states protect their native game 

animals and to safeguard U.S. crop production from 

harmful foreign species, this Act prohibits interstate and 

international transport and commerce of fish, wildlife or 

plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. It 

regulates the introduction to America of foreign species. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Act of 1948 

This Act provides funding through receipts from the sale of 

surplus federal land, appropriations from oil and gas 

receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources 

for land acquisition under several authorities. 

Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching 

grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for land 

acquisition by various federal agencies, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to 

approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the 

Interior for acquisition with Migratory Bird Conservation 

Funds. The role of the commission was expanded by the 

North American Wetland Conservation Act to include 

approving wetlands acquisition, restoration, and 

enhancement proposals recommended by the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 

Also commonly referred to as the “Duck Stamp Act,” requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp 

are deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for 

the acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as 

amended 

This Act implements various treaties and conventions 

between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, 

and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory 

birds. Except as allowed by special regulations, this Act 

makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, 

buy, sell, purchase, barter, export or import any migratory 

bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 
160 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National and Community Service Act 

of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. 

in full-and/or part-time projects designed to combat 

illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance 

educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. Among 

other things, this law establishes the American 

Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, 

which will benefit the public or are carried out on federal or 

Indian lands. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for 

environmental impacts of federal actions. It stipulates the 

factors to be considered in environmental impact 

statements, and requires that federal agencies employ an 

interdisciplinary approach in related decision-making and 

develop means to ensure that unqualified environmental 

values are given appropriate consideration, along with 

economic and technical considerations. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a 

program of matching grants for preservation of significant 

historical features. Federal agencies are directed to take 

into account the effects of their actions on items or sites 

listed or eligible for listing in the National Register. 

National Trails System Act (1968), as 

amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the 

recreational, scenic, and historic values of some important 

trails. National recreation trails may be established by the 

Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture on land wholly or partly 

within their jurisdiction, with the consent of the involved 

state(s), and other land managing agencies, if any. 

National scenic and national historic trails may only be 

designated by Congress. Several national trails cross units 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single federal law that 

governed the administration of the various national wildlife 

refuges that had been established. This Act defines the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of a refuge 

provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the refuge was established. 
Section C. Appendices 161

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 

This Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. This Act defines the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, establishes the 

legitimacy and appropriateness of six priority wildlifedependent public uses, establishes a formal process for 

determining compatible uses of Refuge System lands, 

identifies the Secretary of the Interior as responsible for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System, and requires 

the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for 

all refuges outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, 

determine ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural 

items and human remains under their control or 

possession. The Act also addresses the repatriation of 

cultural items inadvertently discovered by construction 

activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grant program to fund projects that 

promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in 

the united States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for 

implementation of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on 

wetlands between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Council was 

created to recommend projects to be funded under the Act 

to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Available 

funds may be expended for up to 50 percent of the United 

States’ share cost of wetlands conservation projects in 

Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of 

the cost of projects on federal lands). 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as 

amended 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for 

recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with the 

area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and 

maintenance of recreational facilities and the acquisition of 

land for incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational 

development or protection of natural resources. It also 

authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 
162 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act of 1992 Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to 

assist the state fish and game agencies in carrying out their 

responsibilities for conservation of non-game species. The 

funding formula is no more that 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 

foundation funds, and at least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 

1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local 

government within the county, which suffer losses in tax 

revenues due to the establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of 

federal agencies of the executive branch and contractors. 

It also requires all federally assisted programs, services, 

and activities to be available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations 

Act of 1899, as amended 

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under a 

navigable water of the United States. The Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act provides authority for the Service to 

review and comment on the effects on fish and wildlife 

activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the 

Corps of Engineers. Service concerns include 

contaminated sediments associated with dredge or fill 

projects in navigable waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as amended Provides for the cooperation by the Departments of Interior 

and Defense with state agencies in planning, development, 

and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor 

recreation facilities on military reservations throughout the 

United States. It requires the Secretary of each military 

department to use trained professionals to manage the 

wildlife and fishery resource under his jurisdiction, and 

requires that federal and state fish and wildlife agencies be 

given priority in management of fish and wildlife activities 

on military reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for 

Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration, real 

property no longer needed by a federal agency can be 

transferred, without reimbursement, to the Secretary of the 

Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to 

a state agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 
Section C. Appendices 163

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires 

transportation planning that includes public involvement, 

and provides funding for approved public use roads and 

trails and associated parking lots, comfort stations, and 

bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

Uniform Relocation and Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons 

who sell their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. 

The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less than 

the fair market value of the property. 

Water Resources Planning Act of 

1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of 

Cabinet representatives including the Secretary of the 

Interior. The Council reviews river basin plans with respect 

to agricultural, urban, energy, industrial, recreational and 

fish and wildlife needs. The act also established a grant 

program to assist States in participating in the development 

of related comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 

as amended 

This Act selects certain rivers of the nation possessing 

remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

historic, cultural, or other similar values; preserves them in 

a free-flowing condition; and protects their local 

environments. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended This Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to review every 

roadless area of 5,000 acres or more and every roadless 

island regardless of size within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and to recommend suitability of each such area. 

The Act permits certain activities within designated 

wilderness areas that do not alter natural processes. 

Wilderness values are preserved through a “minimum tool” 

management approach, which requires refuge managers to 

use the least intrusive methods, equipment, and facilities 

necessary for administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps Act of 

1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

program within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. 

Within the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks 

on refuges, fish hatcheries, and research stations. 
164 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and 

Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic sites, 

the Service will consult with Federal and State Historic 

Preservation Officers to comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles 

on Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the use 

of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and 

directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to 

promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to 

minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent federal 

agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated 

with occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the 

“direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In the 

course of fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies 

“shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize 

the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and 

to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

served by floodplains.” 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 

of EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted by offroad vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(1977) 

Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership and 

take action to minimize the destruction, loss of degradation 

of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental 

Review of Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by requiring 

federal agencies to use the state process to determine and 

address concerns of state and local elected officials with 

proposed federal assistance and development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice 

(1994) 

Requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and low-income 

populations. 
Section C. Appendices 165

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating 

Geographical Data Acquisition and 

Access (1994), Amended by EO 

13286 (2003). Amendment of EOs 

and other actions in connection with 

transfer of certain functions to 

Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with state, local, and tribal governments, and 

the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial Data 

Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

applications of geospatial data. Of particular importance to 

comprehensive conservation planning is the National 

Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), which is the 

adopted standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCS 

facilitates the compilation of regional and national 

summaries, which in turn, can provide an ecosystem 

context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries 

(1995) 

Federal agencies are directed to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. 

aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing 

opportunities in cooperation with states and tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American 

Religious Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting the 

physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for the 

purpose of natural resource and environmental protection, 

economic revitalization, and historic and cultural 

preservation. The Act directs Federal agencies to 

preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their associated 

resources important to our history, culture, and natural 

heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that have 

tribal implications. 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Federal agencies are directed to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to and control 

populations of such species in a cost effective and 

environmentally sound manner, accurately monitor invasive 

species, provide for restoration of native species and 

habitat conditions, conduct research to prevent 

introductions and to control invasive species, and promote 

public education on invasive species and the means to 

address them. This EO replaces and rescinds EO 11987, 

Exotic Organisms (1977). 
166 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds. (2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by 

several means, including the incorporation of strategies 

and recommendations found in Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation plans, the North American Waterfowl Plan, 

the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the 

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, into agency 

management plans and guidance documents. 
Section C. Appendices 167

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

A public scoping meeting was held on January 25, 2007, to solicit comments from the public 

regarding the development of comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for Pee Dee National Wildlife 

Refuge. The meeting provided information about the refuge’s current management and the 

comprehensive conservation planning process. The meeting was well attended. 

Comment forms were made available at the scoping meeting and at the refuge headquarters. In 

addition, periodic refuge planning updates were posted on the Pee Dee NWR website to provide the 

public with the progress of the plan and upcoming milestones. Individuals could also sign to be on a 

mailing list and obtain information via regular mail. 

The public comments received are summarized below. Most comments were supportive of the 

refuge and its management actions. These comments were used by the planning team to help guide 

development of the goals, objectives, and strategies found in the comprehensive conservation plan. 

y Wildlife and Habitat Management (including the need for pine stand thinning; continue 

quail management; need for feral hog and coyote control; continue cooperative farming; 

prohibiting the use of moist soil management and water manipulation practices; 

implementing a biological assessment and inventory all flora and fauna; and assess 

nonlethal wildlife management techniques). 

y Resource Protection (including acquiring additional lands for the refuge). 

y Visitor Services (including need to continue current hunting programs; banning all hunting 

from the refuge; and evaluate all public use activities and regulate as necessary). 

y Refuge Administration (including increasing the refuge staff). 
168 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 169

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations 

PEE DEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If a proposed use is not appropriate, it will 

not be allowed and a compatibility determination will not be undertaken. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses: As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, 

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

determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still determine if these uses 

are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations: States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers take of wildlife 

under such regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the 

activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee. This law provides 

the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The Act does not authorize any particular use, but rather authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible and “under such regulations 

as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses that, when compatible, are 

legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The law states “... it is the policy of the 

United States that ... compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general 

public use of the System ...compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general 

public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and 

management; and ... when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational 

use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated ... the Secretary shall ... 

ensure that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other 

general public uses in planning and management within the System ...” The law also states “in 

administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: ... issue 

regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the standards set in the Act by providing 

enhanced consideration of priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere 

with our ability to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
170 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do 

not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational 

development or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. §410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. The Service must comply with Executive Order 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires the Service to designate areas as open or closed to 

off-highway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict 

among the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend 

or rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Further, Executive 

Order 11989 requires the Service to close areas to off-highway vehicles when it is determined that 

the use causes or will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or 

cultural or historic resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use. A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four 

conditions: 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

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

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

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 the Service’s 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. 
Section C. Appendices 171

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ____Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge________________________________ 

Use: ____Boating_____________________________________________________________

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 ___No _X_

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate___X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
172 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ____Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge_______________________________________

Use: ____Camping and Picnicking______________________________________________________

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

 X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

 X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___No _X_

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate__ X__ Appropriate__ ___ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Section C. Appendices 173

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ____Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge_______________________________________

Use: ____Rock, Fossil and Artifact Collecting and Metal Detector Use___________________________

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

 X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

 X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate__ X__ Appropriate__ ___ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
174 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ____Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge_______________________________________

Use: ____Horseback Riding, Jogging and Bicycling_________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

/(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate___X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Section C. Appendices 175

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ____Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge_______________________________________

Use: ____Off-road Vehicles____________________________________________________________

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 ___No _X_

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate__ X__ Appropriate__ ___ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
176 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ____Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge_______________________________________

Use: ____Sunbathing, Swimming and Waterskiing__________________________________________

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 ___No _X_

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate__ X___ Appropriate_____ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Section C. Appendices 177

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ____Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge_______________________________________

Use: ____Timber Harvest______________________________________________________________

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X__No __

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate__ __ Appropriate__X___ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
178 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ____Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge________________________________ 

Use: ____Cooperative Farming___________________________________________________

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_No __

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate___X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Section C. Appendices 179

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

PEE DEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Introduction: The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed several uses for compatibility during the 

comprehensive conservation planning process for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. The descriptions 

and anticipated impacts of each of these uses are addressed separately. However, the Uses through 

Public Review and Comment sections and the Approval of Compatibility Determinations section apply to 

each use. If one of these uses is considered outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pee 

Dee National Wildlife Refuge, then those sections become part of that compatibility determination. 

Uses: The following uses were evaluated and found to be compatible with the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes of the refuge: (1) boating; (2) deer and feral hog hunting; 

(3) turkey hunting; (4) small game hunting; (5) fishing; (6) wildlife observation and photography; (7) 

environmental education and interpretation; (8) bicycling and jogging; (9) horseback riding; (10) 

timber harvest; and (11) cooperative farming. 

Refuge Name: Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1963 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority): Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Refuge Purpose: “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for 

migratory birds.” 16 USC §715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

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

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

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

future generations of Americans.

Public Review and Comment: 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge’s compatibility determinations are being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the refuge’s Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA). Public 

comments on these compatibility determinations are invited and are due by the deadline stated on 

the cover of the Draft CCP/EA. 

The methods being used to solicit public review and comment include a Notice of Availability for 

public review of the Draft CCP/EA published in the Federal Register; notices posted at the refuge 

headquarters; news releases sent to area newspapers; public service announcements sent to local 

radio stations; and copies of the Draft CCP/EA distributed to adjacent landowners, the general public, 

and local, state, and federal agencies. In addition, the Friends of the Pee Dee National Wildlife 

Refuge is assisting in the outreach effort. 
180 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Boating

Boating is not one of the Refuge System's six priority public uses, but the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) allows refuge managers to authorize the use of boats in national wildlife refuges. 

A portion of Pee Dee NWR can only be accessed or viewed via the navigable waters of the Pee Dee 

River. Therefore, boating is an important facilitator of several priority public uses on the refuge. 

There is no public boat landing on the refuge. Motorized and nonmotorized boating are analyzed in 

this compatibility determination. 

Availability of Resources: Operation and maintenance funds to support boating would be taken 

from the refuge’s annual budget, which would need to be increased to sustain the program. 

Additional funds of approximately $5000 would primarily be needed for current law enforcement 

officers to ensure that the boating public adheres to refuge rules and regulations. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Boating has been shown to alter distribution, reduce use of 

particular habitats by birds, alter feeding behavior, and cause premature departure from areas. 

Impacts of boating can occur even at low densities, given the ability of powerboats to cover extensive 

areas in a short amount of time, the noise they produce, and their speed (Sterling and Dzubin 1967; 

Bergman 1973; Speight 1973; Skagen 1980; Korschgen et al. 1985; Kahl 1991; Bauer et al. 1992; 

Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). Wildlife responds differently to boats based on their size, speed, the 

amount of noise they make, and how close the crafts get to wildlife. Boats increase the access of 

visitors to areas not open to most other visitors, thus having a greater potential to cause wildlife 

disturbance if not managed properly. The speed and manner in which a boat approaches wildlife can 

influence wildlife responses. Rapid movement directly toward wildlife frightens them, while movement 

away from or at an oblique angle to the animal is less disturbing (Knight and Cole 1995). Dahlgren 

and Korschgen (1992) categorized the following human activities in order of decreasing disturbance 

to waterfowl: 

1. Rapid over-water movement and loud noise (e.g., power-boating, water skiing, and aircraft); 

2. Over-water movement with little noise (e.g., sailing, wind surfing, rowing, and canoeing); 

3. Little over-water movement or noise (e.g., wading and swimming); and 

4. Activities along shorelines (e.g., fishing, birdwatching, hiking, and traffic). 

Hume (1976, as cited by Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992) observed a similar differential response of 

waterfowl to human activities. Common goldeneyes often flew when people on the shore 

approached within 100 or 200 meters, but settled elsewhere on the water. A single sailing dingy was 

sufficient to cause more than 60 common goldeneyes to take flight and for most to leave the vicinity 

within a few minutes. Remaining birds then flew up each time the boat approached to within 300 to 

400 meters and generally left the area within an hour. The appearance of a powerboat caused 

instantaneous flight by most birds. If the boat traversed the length of the reservoir, all remaining birds 

left within minutes. Hume reported that waterfowl abundance decreased over time as a result of the 

increased frequency of boating. In Germany, Bauer et al. (1992) concluded that boating pressure on 

wintering waterfowl had reached such a high level that it was necessary to establish larger 

sanctuaries and stop water sports and angling from October to March. Likewise, on numerous 

occasions, Thornburg (1973) observed boaters causing mass flights of diving ducks on the 

Mississippi River. He believed that increased boating could pose a serious threat to the continued 

use of the area by great numbers of migratory waterfowl. Thornburg (1973) concluded that 

eventually restrictions on boating activity may be necessary and that establishing a sanctuary should 

be considered. Rodgers and Schwikert (2002) compared flushing distance of three species of birds 

in response to a slow versus fast approach using the same outboard-powered boat. A fast approach 

resulted in significantly larger flush distances for brown pelicans, anhingas, and great egrets. They 

concluded that water bird staging areas along migratory corridors and frequently used foraging sites 

of resident birds merit protection from human activity. In another study, Rodgers and Smith (1997) 
Section C. Appendices 181

recommended that the establishment of 150-meter buffer zones around colonial bird rookeries would 

help minimize disturbance. Increasing the predictability of boating patterns to help wildlife habituate to 

non-threatening human disturbance can also be accomplished by establishing well marked routes of 

travel. Boating impacts on wildlife can be classified based on the form of boating activity (Korschgen 

and Dahlgren 1992; Knight and Cole 1995), the season of use (Burger 1995), and species tolerance 

to the activity (Jahn and Hunt 1964). For example, motorboat activity likely has more disturbances on 

wildlife than nonmotorized boat travel because motorboats produce a combination of movement and 

noise (Knight and Cole 1995). Even canoes can cause disturbance based on the ability to access 

shallower areas of the marsh (Speight 1973). However, compared to motorboats and airboats, canoe 

travel appears to have the least disturbance (Jahn and Hunt 1964). 

If waterfowl populations begin declining or other wildlife impacts occur, additional actions could be 

taken, such as implementing additional closed areas or adding other boat restrictions. 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To ensure compatibility of boating activities on the 

refuge, several stipulations are necessary since boating could adversely impact waterfowl and resident 

wildlife if guidelines are not in place to ensure operation to minimize such impacts. All of the provisions of 

50 CFR §27.31 and 27.32 will be imposed as well. Included in this section is the requirement that “No 

operator or person in charge of any boat shall operate or knowingly permit any other person to operate a 

boat in a reckless manner, or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person, property 

or wildlife.” Boaters will utilize only areas open to the public and not venture into closed areas. We do not 

provide areas for boat landing and access to the refuge lands from the river. Boaters are not allowed to 

tie off to shoreline vegetation or pull onto refuge lands to access trails. Gas-powered motors are 

prohibited, and boaters must comply with all applicable state boating laws. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) identifies 

six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; environmental education, interpretation, 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority public uses are 

dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to be compatible, 

they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and management. Use of 

motorized boats is to be used as a means to facilitate the priority public uses identified above. These 

activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 
182 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Deer and Feral Hog Hunting 

Hunting has been identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act. With the implementation of the CCP, the Service will take the steps 

necessary (e.g., develop needed regulations and publish the appropriate Federal Register notice) to 

open the refuge to upland hunting for deer and feral hogs in a portion of the refuge’s upland habitat in 

cooperation with the state. This will provide additional opportunities for a priority recreational activity 

and help to reduce the feral hog population on the refuge. Implementing the upland hunt will first 

require preparing a hunt plan; posting an appropriate notice in the Federal Register; and establishing 

regulations in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations. Upland hunting for white-tailed deer and feral 

hogs will be limited to approximately 7,000 acres of the refuge’s over 8,443 acres. A quota will be 

established for the number of hunters. The remainder of the refuge will remain closed to upland 

hunting to minimize conflicts with other priority uses. The deer and feral hog hunt will be conducted 

in cooperation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 

Availability of Resources: The details for administering the program have not been determined. It 

is assumed that a quota permit will be charged for the hunting opportunity to cover the costs of 

managing the program. Funds would be needed annually to mow, grade, and fix roads and parking 

areas open to hunter access; maintain signs; and print leaflets. The selection process for permits will 

likely be processed through the existing state system. Management of the program has a biological, 

administrative, maintenance, and law enforcement component. Partnering with the state will help 

provide the needed components. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated based on best 

professional judgment and published scientific papers. Many of the impacts associated with upland 

hunting are similar to those considered for other public use activities, such as waterfowl hunting and 

wildlife viewing and photography, with the exception of direct mortality to game species, short-term 

changes in the distribution and abundance of game species, and unrestricted travel through the hunt 

area. Direct mortality can impact isolated, resident game species populations by reducing breeding 

populations to a point where the isolated population can no longer be sustained. This can result in 

localized extirpation of isolated populations. The hunt would be conducted in upland habitats; 

therefore, minimal disturbance to migratory birds is anticipated. Use of lead shot could be allowed for 

deer and feral hogs, but considering the separation between the upland hunt and wetland habitat, the 

ingestion of lead shot by migratory birds should be minimal. The walk-in hunters would use existing 

fire breaks and roads for access. No soil compaction or vegetation disturbance is expected. Parking 

would occur in sites already designated as such. Hunting would not occur within 1,500 feet of any 

active eagle nest, if these were to become established on the refuge. 

Cumulative effects of deer hunting are expected to be minimal. Almost all of the deer harvested 

would be from the Pee Dee NWR population. The hunt will be managed to ensure that the long-term 

size of the herd remains stable. 

The refuge does not have an active hog removal program. Although feral hogs are not known to be 

on the refuge, they occur on neighboring lands and it is reasonable to assume that they will begin 

invading the refuge within the near future. The primary intentions of feral hog hunts would be to 

increase pressure on any new population and assist in the population control of this unwanted 

species. Feral hogs are exotic species which are documented to have serious negative effects on 

native wildlife and habitats. The cumulative effects of a feral hog hunt would be positive with long 

term benefits to native plants and animals of the refuge. 
Section C. Appendices 183

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Several stipulations will be necessary to 

ensure compatibility of this use. Additional stipulations may be added, as the program is 

developed with the state. Known stipulations are listed. The hunt will be conducted in 

accordance with state regulations and seasons. 

y The methods of hunting to be considered include archery, muzzleloaders, and modern 

firearms as prescribed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 

y Other than white-tailed deer and feral hogs, only turkey and small game (see Turkey and 

Small Game Hunting compatibility determinations) will be hunted in the designated areas. 

y Quota hunt permits will be issued. 

y Hunting densities no greater than one quota hunter per 28 acres will be allowed. 

y The number of deer permitted to be taken will be based on annual population estimates. 

y Check stations will be used to collect hunt data and to monitor the quality of the hunt. 

y Vehicle access will be limited to open roadways. 

y Climbing spikes and permanent stands will not be permitted. 

y Off-road vehicles or ATVs will not be permitted, except by special use permit for hunters with 

disabilities. 

y If required, liberal bag limits or extended seasons may be established for feral hogs as part of 

a wider effort to eliminate this nonnative species. 

y No flagging or trail marking will be permitted. 

y Waterfowl sanctuaries will be closed to all deer or feral hog hunting from November 25 

through March 15. 

Upland hunting would have little impact on other visitor activities. A closed area for hunters will be 

established to provide at a safe buffer distance around designated public use facilities. 

Justification: Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent use under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Upland hunting, as described, was determined to be compatible, in view of the 

potential impacts that hunting can have on the Service’s ability to achieve purposes and goals of the 

refuge, because (1) hunter densities and use levels will be relatively low during days the refuge is 

open to hunting; (2) sufficient restrictions have been established to ensure that an adequate amount 

of high-quality habitat would be available to accommodate the needs of deer and other wildlife using 

the refuge; (3) sufficient opportunities are available for other priority wildlife-dependent recreation 

during the upland hunt season; (4) deer hunting would maintain deer levels at optimal levels; and (5) 

removal of feral hogs would benefit the refuge as they are a destructive, exotic species. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 
184 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Turkey Hunting 

Hunting has been identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act. With the implementation of the CCP, the Service would take the steps 

necessary to open additional areas of the refuge to upland hunting for turkey. Turkey hunting would 

be expanded to include the portion of the refuge’s upland habitat located in Richmond County. 

Implementing the turkey, quail, and dove hunts will first require updating the hunt plan; posting an 

appropriate notice in the Federal Register; and establishing regulations in Title 50, Code of Federal 

Regulations. Upland hunting areas for turkey will be defined in a hunting step-down plan. A quota 

will be established for the number of hunters. The remainder of the refuge will remain closed to 

upland hunting to minimize conflicts with other priority uses. Turkey hunts will continue to be 

conducted in cooperation with the NCWRC. 

Availability of Resources: The details for administering the program have not been determined. It 

is assumed that a quota permit will be charged for the hunting opportunity to cover the costs of 

managing the program. Funds would be needed annually to mow, grade, and fix roads and parking 

areas open to hunter access; maintain signs; and print leaflets. The selection process for permits will 

likely be processed through the existing state system. Management of the program has a biological, 

administrative, maintenance, and law enforcement component. Partnering with the state will help 

provide the needed components. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated based on best 

professional judgment and published scientific papers. Many of the impacts associated with upland 

hunting are similar to those considered for other public use activities, such as waterfowl hunting and 

wildlife viewing and photography, with the exception of direct mortality to turkey, short-term changes 

in the distribution and abundance of turkeys, and unrestricted travel through the hunt area. Direct 

mortality can impact isolated, resident game species populations by reducing breeding populations to 

a point where the isolated population can no longer be sustained. This can result in localized 

extirpation of isolated populations. The hunt would be conducted in upland habitats; therefore, 

minimal disturbance to migratory birds is anticipated. Use of lead shot could be allowed for turkey, 

but considering the separation between the upland hunt and wetland habitat, the ingestion of lead 

shot by migratory birds should be minimal. The walk-in hunters would use existing fire breaks and 

roads for access. No soil compaction or vegetation disturbance is expected. Parking would occur in 

sites already designated as such. Hunting would not occur within 1,500 feet of any active eagle nest 

(if these were to become established on the refuge). 

The cumulative effects of turkey hunting are expected to be minimal. Almost all of the game 

harvested would be from the Pee Dee NWR population. The hunt will be managed to ensure that the 

long-term size of these game birds remains stable. 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Several stipulations will be necessary to 

ensure compatibility of this use. Additional stipulations may be added, as the program is 

developed with the state. Known stipulations are listed. The hunt will be conducted in 

accordance with state regulations and seasons. 

y The methods of hunting to be considered include archery, muzzle-loading shotguns and 

modern shotguns, as prescribed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. 
Section C. Appendices 185

y Other than turkey, white-tailed deer, feral hogs, and small game will be hunted in the 

designated areas. 

y Quota hunt permits will be issued. 

y Hunting densities no greater than one quota hunter per 100 acres will be allowed. 

y The number of turkey permitted to be taken will be based on annual population estimates. 

y Check stations will be used to collect hunt data and to monitor the quality of the hunt. 

y Vehicle access will be limited to open roadways. 

y Climbing spikes and permanent stands will not be permitted. 

y Off-road vehicles or ATVs will not be permitted, except by special use permit for hunters with 

disabilities. 

y No flagging or trail marking will be permitted. 

Upland hunting would have little impact on other visitor activities. A closed area for hunters will be 

established to provide at a safe buffer distance around designated public use facilities. 

Justification: Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent use under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Upland turkey hunting, as described, was determined to be compatible, in view of 

the potential impacts that hunting can have on the Service’s ability to achieve purposes and goals of 

the refuge, because: (1) hunter densities and use levels will be relatively low during days the refuge is 

open to hunting, (2) sufficient restrictions have been established to ensure that an adequate amount 

of high-quality habitat would be available to accommodate the needs of game birds and other wildlife 

using the refuge, and (3) sufficient opportunities are available for other priority wildlife-dependent 

recreation during the upland hunt season. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: Small Game Hunting 

Hunting has been identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act. With the implementation of the CCP, the Service would continue small 

game hunting to include mourning dove, raccoon/opossum, gray squirrel (no fox squirrels), quail, and 

rabbit. Small game hunting will be designated in the specific areas of the refuge’s over 8,443 acres. 

The remainder of the refuge will remain closed to upland hunting to minimize conflicts with other 

priority uses. Small game hunts will continue to be conducted in cooperation with the NCWRC. 

Availability of Resources: The details for administering the program have not been determined. It 

is assumed that a quota permit will be charged for the hunting opportunity to cover the costs of 

managing the program. Funds would be needed annually to mow, grade, and fix roads and parking 

areas open to hunter access; maintain signs; and print leaflets. The selection process for permits will 

likely be processed through the existing state system. Management of the program has a biological, 

administrative, maintenance, and law enforcement component. Partnering with the state will help 

provide the needed components. 
186 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated based on best 

professional judgment and published scientific papers. Many of the impacts associated with upland 

hunting are similar to those considered for other public use activities, such as waterfowl hunting and 

wildlife viewing and photography, with the exception of direct mortality to small game species, shortterm changes in the distribution and abundance of these species, and unrestricted travel through the 

hunt area. Direct mortality can impact isolated, resident game species populations by reducing 

breeding populations to a point where the isolated population can no longer be sustained. This can 

result in localized extirpation of isolated populations. The hunt would be conducted in upland 

habitats; therefore, minimal disturbance to migratory birds is anticipated. Use of lead shot could be 

allowed for small game, but considering the separation between the upland hunt and wetland habitat, 

the ingestion of lead shot by migratory birds should be minimal. The walk-in hunters would use 

existing fire breaks and roads for access. No soil compaction or vegetation disturbance is expected. 

Parking would occur in sites already designated as such. Hunting would not occur within 1,500 feet 

of any active eagle nest (if these were to become established on the refuge). 

The cumulative effects of small game hunting are expected to be minimal. Almost all of the game 

harvested would be from the Pee Dee NWR population. The hunt will be managed to ensure that the 

long-term size of these game species remains stable. 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Several stipulations will be necessary to ensure 

compatibility of this use. Additional stipulations may be added, as the program is developed with the 

state. Known stipulations are listed. The hunt will be conducted in accordance with state regulations 

and seasons. 

y The methods of hunting to be considered include primitive weapons, archery, and shotguns in 

accordance with state law. 

y Other than small game, turkey, white-tailed deer and feral hogs will be hunted in the 

designated areas. 

y Quota hunt permits would be issued as needed. 

y Hunting densities no greater than one hunting party per 100 acres will be allowed. 

y The number of game permitted to be taken will be based on annual population estimates. 

y Check stations will be used to collect hunt data and to monitor the quality of the hunt. 

y Vehicle access and parking will be limited and confined to existing fire lanes and 

unimproved roads. 

y Climbing spikes and permanent stands will not be permitted. 

y Off-road vehicles or ATVs will not be permitted. 

y No flagging or trail marking will be permitted. 

Upland hunting would have little impact on other visitor activities. A closed area for hunters will be 

established to provide at a safe buffer distance around all public use facilities. 

Justification: Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent use under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Upland small game hunting, as described, was determined to be compatible, in 

view of the potential impacts that hunting can have on the Service’s ability to achieve purposes and 

goals of the refuge, because (1) hunter densities and use levels will be relatively low during days the 

refuge is open to hunting; (2) sufficient restrictions have been established to ensure that an adequate 

amount of high-quality habitat would be available to accommodate the needs of game birds and other 
Section C. Appendices 187

wildlife using the refuge; and (3) sufficient opportunities are available for other priority wildlifedependent recreation during the upland hunt season. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing has been identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act and is a traditional use at the refuge. While most anglers fish from the bank 

on Pee Dee NWR, a substantial number use boats for fishing access. Therefore, future fishing 

activities would be supported by boating; and boating impacts are also considered in this review. 

Fishing is permitted on approximately 300 acres of the refuge’s 8,443 acres. Fishing areas include 

Andrews Pond, Ross Pond, Sullivan Pond, Arrowhead Lake, Brown Creek, and the Pee Dee River. 

Fishing is allowed in accordance with state regulations. Additionally, the refuge has implemented 

refuge specific fishing regulations which can be update annually in Title 50 Code of Federal 

Regulations. The listed items are a summary of refuge-specific fishing regulations. 

y Fishing is allowed seven days a week from one-hour before sunrise until one-hour after sunset. 

y All public use on the refuge is prohibited during refuge firearms deer hunts. See Public Use 

Brochure or inquire at refuge headquarters for hunt dates. 

y Boats ramps are provided at Andrews Pond, Beaver Ponds, and Arrowhead Lake. All other 

lakes are open to boats, but boats must be hand loaded and unloaded. 

y Gasoline-powered boat motors may not be used. Boats are subject to all federal and state 

laws governing their use. 

y Possession or use of trotlines, set hooks, gigs, jug lines, limblines, snagging devices, nets, 

seines, fish traps or other special devices is prohibited. 

y No littering, fishing areas will be closed if litter is not picked up. 

y Taking or attempting to take frogs and turtles is prohibited. 

y Swimming is prohibited. 

y All other sport fishing regulations will be in accordance with North Carolina State law. 

Availability of Resources: Operation and maintenance funds to support fishing are taken from the 

refuge’s annual budget, which is adequate to sustain the program at the current level. Funds are 

needed annually to mow, grade, and fix roads, parking lots, paint, repair, and replace signs; and 

develop and print brochures. Staff would be needed to spend up to two months a year managing the 

fishing program. Funding for the improvements (i.e. boat ramp) outlined in the CCP is not currently 

available but some of those costs could be off-sets by grants from cooperating partners. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated based on best 

professional judgment and published scientific papers. Overfishing has been known to cause 

ecological extinction of certain fish species and precedes all other human disturbance 

(Jackson et al. 2001). In recent history, overfishing in North Carolina has led to the decline of certain 
188 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

species. But, today the state monitors fish populations and has sets seasons, slot and size limits, 

and total bag limits for most sports fish, making the likelihood of overfishing depleting fish stocks 

minimal. The closed areas of the refuge also serve to recharge local waters. Collectively, the state 

fishing regulations should minimize the likelihood of fish stocks declining on the refuge. Since fishing 

is facilitated by boating on much of the refuge, boat impacts are an important component of this use 

(see the compatibility determination on Boating for details on impacts). 

Under Service policy, fishing tournaments cannot originate within the refuge, but, because the quality 

of fishing is better within the refuge, tournament fishermen originating from a tournament outside the 

refuge travel into refuge waters. Tournaments have become big businesses and can substantially 

increase the level of fishing activity in the refuge. This can have negative impacts on other sport 

fishermen, wildlife, and habitat. 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Fishing is allowed on the refuge in accordance 

with state regulations. In addition the refuge has the listed sports fishing regulations, which are 

paraphrased. 

y Fishing is allowed only during daylight hours. 

y Gas-powered boat motors may not be used on refuge waters. 

y Airboats, personal watercraft, or hovercraft are not allowed. 

y Special off-limit areas may seasonally be designated to limit disturbance to migratory birds. 

Boating impacts to wildlife include noise and speed, as well as from increased access to more parts 

of the refuge (i.e., boats can disturb more birds than bank fishing). Certain areas of the Pee Dee 

River will likely be closed seasonally to reduce disturbance to migratory birds. Monitoring will help the 

Service to determine the effectiveness of refuge management actions in maintaining migratory birds, 

endangered species, and other wildlife populations on the refuge. It is anticipated that refuge 

sanctuary areas and seasonally closed areas of the navigable waters will be adequate to sustain 

migratory bird and endangered species populations and adequate stocks of fish, and provide for a 

high quality fishing experience which has little impact on other visitors. If wildlife populations suffer as 

a result of fishing activities, the quality of fishing declines, or other wildlife impacts occur, additional 

motor boat restrictions may be implemented. The refuge will modify or eliminate any use with 

unacceptable impacts. 

Justification: Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent use under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Fishing, as described, was determined to be compatible, in view of the potential 

impacts that fishing and supporting activities (e.g., boating) can have on the Service’s ability to 

achieve purposes and goals of the refuge, because: (1) fishing densities and use levels are relatively 

low during most days; (2) an adequate amount of high-quality feeding and resting habitat would be 

available to accommodate the needs of waterfowl, migratory birds and other resident birds using the 

refuge; and (3) sufficient opportunities are available for other priority wildlife-dependent recreation. 
Section C. Appendices 189

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography are considered simultaneously in this compatibility 

determination. Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

provided they are compatible with the purposes of the refuge. This compatibility determination 

applies only to personal photography. Commercial photography or videography, if allowed, would 

be covered under the Commercial Services compatibility determination and would require a 

special use permit by the refuge with specific restrictions. Wildlife observation and photography 

may occur during daylight hours throughout all open areas of the refuge. Wildlife viewing and 

photography improvements have been made along hiking trails and at other locations to provide 

exposure to different refuge habitat types and diverse flora and fauna. In addition, numerous 

refuge dikes and trails are open year-round or seasonally to provide different wetland or upland 

habitats for wildlife viewing. Approved forms of access for wildlife viewing and photography 

include driving licensed vehicles, hiking, and motorized and nonmotorized boats. 

Availability of Resources: Operation and maintenance funds to support wildlife viewing and 

photography are taken from the refuge’s annual budget, which is adequate to sustain the program at 

the current level. Funds are needed annually to mow, grade, and repair roads open to the public; fix, 

repair, and replace trails; paint, repair, and replace signs; and develop and print brochures. Funding 

is not currently available to fully support all the planned wildlife observation and photography 

improvements (i.e., additional trails) identified in the CCP. Funds for part or all of the proposed 

projects could come from cooperating partners. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: This section critically and objectively evaluates the potential 

effects that wildlife observation and photography could have on the wildlife, habitat and other public 

use activities based on available information and best professional judgment. Each activity has the 

potential to have impacts, but the focus is to minimize impacts to within acceptable limits. This is 

based on the impacts at the existing and projected levels of use. 

Short-term Impacts: Wildlife observation trails have a greater potential for disturbing wildlife species. 

Among wetland habitats, approaches can reduce time spent foraging and can cause water birds to avoid 

foraging habitats adjacent to the areas of disturbance (Klein 1993). Walking on wildlife observation trails 

tends to displace birds and can cause localized declines in the richness and abundance of wildlife species 

(Riffell et al. 1996). Bicycling and people walking causes more disturbances to waterfowl than vehicles 

(Pease et al. 2005). Wildlife photographers tend to have the largest disturbance impacts (Klein 1993; 

Morton 1995; Dobb 1998). While wildlife observers frequently stop to view wildlife, wildlife photographers 

are much more likely to approach wildlife (Klein 1993). Even a slow approach by wildlife photographers 

tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife (Klein 1993). Other impacts include the potential for 

some photographers to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of time (Dobb 1998) and the 

tendency of casual photographers with low-powered lenses to get much closer to their subject than other 
190 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

activities would require (Morton 1995). Some visitors may use boats to facilitate this activity, and boating 

impacts are listed in the Boating compatibility determination. 

Long-term Impacts: Considering the high level of use and variety of activities occurring at the refuge, 

appropriate solutions to minimize impacts need to be developed and monitored. For example, during the 

fall migration and over-wintering seasons, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

interpretation, and waterfowl hunting are all occurring simultaneously and are at the highest levels of the 

year. Techniques to limit disturbance must be evaluated, implemented, and monitored. This stems from 

the hypothesis that prolonged and extensive disturbance may cause migratory birds to abandon the 

wetlands most disturbed by humans and winter elsewhere. Current public use may not be at a level to 

cause this shift, but anticipated increases relative to the expansion of the population and growth of visitor 

opportunities could result in seasonal shifts in migratory bird use of the refuge’s wetland habitats. 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: By design, wildlife observation and photography 

should have minimal wildlife and habitat impacts. However, as use increases, wildlife impacts are 

more likely to occur. Evaluation of the sites and programs will be conducted annually to assess if 

objectives are being met, if habitat impacts are minimized, and if wildlife populations are not being 

adversely affected. If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to appear, it will be necessary to 

change the activity or the program, move the activity or program, or eliminate the program. 

Stipulations that may be employed include those listed as follows: 

y Establish buffer zones that minimize disturbance around sensitive areas and establishing 

additional no-entry zones. 

y Manage to provide vegetation which effectively conceals visitors and provides cover for birds, 

to help minimize impacts of people in busy areas such as pond dikes. 

y Reduce impacts from wildlife viewing and photography by providing observation blinds. 

y Re-route, modify, or eliminate activities which demonstrate direct wildlife impacts. 

y Educate visitors that their actions can have negative impacts on wildlife. 

y Maintain well-marked trails where predictable human use lessens wildlife impacts. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Providing high quality, appropriate, and compatible opportunities for these activities 

contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Wildlife Observation and photography would provide excellent forums for promoting increased 

awareness, understanding, and support of refuge resources and programs and of the Service. The 

stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. 

At the current level of visitation, these wildlife-dependent uses would not conflict with the national 

policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 
Section C. Appendices 191

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation consist primarily of youth and adult education and 

interpretation of the natural resources of the refuge. Activities include onsite staff-led or teacher-led 

environmental education programs; offsite teacher-led classroom programs; teacher workshops; and 

interpretation of wildlife, habitat, other natural features, and/or management activities occurring on the 

refuge. These activities seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and 

their habitats and to contribute to wildlife conservation and support of the refuge. Environmental 

education and interpretation have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act as priority public use activities, provided they are appropriate and compatible with 

the purposes for which the refuge was established. The CCP identifies the construction of a 10,000- 

square foot (929 m2

) education building and nearby trails that feature wetlands such as the 

bottomland hardwoods and moist soil units. This facility would serve as the centerpiece of the 

refuge's environmental education and interpretation program. These programs will explore various 

habitats of the refuge (i.e., wetlands, scrub, and pine flatwoods), leading to a better understanding of 

the value of these habitats to fish and wildlife resources, the human influence on the ecosystem, and 

the importance of these resources to society. In addition to the new proposed environmental 

education center, the CCP calls for minor changes, such as adding new signs, revising brochures, 

and developing new interpretive panels and kiosks. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds support the Visitor 

Service program and activities. The development of proposed facilities is contingent upon 

successfully locating a funding source. Funding for improvements (new education and interpretation 

facility) identified in the CCP will typically come from the Service’s new construction accounts, grants 

or endowments, and refuge budget increases. Refuge staff, interns, volunteers, and Friends of the 

Pee Dee NWR provide the staffing for these uses. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Environmental education primarily occurs at the Friends building 

and surrounding areas. The construction of the proposed environmental education center would 

require the conversion of a grassy area to impervious surfaces required for the building and 

associated parking lot. In addition, it would increase disturbance in several new sites along planned 

trails, however, impacts would be considered discrete, as visitors would be required to stay on 

marked trails and these areas could be seasonally closed to limit disturbance to migratory birds. 

Vegetation trampling, altering structure and species composition, and temporal wildlife impacts to 

species would be at a minimal level. This unavoidable impact associated with running the 

environmental educational and interpretation program is acceptable. 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: While anticipated impacts are anticipated to be 

minimal, stipulations are required to ensure that wildlife resources are adequately protected. The 

environmental education program activities and the proposed environmental education center 

location would avoid sensitive sites and sensitive wildlife populations. Built into all curriculums will be 

a section on wildlife etiquette. Environmental education programs and activities will be held at or 

near established facilities where impacts may be minimized. Evaluations of sites and programs 

should be conducted annually to assess if objectives are being met and that the natural resources are 

not being adversely impacted. Impacts associated with interpretive programs are also anticipated to 

be minimal. One overarching aspect of the interpretive program is to build understanding and 

appreciation for the refuge and its natural resources. As use increases, wildlife disturbances are 

unavoidable, but through interpretive material (e.g., brochures, signs, and kiosk panels) proper 
192 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

wildlife etiquette will be stressed. Education is critical for making visitors aware that their actions can 

have negative impacts on wildlife. Interpretive activities and programs will be conducted at 

developed sites where impacts can be minimized. Wildlife impacts will be carefully monitored. If 

impacts are detected, adaptive strategies will be developed, such as approach zones, to lessen 

wildlife disturbance. Annual evaluations will be conducted to assess if objectives are being met and 

that the natural resources are not being adversely affected. The refuge will modify or eliminate any 

use that results in unacceptable impacts. 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation represent two priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities listed under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The 

nearest Service environmental education and interpretation center in North Carolina is five hours 

away. Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage all citizens to act 

responsibly in protecting natural resources. They are tools the refuge can use to build 

understanding, appreciation, and support for the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Resources required to run the programs is minimal and is built into the refuge operation and 

maintenance budget. Identified improvements will not be developed until adequate staff and budget 

are available to develop and operate them. As long as stipulations to insure compatibility are 

followed, the programs should remain compatible with the purposes of the refuge. At such time 

that the monitoring program identifies unacceptable wildlife impacts are occurring, the refuge will 

modify the activity to minimize or eliminate the impacts. Both programs allow the education of the 

public of the missions of the Service and Refuge System and refuge purposes. They highlight the 

areas which are most in line with the refuge’s management philosophy proposed under the CCP. 

Considering the minimal anticipated impacts through implementation of the environmental 

education and interpretation programs and the benefits that should arise through public education, 

participation, and involvement, the program is deemed compatible. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: Bicycling and Jogging 

While not one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, bicycling and jogging are modes of transportation currently used to 

facilitate wildlife observation. This compatibility determination provides additional guidance on this 

specific use. As proposed, bike riding and jogging would occur only on designated roads and trails. 

These uses occur all year. 

Availability of Resources: Operation and maintenance funds to support wildlife viewing are taken from 

the refuge’s annual budget, which is adequate to sustain the program at the current level. Funds are 

needed annually to mow, grade, and fix roads open to the public; fix, repair, and replace boardwalks and 

trails; paint, repair, and replace signs; and develop and print brochures. Additional funds are not 

anticipated for these uses as they will use existing infrastructure and require minimal oversight. 
Section C. Appendices 193

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: A critical and objective evaluate of the potential effects that bicycles 

and jogging could have on the wildlife, habitat, and other public use activities is based on available 

information and best professional judgment. Although bicycling and jogging have the potential to have 

impacts, the focus is to minimize impacts. This is based on the impacts at the existing and projected 

level of use. Bicycling may be an appropriate form of transportation to view wildlife and has been 

approved in specific locations. However, bicycle riding takes several forms. For example, mountain 

biking, according to the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) is the sport of riding 

bicycles off paved roads. It requires endurance and bike handling skills and is performed on dirt roads, 

fire breaks, access roads, and public trails. According to the IMBA, the sport is broken down into 

several categories: cross country, downhill, street, dirt jumping, and free riding. Although wildlife 

viewing may be an incidental aspect of the mountain biking activity, it is not considered the main 

purpose or intent. Mountain bikers and ATV riders may enjoy the outdoor setting found at the refuge, 

but the activity may conflict with other wildlife-dependent recreation activities, may disturb migratory 

birds, and is not specifically aimed at viewing wildlife. Therefore, mountain biking, along with other 

similar sport activities, such as ATV use, is not permitted except for people with disabilities. Other 

forms of bike riding may be appropriate. The intent of some bike riders is wildlife viewing and several 

bicycle trails are planned in the CCP. Bicycle riders are not permitted to ride on refuge hiking trails. 

This activity disturbs other trail users and will be eliminated from hiking trails. 

Short-term Impacts: Wildlife disturbance relative to bicycle riding has been poorly studied with most 

references using other activities such as walking, hiking, and operating vehicles and their impacts on 

wildlife; therefore, bicycle impacts are inferred (unless noted). A study conducted at Back Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge indicated that jogging and bike riding in an open habitat, such as marshes 

where the activity is highly visible to wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, is disruptive. As a 

result, marsh birds in open areas flee from joggers and bike riders (Laskowski 1999). Wildlife may 

receive different cues from different modes of transportation. For instance, animals do not flee as 

readily from cars, perhaps because the person is hidden in the vehicle and not perceived as a threat 

(Klein 1993). A 2005 study at Back Bay National Wildlife NWR (Pease, et al. 2005) compared five 

different human activities (i.e., motorized tram, slow moving truck, fast moving truck, bicyclist, and 

pedestrian) in relation to waterfowl disturbance. The study found that people walking and biking 

disturbed waterfowl more than vehicles. 

Long-term Impacts: Considering the high level of use and variety of activities occurring at the refuge, 

appropriate solutions to minimize impacts need to be developed. For example, during the fall 

migration and over-wintering season wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

interpretation, and waterfowl hunting are all occurring simultaneously and are at the highest levels of 

the year. Techniques to limit disturbance must be evaluated, and implemented and monitored. This 

stems from the hypothesis that prolonged and extensive disturbance may cause migratory birds to 

abandon the wetlands most disturbed by humans and winter elsewhere. Current use may not be at a 

level to cause this shift, but anticipated increases relative to the expansion of the population and the 

growth of visitor opportunities could result in seasonal shifts in migratory bird use of the refuge 

wetland habitat. Bicycling would add to the level of disturbance, especially in wetland habitats and 

strategies need to be implemented to limit wildlife impacts. 

Determination: 

____Use is Not Compatible 

_X__Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All forms of wildlife observation should have 

minimal wildlife and habitat impacts. However, bicycling and jogging can cause wildlife impacts in 

open wetland areas, can increase wildlife impacts, and can disrupt other individuals viewing wildlife. 

Bicycles will not be permitted on established hiking trails and will be limited to paved roads and gravel 
194 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

roads. Evaluation of bike riding and jogging will be conducted annually to assess if objectives are 

being met, if habitat impacts are within a tolerable range, and if wildlife populations are not being 

adversely affected. If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to appear, it may be necessary to 

change the activity or the program, move the activity or program or eliminate the program. 

Stipulations that might be employed include those listed. 

y Establish buffer zones and no entry zones that minimize disturbance around sensitive areas. 

y Manage to provide vegetation which effectively conceals visitors and provides cover for 

wildlife, to help minimize impacts of people in busy areas such as pond dikes. 

y Reduce impacts from wildlife viewing and photography by providing observation blinds. 

y Re-route, modify, or eliminate biking activities which demonstrate direct wildlife 

and habitat impacts. 

y Educate bike riders and joggers that their actions can have negative impacts on wildlife. 

y Post signs where this use is allowed and contained (gravel and paved roads). 

Justification: Bicycling to observe wildlife facilitates priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Providing opportunities for these activities contributes toward fulfilling provisions of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Wildlife observation from bicycles in areas 

where there are few impacts to wildlife would provide an appropriate mode of transportation for 

promoting increased awareness, understanding, and support of refuge resources and programs. The 

stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. 

At the current level of visitation, bicycling and jogging does not seem to conflict with the national 

policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: Horseback Riding 

While not one of the six priority public uses, horseback riding is often associated with them. 

Horseback riding would be a self-initiated activity on the refuge, with no amenities provided 

specifically for this activity. Participants of this activity would be responsible for all aspects of their 

visit and use of the refuge. This is a popular activity, which has historically occurred on refuge lands. 

Availability of Resources: No additional administrative costs are associated with this activity. The 

only new infrastructure needed to implement this use would be signs demarking the trails. There 

would be no additional maintenance or monitoring costs associated with this activity. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Although horseback riding may cause disturbance to wildlife 

and interfere with other public uses, these impacts are not expected in the specially designated 

areas where this activity will be permitted to occur (all gravel and paved roads open to public 

vehicle traffic). Disturbance to migratory birds will be minimal, as certain areas will be seasonally 

closed to all public use, including horseback riding. In some areas, horses have been determined 
Section C. Appendices 195

to introduce exotic plants via their droppings; however, this has not been documented on Pee 

Dee NWR. By restricting the use to roads, trampling of native vegetation will be minimized. 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Horseback riding would be permitted on public 

use roads and would require a special use permit (SUP). The SUP process will allow the refuge to 

educate the users on specific rules related to horseback riding on the refuge (e.g., no off-road riding). 

It will also provide the refuge with the number of users. Horseback riding would be permitted yearround during daylight hours only. Areas closed to the general public for management or safety 

purposes would be closed to horseback riding as well. If negative impacts associated with this use 

are determined, additional restrictions would be placed on this activity or it would be discontinued. 

Justification: Horseback riding supports wildlife observation by providing an alternative mode of 

travel on public use roads. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_X_Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: Timber Harvest 

Select trees will be harvested and/or salvaged as part of habitat restoration projects on the refuge. 

Typically, these operations will involve commercial logging that will be implemented to imitate natural 

events, such as fires and hurricanes that once influenced and maintained representative habitats 

within Pee Dee NWR. In addition, forest areas that have been damaged by fires and hurricanes may 

be salvaged in order to promote natural regeneration of the forests. Commercial logging and salvage 

operations are not recognized as wildlife-dependent priority uses by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act. However, the establishing authorities for the refuge recognized that 

“timber management” would be required to maintain some of the forests representative of refuge 

habitats. Therefore, this activity is an important use for the Pee Dee NWR. These timber harvest 

operations would occur primarily in the upland pine and mixed pine/hardwood forests, approximately 

3,600 acres. Timber harvest could also be implemented in mixed pine hardwoods and to remove 

sweetgum from select areas of the bottomland hardwood. These operations would be scheduled 

during times of the year when they would least impact trust species or public use activities. 
196 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Availability of Resources: The annual costs are estimated as follows: 

y Preparation of Habitat Management Plans/Programs: $1000 

y Pre/Post Treatment Surveys/Assessments: $1000 

y Permit Administration: $1000 

y Road Repairs/Maintenance: $5000 

These funds are anticipated to come from annual budget increases and grants. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The operation of heavy equipment would damage or destroy ground 

vegetation. These areas would be allowed to grow back following the harvest. Soil compaction by 

harvesting machinery could occur in some areas, but the extent is expected to be minimal through the 

use of low ground pressure equipment. The potential exists for heavy machinery to damage or destroy 

potential listed plant species. To prevent this, surveys would be performed of all proposed treatment 

areas, and high-risk zones would be flagged as "off-limits" to tree harvesting machines. Heavy 

equipment and vehicles would temporarily add emissions to the air. Minor wildlife disturbance would 

also occur along the roads used to haul timber from the refuge. The probability of catastrophic wildfires 

and pine beetle infestations on the refuge would be reduced in the treated areas. Ground cover and 

understory plant densities would go up, increasing forage and cover for many wildlife species. 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Timber sales will not be conducted for economic 

benefits. Instead, the operation will be merely a tool to implement critical habitat restoration programs 

for the refuge. Therefore, these timber sales will be consistent with approved forest management 

plans and programs that outline the habitat restoration needs for the refuge. A maximum of 1000 

acres of pine forests would be available for commercial timber sales annually. Timber sales would be 

conducted under special use permit, contract or a combination of the two to specify low ground 

pressure equipment, favorable weather conditions and other details to minimize impacts and 

maximize benefits. 

Justification: The refuge’s establishing legislation directed that a timber management program be 

conducted on the refuge and stated, through the Secretary’s report of 1974, that “commercial 

timbering for the sake of revenue will not be considered as an objective of management”. Timber 

management will be used primarily to imitate natural influences, especially fire that used to shape and 

maintain the natural biological diversity of Pee Dee NWR. Moreover, these sales will also provide 

economic benefits. All timber management practices performed will be for the primary purpose of 

achieving restoration and other habitat and wildlife management objectives. It will be to the benefit of 

the government to accomplish forested habitat restoration goals via commercial timber harvest as 

opposed to paying a contractor to remove the timber where possible. Whether the harvest is a 

goods-for-services setup or a timber sale contract, the resulting resources are utilized where feasible. 

This management tool is consistent with Pee Dee NWR’s goals and objectives. Refuge timber 

harvests are only conducted for fire fuel management, treatment and prevention of insect outbreaks, 

or for habitat restoration and wildlife management purposes. Timber harvest will contribute to the 

achievement of the purposes and mission of Pee Dee NWR and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The harvest of forest products for the restoration of forest habitats on Pee Dee NWR will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the 

purposes for which the refuge was established. 
Section C. Appendices 197

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_X_Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: Cooperative Farming 

Description of Use: Cooperative farming is not one of the six priority wildlife dependent public uses of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System but is an existing economic activity that supports the refuge's 

migratory bird management trust responsibility. Through cooperative farming agreements, the refuge 

maintains 1,161 acres annually planted with agricultural crops to provide food and resting habitat for 

wintering migratory waterfowl, as well as other wildlife. This acreage occurs throughout the refuge 

lands bordering bottomland hardwood forests and near impoundments. The cooperative farmers grow 

corn, soybeans, and wheat leaving 20 percent of the crop standing in the fields. Cooperative farming 

would be permitted through the cooperative farming agreement process. Agreements would cover a 

one year time period. Farming agreements would be prepared and monitored by the refuge. Farmers 

would be limited to using herbicides and insecticides approved through the pesticide use proposal 

procedures. Cooperators would supply the refuge with annual pesticide use summary. Cooperative 

farming is the most cost effective means available for producing winter forage for migrating and 

wintering waterfowl and providing roosting and resting habitat under current resource levels. 

Availability of Resources: Administration of the cooperative farming program will require several 

days work by one or more staff members. Estimated time needed to complete various tasks is as 

follows: 

y Prepare Cooperative Farming Agreement – 4 staff days 

y Prepare Pesticide Use Proposals – 1 staff day 

y Prepare Region 4 Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation – 1 staff day 

y Prepare Pesticide Use Report – 1 staff day 

y Meet with Cooperative Farmers – 3 staff days 

y Monitor farming activities through the growing season – 5 staff days

y Conduct various administrative tasks – 2 staff days 

y Road maintenance – 10 staff days 

Total: 27 staff days. Additional future funds are not anticipated to provide management 

oversight for this use, as cooperative farming is expected to remain at current levels under the 

proposed action.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: Cooperative farming is a critical program that the refuge uses to meet its 

migratory waterfowl management responsibility for which it was established. Farming provides a 

steady, reliable winter food source for wintering migratory waterfowl, as well as other wildlife. 

Farming also sets back succession and controls brushy invasion of open field habitat. The program 

is the most cost effective means of providing supplemental food for waterfowl and other wildlife. 

Possible negative impacts of greatest concern are those associated with the use of pesticides in 
198 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

farming operations. Pesticide use in crop production could have a variety of direct or indirect effects 

on wild plants and animals, if used outside the guidelines prescribed by pesticide manufacturers. 

During application care must be taken to place the product only on target areas. Pesticides are 

applied when wind conditions do not facilitate drift to nontarget plants or animals. Pesticides are 

applied in quantities and under weather conditions that do not promote runoff. To prevent pesticide 

runoff from entering surface waters, no farming is done within 50 feet of standing water. Virtually all 

unintended plant impacts are short-term. Processes are in place to assist the refuge to limit possible 

adverse effects from the use of farm pesticides. Before each proposed pesticide is used in the 

program it must go through the Pesticide Use Proposal review process. The refuge must also consult 

with its local Ecological Services Office through the Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

process to determine if a proposed pesticide use has potential impacts to threatened and/or 

endangered species. Field preparation and planting can cause both beneficial as well as negative 

short-term wildlife impacts. Spring disking alters the wildlife use pattern by temporarily displacing 

small fauna until vegetative cover regenerates. 

Long-term Impacts: The long-term impact of the cooperative farming program is that it provides a 

cost- effective way for the refuge to provide steady, reliable food and habitat for wintering migratory 

waterfowl. Cooperative farming maintains large open field habitat. If food and habitat are not 

available yearly or are available sporadically, then migratory waterfowl use can occur only 

sporadically. No measure exists to indicate that cooperative farming promotes or causes soil erosion. 

These refuge river bottoms have been farmed since long before the refuge was established in 1963. 

The refuge has maintained farming activities since its establishment and the land's productivity has 

not declined. The refuge is subjected to spring flooding, but rather than erode the refuge's 

bottomlands these floods continue to build up the soils as the river drops its silt load once it comes 

out of its banks. Evidence of this soil accumulation process is regularly seen on flooded refuge roads 

which accumulate silt during flood events. 

Cumulative Impacts: Farming benefits waterfowl as well as other wildlife species and supports 

hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. This 

activity does not significantly impact any other refuge activity. 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

_X__ Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: That policy and guidance is followed and that 

practice is conducted according to this station's Cropland Management Plan and any subsequent 

decisions developed through the comprehensive planning process. An annual cooperative farming 

agreement is developed and signed by the cooperative farmer and the refuge manager or his 

representative. Annual evaluation and ongoing monitoring of the cooperative farming program will be 

done to ensure conditions within the cooperative agreement are being complied with and overall 

condition of the area is not being degraded. Stipulations within the agreement only allow application 

of approved chemicals. Also, the program should be modified to fulfill new refuge goals developed in 

the upcoming Comprehensive Conservation Planning process. Staff must monitor the program to 

ensure farmers are adhering to their farming agreements, including the following: 

y To reduce erosion, soil loss and ground disturbance, eliminate spring disking activities through 

the use of no till farming procedures. 

y To reduce nutrient loading in refuge streams, implement crop rotations with corn and 

soybeans. This rotation enhances nitrogen fixation prior to corn planting and greatly reduces 

the use of commercial fertilizers on refuge lands. 
Section C. Appendices 199

y Implement wildlife buffers along the edges of cooperative farm fields to provide food, cover 

and enhanced habitat diversity along the field borders. 

Justification: The cooperative farming program is a critical component of management for migratory 

waterfowl and benefits other wildlife, and, thus, fulfills all of the refuge purposes noted above. It also 

helps meet national waterfowl management objectives. Farming by means of a cooperative farmer 

where a share of the crop is left for wildlife consumption is the most economical way to produce the 

grain foods to feed the wildlife species using the refuge. Options to utilize contracted farmers or 

refuge employees to conduct this program are not available due to budget constraints. The 

cooperative farming program provides supplemental foods for migrating and wintering waterfowl as 

well as other migratory bird species and native wildlife at minimal cost to the government. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_X_Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 1-year Re-evaluation Date: 

________________________________________________________________________________

Literature Cited:

Bauer, H.G., H. Stark and P. Grenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds 

wintering in the western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91. 

Bergman, R.D. 1973. Use of southern boreal lakes by post-breeding canvasbacks and redheads. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 37:160-170. 

Burger, J. 1995. Beach recreation and nesting birds. Pages 281-295 in T.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds., Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research.

Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372pp. 

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human Disturbance of Waterfowl: an Annotated 

Bibliography. Resource Publication 188, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 62 pp. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the lens. Audubon, January-February, 1998. 

Hume, R.A. 1976. Reaction of goldeneyes to boating. British Birds 69:178-179. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and Coot Ecology and Management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conservation Department, Technical Bulletin No. 33. 211 pp. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:242-248. 
200 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavior responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 21:31-39. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds., Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence thorough Management and 

Research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human Disturbance of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects and 

Management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Leaflet 13.2.15. 7 pp. 

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George and W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296. 

Laskowski, H., T. Leger, J. Gallegos and F. James. 1993. Behavior Response of Greater 

Yellowlegs, Snowy Egrets and Mallards to Human Disturbance at Back Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge. Unpublished Report #51510-01-92. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 25 pp. 

Morton J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 

in W.R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe and L. Roberts, eds., 

Waterfowl Habitat Restoration, Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic Flyway. Third 

Edition. Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, and 

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. Dover, Delaware. 1,114 pp. 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2004. North Carolina's State and Federally Listed 

Wildlife Species. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Pease, M. L., R.K. Rose and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):103-112. 

Riffell, S. K., J. Gutzwiller and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Does repeated human intrusion cause 

cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecological Applications 6(2):492-505. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone disturbances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbances in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139-145. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation 

Biology 16(1):216-224. 

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral response of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit 

River, Washington. Pages 231-241 in R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster and C.W. 

Servhenn, eds., Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium. The Nature 

Conservancy, Seattle, Washington. 

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor Recreation and its Ecological Effects: A Bibliography and Review.

University College of London, London, England. Discussion Papers in Conservation 4, 35 pp. 

Sterling, T. and A. Dzubin. 1967. Canada goose molt migrations to the Northwest Territories. 

Transactions of the North American Research Conference 32:367-369. 

Thompson, D. 1973. Feeding ecology of diving ducks on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 37:367-381. 
Section C. Appendices 201

Thornburg, D.D. 1973. Diving duck movements on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 37:382-389. 

Wikipedia. 2005. Mountain Biking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain.biking. 

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is considered 

for compatibility outside of the comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature becomes 

part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 
202 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 203

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: Jeffrey Bricken 

Telephone Number: 704-694-4424 

E-Mail: jeffrey_bricken@fws.gov 

Date: August 10, 2007 

PROJECT NAME: Pee Dee NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

 ___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency: North Carolina

III. Station Name: Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge

IV. Description of Proposed Action 

See attached: Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for 

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, Anson and Richmond Counties, North Carolina.

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

Red-cockaded woodpecker 

The Pee Dee NWR has approximately 3,200 acres of pine and pine-hardwood forests. This is a 

sufficient number of forested acreage that could support 13 red-cockaded woodpecker clusters if the 

forests are intensively managed to meet the USFWS red-cockaded woodpecker recovery guidelines. 

However, at its peak, the Pee Dee NWR red-cockaded woodpecker population consisted of only 

three groups. Degradation of pine habitat, due to a lack of hardwood management, and intense 

cavity competition by other woodpecker species, caused the eventual abandonment of these sites. 

No active red-cockaded woodpecker clusters are known to exist on private lands surrounding the 

refuge. The nearest viable red-cockaded woodpecker population is in the North Carolina Sandhills, 

over 70 miles to the east of Pee Dee NWR. 
204 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

In 1998, only one male red-cockaded woodpecker remained on the refuge. The following year an 

attempt was made to pair the remaining male with a female translocated from Carolina Sandhills 

NWR. The attempt failed when the female abandoned the cluster site. The male was last seen in 

2001. Since that time, no red-cockaded woodpeckers have been observed on the refuge. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 1998 report entitled, Strategies and Guideline for the Recovery 

and Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitats on National Wildlife Refuges

cited a refuge population goal of 10 clusters. Since that time, biologists have evaluated this 

population goal and concluded that it would not be realistic to attempt to establish a viable population 

of red-cockaded woodpeckers on Pee Dee NWR. This decision was based on two factors: the great 

distance to the nearest stable red-cockaded woodpecker population, causing the Pee Dee NWR to 

become a population “sink”; and the length of time it will take to restore the upland pine stands to a 

condition that will meet the recovery habitat criteria provided in the 2003 revised red-cockaded 

woodpecker recovery plan. Refuge staff will continue to manage upland pine and mixed pine stands 

to meet the species recovery guidelines and to provide habitat for transient birds. Management will 

include timber thinning as well as the application of prescribed fire to reduce hardwood midstory and 

promote herbaceous ground cover. If a red-cockaded woodpecker does colonize one of the existing 

cluster sites, refuge staff will ensure that the cluster core has suitable cavity habitat in place. 

Otherwise, no cavity habitat management is planned. 

Schweinitz's sunflower 

Generally speaking, areas currently supporting or with the potential to support Piedmont Longleaf 

Pine forests, Shortleaf Pine Oak forests, or Dry Oak Hickory forests over mafic geology (and maficderived soils) have the potential to support viable populations of Schweinitz's sunflower. The species 

is likely to persist in canopy gaps within these larger community types - as may occur in association 

with hardpans, diabase sills, bluffs, glades, or monadnocks - openings which vary in size and 

composition, but can be created through mechanical clearing and maintained through use of 

prescribed fire. 

In a rangewide status survey of the species, Pee Dee NWR is identified as one of three sites 

recommended for establishing protected populations of Schweinitz’s sunflower at a landscape level 

(Bates, 2003). The refuge currently contains remnant natural community types that are associated 

with and known to support this species, namely Piedmont longleaf pine and diabase bluffs. Pee Dee 

NWR also contains Iredell soils, mafic in nature and geologically, Triassic basin, both associated with 

“Piedmont prairies.” 

No candidate species occur on the refuge. 

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 
Section C. Appendices 205

Section 7 Refuge vegetation map. Potential RCW habitat includes areas with older stands of pine, 

while Schweinitz's sunflowers could grow in certain “open” areas. 
206 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered (E)

Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) Endangered (E)

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species, S/A=Similar Appearance 

VI. Location (attach map): 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Southeastern mixed forests (NA0413) 

B. County and State: Anson and Richmond Counties, North Carolina 

Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude: 

Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

VII. Determination of Effects:

Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Red-cockaded woodpecker 

(Picoides borealis) 

 No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Currently, 

there are no active sites on the refuge. Management of the upland pine 

stands will be conducted in accordance with criteria listed in the 

Service’s red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan. Resulting habitat 

improvements will have a positive effect on red-cockaded 

woodpeckers. 

Schweinitz's sunflower 

(Helianthus schweinitzii

Establish and manage one or more viable populations of Schweinitz’s 

sunflower on appropriate sites using guidance from the current species 

Recovery Plan and species experts. 
Section C. Appendices 207

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

 

Red-cockaded woodpecker If red-cockaded woodpeckers re-establish themselves on the refuge, 

the thinning of pine stands and elimination of midstory hardwood by 

chemical and mechanical means will be limited to the time period 

outside of this species breeding season (April to July). 

Schweinitz's sunflower Annually monitor established populations to measure success of 

relocation and management regimes and to determine population 

status and potential contribution toward the species’ recovery goal. 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1

REQUESTED

NE NA AA

Red-cockaded woodpecker x Concurrence 

Schweinitz's sunflower x Concurrence 

 Concurrence 

 Concurrence 

 Concurrence 

 Concurrence 

 Concurrence 

 Concurrence 

 Concurrence 

 Concurrence 

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a 

complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested is a” Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for 

listed species is “Formal Consultation”. Response requested for proposed and candidate species is “Conference”. 
208 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

____________________________ ________________________ 

Signature (originating station) Date

____________________________

Title

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

_____________________________ __________________________

Signature Date

_____________________________ __________________________ 

 Title Office 
Section C. Appendices 209

Appendix H. Wilderness Review 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is 

managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

y generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

y has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

y 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; 

y 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 

y may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands within Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the 

criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

The refuge’s wilderness review was performed by the refuge staff in June 2007. No areas within the 

refuge were found to be suitable for designation as wilderness. The refuge’s management boundary 

totals 8,443 acres across Anson and Richmond counties, North Carolina. Human disturbances are 

evident throughout and around the refuge in the form of roadways and adjacent agricultural areas 

and development. 
210 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 211

Appendix I. Refuge Biota 

LISTED WILDLIFE (POTENTIALLY) OCCURRING ON THE REFUGE 

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

NCWRC USFWS 

FRESHWATER MUSSELS

Alewife Floater Anodonta implicata T - 

Brook Floater Alasmidonta varicosa E SC 

Carolina Creekshell Villosa vaughaniana E SC 

Carolina Fatmucket Lampsilis radiata conspicua T - 

Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E E 

Creeper Strophitus undulatus T - 

Eastern Pondmussel Ligumia nasuta T - 

Notched Rainbow Villosa constricta SC - 

Roanoke Slabshell Elliptio roanokensis T 

Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa E SC 

FISH

Carolina Darter Etheostoma collis SC SC 

MAMMALS

Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii T SC 

BIRDS

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T * 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SC - 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus SC - 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E E 

Key: E=endangered, SC= species of concern, T=threatened, * Delisted July 2007 

LISTED PLANTS POTENTIALLY FOUND ON THE REFUGE 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Status 

NCWRC USFWS 

Bog oatgrass Danthonia epilis SC SC 

Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea SC SC 

Dwarf aster Eurybia mirabilis SC SC 

Flatrock panic grass Panicum lithophilum SC SC 

Georgia lead-plant Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana SC SC 

Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii SC SC 

Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia SC SC 

Sandhills bog lily Lilium pyrophilum SC SC 

Sandhills milk-vetch Astragalus michauxii SC SC 

Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E E 

Small-leaved meadow-rue Thalictrum macrostylum SC SC 

Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna SC SC 

Key: E=endangered, SC= species of concern, T=threatened
212 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

BIRDS 

Seasonal abundance and breeding status of birds on the refuge during spring (SP), summer (SU), fall 

(F) and winter (W). Key: A=abundant, C=common, U=uncommon, O=occasional, R=rare; 

PB=possible breeding, √=documented breeding, X=accidental, N=nonnative 

Common Name Scientific Name Breeding on 

Refuge SP SU F W 

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens √ C C C 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus R 

American Black Duck Anas rubripes C C C 

American Coot Fulica americana C C C 

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos √ A A A A 

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis √ C C C C 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius U U U U 

American Pipit Anthus rubescens U U C 

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla PB U U U 

American Robin Turdus migratorius √ C C C C 

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea X 

American Wigeon Anas americana U U C 

American WooD.C.ock Scolopax minor PB C O C C 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga O O 

Bachman’s Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis X 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus U O O U 

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula O R O 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia R R 

Barn Owl Tyto alba R R R R 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica √ C C C 

Barred Owl Strix varia √ C C C C 

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon √ C C C C 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger R R 

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus PB C C C C 

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia √ C C C 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus R R 

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca A 

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata O O 

Black-throated Blue 

Warbler Dendroica caerulescens U U 

Black-throated Green 

Warbler Dendroica virens O 

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea √ C C C 

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata √ C C C C 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea √ C C C 

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius PB U O U O 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors C C O 

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus R 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus O O 

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia O 

Brant Branta bernicla X X 

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus O R O 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana U U U 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum √ C C C U 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater √ C C C A 

Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla √ C C C C 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola U 
Section C. Appendices 213

Common Name Scientific Name Breeding on 

Refuge SP SU F W 

Canada Goose Branta canadensis O C C 

Canada Goose (resident) Branta canadensis √ C C C C 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis U U 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria R 

Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis v C C C C 

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus √ C C C C 

Cattle Egret (N) Bubulcus ibis U U 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum U U C 

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica R 

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica √ C C C 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina √ C C C C 

Chuck-will’s-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis √ C C 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota √ U U 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula R 

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula C C C A 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor √ U U U 

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas √ C C C R 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii PB U O U U 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis A A A 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus U U U 

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens √ C C C C 

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis √ C C C C 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus √ C C U 

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna √ C C C C 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe √ C C C U 

Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio √ U U U U 

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus √ C C C C 

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens √ C C C 

European Starling (N) Sturnus vulgaris √ A A A A 

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus R R R 

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla √ C C C C 

Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus √ U U U 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca U U U 

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus X 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos X X 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa C C C 

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera R 

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum O O O R 

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis √ C C C R 

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus U 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias PB C C C C 

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus √ C C U 

Great Egret Ardea alba U U 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus √ C C C C 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila X 

Greater White-fronted 

Goose Anser albifrons X 

Green Heron Butorides virescens √ C C C 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca C U C 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus √ U U U U 

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii X 
214 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name Breeding on 

Refuge SP SU F W 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus U U C 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus C C C 

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina √ C C C 

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris O O O 

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus √ C C C C 

House Sparrow (N) Passer domesticus √ C C C C 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon √ U U U 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea √ C C C 

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus √ U U U 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus √ C U C C 

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus X 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis R 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla O O O 

LeConte’s sparrow Ammodramus leconteii X 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis R R O 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes U U 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii O 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea O O 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus √ U U U U 

Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla √ U U U 

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia R O 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos O C A 

Mallard (resident) Anas platyrhynchos √ A C A A 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris U U 

Merlin Falco columbarius X 

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis R 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura √ A A A A 

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus √ C C C C 

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis √ C C C C 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus √ C C C C 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus C C C 

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos √ C C C C 

Northern Parula Parula americana √ C C C 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta C O C 

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis √ U U 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata C U C 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis O O 

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius √ C C U 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus U C U 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus √ C C C 

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum O U R 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X X 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps C U C C 

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus √ C C C C 

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus R R R 

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus √ C C C C 

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor √ C C C 

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea √ C C C 

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus R R R 

Purple Gallinule Porphyrula martinica X X 
Section C. Appendices 215

Common Name Scientific Name Breeding on 

Refuge SP SU F W 

Purple Martin Progne subis √ C C 

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus v C C C C 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator R 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis O O O 

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker Picoides borealis X X X X 

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus √ C C C 

Redhead Aythya americana R 

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus √ C C C 

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus √ C C C C 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis √ C C C C 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus √ C C C A 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis U U C 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris C C A 

Rock Pigeon (N) Columba livia √ U U U U 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus U U 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula C C C 

Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird Archilochus colubris √ C C C 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis O O 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus O O O 

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis X X 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis C C C 

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea U U 

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis R R 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus U U U 

Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus X 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens R R R 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria C O 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia C C U 

Sora Porzana carolina R 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia C O 

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra √ C C U 

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus U U 

Swainson’s Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii R 

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana C C C 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor U U 

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor X 

Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor √ C C C C 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus U U U 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura PB C C C C 

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda R 

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus O O O 

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus √ C C 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus X 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis √ C C C C 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys O O O 

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus √ C C C 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis C C A 

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo √ C C C C 

Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata U C C 
216 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name Breeding on 

Refuge SP SU F W 

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes O O U 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa √ C U C C 

Wood Stork Mycteria americana X 

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina √ C C U 

Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus PB U U U 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia PB U U U 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris R 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius C C C 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus √ C C C 

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens √ C C O 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata A A A 

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons √ U U U 

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica √ C C U 

Veery Catharus fuscescens O O 

OTHER WILDLIFE 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Fish 

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 

American Eel Anguilla rostrata 

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Redfin Pickerel Esox americanus 

Common Carp (nonnative) Cyprinus carpio 

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Whitefin Shiner Cyprinella nivea 

Comely Shiner (nonnative) Notropis amoenus 

Coastal Shiner Notropis petersoni 

Sandbar Shiner Notropis scepticus 

Creek Chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus 

Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops 

Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum 

Smallmouth Buffalo (nonnative) Ictiobus bubalus 

Blue Catfish (nonnative) Ictalurus furcatus 

Channel Catfish (nonnative) Ictalurus punctatus 

White Catfish Ameiurus catus 

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 

Flat Bullhead Ameiurus playcephalus 

Flathead Catfish (nonnative) Pylodictis olivaris 

Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 

Pirate Perch Aphredoderus saynus 

Bluespotted Sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus 

Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus 

Green Sunfish (nonnative) Lepomis cyanellus 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 
Section C. Appendices 217

Common Name Scientific Name 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Tesselated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi 

Carolina Darter Etheostoma collis 

Yellow Perch (nonnative) Perca flavescens 

Newts and Salamanders 

Eastern Newt Notophthalmus viridescens 

Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum 

Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum 

Northern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus fuscus 

Two-lined Salamander Eurycea bislineata 

Three-lined Salamander Eurycea guttolineata 

Slimy salamander Plethodon glutinosus 

Mud Salamander Pseudotriton montanus 

Red Salamander Pseudotriton ruber 

Toads 

Eastern Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus holbrooki 

American Toad Bufo americanus 

Oak Toad Bufo quercicus 

Fowler’s Toad Bufo woodhousei 

Frogs 

Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans 

Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis 

Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer 

Upland Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata 

Bullfrog Rana catebeiana 

Green Frog Rana clamitans 

Pickerel Frog Rana palustris 

Southern Leopard Frog Rana sphenocephala 

Eastern Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Turtles 

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentine 

Eastern Mud Turtle Kinosternon subrubrum 

Eastern Musk Turtle Stenotherus odoratus 

River Cooter Chrysemys concinna 

Eastern Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta 

Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata 

Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene Carolina 

Lizards 

Eastern Fence Lizard Sceloporus undulates 

Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus 

Southeastern Five-lined Skink Eumeces inexpectatus 

Broadheaded Skink Eumeces laticeps 

Ground Skink Scincella lateralis 

Six-lined Racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

Green Anole Anolis carolinensis 

Snakes 

Scarlet Snake Cemophora coccinea 

Black Racer Coluber constrictor 

Corn Snake Elaphe guttata 

Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta 

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platirhinos 
218 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Eastern Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula 

Redbelly Water Snake Nerodia erythrogaster 

Rough Green Snake Opheodrys aestivus 

Brown Snake Storeria dekayi 

Eastern Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sauritus 

Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Smooth Earth Snake Virginia valeriae 

Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix 

Mammals 

Opossum Didelphis marsupialis 

Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda 

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus 

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus 

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Eastern Pipstrel Pipistrellus subflavus 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata 

Mink Mustela vison 

River Otter Lutra canadensis 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Red Fox Vulpes fulva 

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus 

Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 

Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Norway Rat (nonnative) Rattus norvegicus 

Black Rat (nonnative) Rattus rattus 

House Mouse (nonnative) Mus musculus 

Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus 

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 
Section C. Appendices 219

Appendix J. List of Preparers 

Jeffrey Bricken, Refuge Manager, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Greg Walmsley, Assistant Refuge Manager, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge 

Oliver van den Ende, Contractor, Dynamac Corporation