DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ALLIGATOR RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Dare and and Hyde Counties, North Carolina 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

SOUTHEAST REGION 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345 

MAY 2006

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

SECTION A. 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.....................................................................................................................4

National Conservation Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................4

Relationship to State Partners......................................................................................................5

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................................7

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

Refuge History and Purposes.......................................................................................................7

History.................................................................................................................................7

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

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

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

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

Ecological Threats and Problems...............................................................................................12

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation.......................................................................................12

Alterations to Hydrology....................................................................................................13

Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems........................................................................................13

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

Challenges ........................................................................................................................16

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

Climate..............................................................................................................................17

Geology and Topography..................................................................................................18

Minerals.............................................................................................................................18

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

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

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

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

Visual Resources ...............................................................................................................24

Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................24

Habitat ...............................................................................................................................24

Wildlife...............................................................................................................................32

Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................37

Socioeconomic Environment ......................................................................................................37

Introduction .......................................................................................................................37

History...............................................................................................................................38

Land Use...........................................................................................................................40

Demographics...................................................................................................................43

Employment ......................................................................................................................44

Forestry.............................................................................................................................45

Outdoor Recreation in the Area ........................................................................................45

Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................46
ii Table of Contents 

Tourism.............................................................................................................................47

Transportation...................................................................................................................48

Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................48

Refuge Administration and Management...................................................................................48

Land Protection and Conservation ...................................................................................48

Visitor Services .................................................................................................................48

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ........................................................................53

Refuge Infrastructure ........................................................................................................55

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................57

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................57

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities.....................................................................57

Hydrology..........................................................................................................................58

Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................58

Habitat Management.........................................................................................................60

Visitor Services .................................................................................................................61

Resource Protection .........................................................................................................62

Wilderness Review ...........................................................................................................62

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................65

introduction.................................................................................................................................65

Vision .........................................................................................................................................66

Goals..........................................................................................................................................66

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

Habitat Management.........................................................................................................66

Public Use/Outreach.........................................................................................................66

Resource Protection .........................................................................................................66

Objectives and Strategies ..........................................................................................................67

Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................67

Habitat Management.........................................................................................................71

Visitor Services .................................................................................................................76

Resource Protection .........................................................................................................81

Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................87

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ..............................................................................................................91

Introduction ................................................................................................................................91

Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................91

Refuge Administration................................................................................................................95

Funding and Personnel ..............................................................................................................95

Volunteers ..................................................................................................................................99

Partnership Opportunities ..........................................................................................................99

Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................99

Monitoring and Adaptive Management.....................................................................................100

Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................101
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge iii

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................103

Purpose and Need for the Environmental Assessment............................................................103

Decision Framework.................................................................................................................103

Planning Study Area.................................................................................................................103

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility .......................................................................104

Compatibility....................................................................................................................104

Planning Process......................................................................................................................104

Issues and Concerns................................................................................................................105

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................................................107

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................109

Formulation of Alternatives.......................................................................................................109

Description of Management Alternatives..................................................................................109

Aternative 1 – Current Management (No Action/No Wilderness Alternative)..................109

Alternative 2: Proposed Alternative.................................................................................110

Alternative 3 (All wilderness alternative) .........................................................................111

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................113

Features Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................161

Land Acquisition..............................................................................................................161

Refuge Revenue Sharing................................................................................................161

Visitor Services ...............................................................................................................161

Refuge Administration.....................................................................................................162

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................162

Compatible Secondary Uses ....................................................................................................163

Other Management...................................................................................................................164

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................................165

Overview...................................................................................................................................165

Comparison of Effects by Alternatives......................................................................................165

Biological Environment....................................................................................................165

Physical Environment......................................................................................................166

Social Environment .........................................................................................................167

Economic Environment ...................................................................................................168

Effects Common to All Management Alternatives ....................................................................169

Public Health and Safety Effects.....................................................................................169

Regulatory Effects...........................................................................................................169

Cultural and Historic Resource Effects ...........................................................................169

Uncertainty of Future Action Effects................................................................................171

Cumulative Effects ..........................................................................................................171

Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................171

Wildlife Disturbances.......................................................................................................171

User Group Conflicts.......................................................................................................172

Effects on Adjacent Landowners.....................................................................................172

Land Ownership and Site Development..........................................................................173

Summary of Environmental Effects ..........................................................................................173
iv Table of Contents 

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.....................................................................................177

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY................................................................................................................181

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................189

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ..............................................................................195

APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...........................................................................................203

APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................211

APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................225

APPENDIX VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS ...............................................258

APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS.............................................................................................259

APPENDIX IX. WILDERNESS REVIEW ...........................................................................................285
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge v

LIST OF FIGURES 

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

Carolina. ................................................................................................................................8

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

Area. ....................................................................................................................................10

Figure 3. Soils of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................19

Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge...............................25

Figure 5. Current boundary of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge .........................................49

Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge......................................50

Figure 7. Proposed visitor facilities for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. .................................96
vi Table of Contents 

LIST OF TABLES 

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

Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................................................10

Table 2. Threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina............14

Table 3. Characteristics of soils of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge........................................21

Table 4. Classifications of water bodies around the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge .............23

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

Refuge.................................................................................................................................25

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

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge...............................................................................29

Table 7. Dare County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture...................41

Table 8. Commodity production in Dare County in 1997 and 2002....................................................42

Table 9. Hyde County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture..................42

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

Census of Agriculture ..........................................................................................................43

Table 11. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties ..........................44

Table 12. Acquisition history of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge......................................49

Table 13. Staff of the Alligator River and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuges, 2005.......................54

Table 14. Projects supporting Wildlife Strategies ................................................................................91

Table 15. Projects supporting Habitat Strategies ................................................................................92

Table 16. Projects supporting Public Use Strategies ..........................................................................93

Table 17. Projects supporting Resource Protection Strategies ...........................................................94

Table 18. Projects supporting Refuge Administration Strategies ........................................................95

Table 19. Proposed staffing plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.....................................97

Table 20. Summary of Wildlife Objectives and Strategies.................................................................114

Table 21. Summary of Habitat Objectives and Strategies.................................................................116

Table 22. Summary of Public Use Objectives and Strategies ...........................................................119

Table 23. Summary of Resource Protection Objectives and Strategies............................................122

Table 24. Summary of Administration Objectives and Strategies.....................................................125

Table 25. Summary of projects proposed in each Alternative ...........................................................126

Table 26. Cost of projects proposed in all Alternatives .....................................................................140

Table 27. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 1.........................................................................141

Table 28. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 2.........................................................................153

Table 29. Cost of projects proposed Alternative 3.............................................................................157

Table 30. North Carolina present use value calculation ....................................................................170

Table 31. Comparison of the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1....................................174

Table 32: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Planning Core Team members...........................177

Table 33. Biological Review Team members, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.....................178

Table 34. Expert contributors to the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and their area(s) of expertise ..............................................................179
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment to guide the management of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare 

and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for 

the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

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

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

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

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

the public scoping meetings at four locations on four evenings. The staff held another round of public 

meetings to solicit public reaction to the proposed alternatives. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

environmental education and interpretation. The staff conducts extensive environmental education 

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

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

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

manages the refuge from a rented building in Manteo, 10 miles east of the refuge. 

Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, proposed moderate program increases. Under this alternative, 

the refuge would continue to manage its moist soil units very intensively by managing water levels and 

vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and aquatic 

organisms. It also would manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire. The staff would 

inventory and monitor fire-dependent habitats to document their conditions and assess the effectiveness 

of management. The staff would survey waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds on a routine basis. The 

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

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

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

staff would conduct extensive environmental education and interpretation programs with the assistance of 

12,000 hours of volunteer service every year. The staff would conduct programs on the refuge and in the 

newly constructed visitor center. The staff of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge would continue to 

manage the Alligator River and Pea Island national wildlife refuges. A staff of 26.75 of the 39 full-time 

equivalent positions would manage Alligator River Refuge. The staff would manage the refuge from a 

Service-owned building in Manteo, 10 miles east of the refuge. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, advances the refuge program considerably, and is more 

realistic than Alternative 3 in terms of expected staffing levels to conduct the proposed program. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 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 Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. The plan is designed as a 

working guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years. 

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

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 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 (Sections III and IV). When fully implemented, this plan will strive to 

achieve the vision and purposes of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows and encourages 

public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with the refuge’s mission and 

purposes. 

A planning team prepared the plan. Members of the planning team included representatives from 

various Service programs, including the divisions of Refuges; Fisheries; Ecological Services; Realty; 

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

the comments and suggestions of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, other 

governmental organizations, local citizens, and the general public through a series of stakeholder and 

public scoping meetings. A description of this public involvement and the planning process itself is 

included in Chapter III, Plan Development. 

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

other alternatives, as described in the accompanying environmental assessment (Section B). After 

reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the planning team developed 

these alternatives in an attempt to determine how to best meet the goals and objectives of Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed alternative is the Service’s recommended course of 

action for management of the refuge, and is the basis for this plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

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

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

long-term guidance to the refuge’s management programs and activities for the next 15 years. 
2 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The plan is needed to: 

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

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

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

refuge; 

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

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

System Improvement Act of 1997; 

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

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

maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

states and several island territories. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

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

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

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

future generations of Americans.
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 3

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

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

manage each refuge to: 

• fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

• fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

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

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

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

and 

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

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

legitimate and priority public uses. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

valued at more than $20.6 million. 

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

• Wildlife comes first. 

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

• Refuges must be healthy. 

• Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

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

participation from others. 
4 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

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

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

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

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

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

NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

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

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

and off public lands. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

priority wetland habitats from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian Arctic. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wildlife habitat or protect it with easements. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 5

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS 

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

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

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

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

fish and wildlife throughout the United States. 

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

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

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

million acres of game lands in North Carolina. 

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

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

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

this comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable. It is continuing its work with the 

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

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

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

planning process, it is also an active partner in the coordination, planning, and execution of various 

wildlife and habitat surveys. The Commission also assists refuge staff in providing special wildlife 

observation opportunities. A key part of the comprehensive planning process is the integration of 

common mission objectives between the Service and the Commission, where appropriate. 
6 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 7

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Alligator River is located in mainland Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. The refuge is 

named for the Alligator River, which constitutes the refuge’s western boundary. The Albemarle 

Sound is the refuge’s northern boundary; Croatan and Pamlico Sounds, the eastern boundary; 

and Hyde County, the southern boundary. The majority of the refuge lies in Dare County. The 

village of Manns Harbor (2000 population: 1,182) lies at the eastern edge of the refuge, and the 

village of Engelhard (2000 population: 1,561) lies just beyond the refuge’s southeastern corner 

(Figure 1). The refuge covers approximately 152,260 acres and lies at the eastern end of a 

broad, flat, and swampy peninsula in northeastern North Carolina. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES 

HISTORY 

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

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

There were no inhabitants of the area of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge until the late 

1700s or early 1800s, when settlers established a community called Beechlands near Milltail Creek. 

In 1885, three lumbermen from Buffalo, New York, purchased 168,000 acres of Dare County’s 

mainland to set up a timber industry and camp at Buffalo City, near Milltail Creek. The land changed 

owners several times over the years and the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company eventually 

obtained it. In 1974, McLean Industries bought the land for a large farming experiment called First 

Colony Farms. The Prudential Life Insurance Company formed a partnership with McLean Industries 

to form the Prulean Corporation. In 1984, Prudential Life Insurance Company obtained all the 

Prulean Corporation land, as well as some of the First Colony Farms land. 

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

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

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

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

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

PURPOSES 

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

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

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

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

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

services... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f(b)1 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 
8 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

North Carolina. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of 1966). 

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

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

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

Resources Act of 1986). 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

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

of cropland, moist-soil areas, and the shop area, as a Significant Natural Heritage Area by the North 

Carolina Natural Heritage Program. The Nature Conservancy ranks certain vegetative communities 

as imperiled or rare (Table 1). 

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

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

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

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

Coastal Plain (Figure 2). The South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 25 million-hectare (62 millionacre) complex of forested wetlands and uplands, dunes, and marshes that extended from Florida to 

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

rivers has fluctuated annually, recharging the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s aquatic systems and 

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

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

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

Island, Mattamuskeet, Roanoke River, Pocosin Lakes, and Swanquarter in North Carolina, and the 

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

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

Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear Ecosystem, by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
10 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

Physiographic Area. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 11

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

National Wildlife Refuge 

Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank 

Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest S1 G1 

Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest S2 G2 

Nonriverine Swamp Forest S2, S3 G2, G3 

Low Pocosin S2 G3 

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

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

S3 = Rare or uncommon in North Carolina. 

G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. 

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

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

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

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

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

off public lands. 

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

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

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

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

Flight Plan, and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative. 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge. 
12 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

plans and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. The Service also uses these 

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

wildlife or protect their land with easements. 

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has its own comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy, known as the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan, to help direct the state’s allocation of funds 

from the federally funded State Working Grants Program. The Service has provided input to the 

development and execution of the strategy. The plan addresses resident as well as migratory species. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

marshes, and coastal dunes to fragments ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional 

value to a few large areas that have maintained many of the original functions and values of forested 

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

integrity. Species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, endangered, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 13

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

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

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

Habitat loss on the Lower Coastal Plain is more permanent than in the interior. Conversion of marshes for 

commercial development is irreversible. Conversion of pocosins and nonriverine hardwood forests for 

agriculture results in the oxidation of organic soils on which those plant communities evolved. 

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

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

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

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

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

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

The region’s natural hydrology is directly responsible for the connectedness of wetlands and indirectly 

responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on topography and soils. 

Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to wetlands and 

waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nesting. 

SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

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

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

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

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

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

aquatic organisms as threatened and twelve species as endangered in North Carolina (Table 2). 
14 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

Status Common Name Scientific Name 

Endangered Manatee, West Indian** Trichechus manatus 

Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill** Eretmochelys imbricata 

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

Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback** Dermochelys coriacea 

Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana 

Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum 

Endangered Tern, Roseate** Sterna dougallii 

Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus 

Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae 

Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis 

Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis 

Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon 

Endangered Wolf, Red* Canis rufus 

Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded* Picoides borealis 

Threatened*** Alligator, American* Alligator mississippiensis 

Threatened Eagle, Bald* Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Threatened Plover, Piping** Charadrius melodus 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead** Caretta caretta 

Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa 

* Presence Documented on Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

** Other Species Listed in Dare County, North Carolina 

*** Listed by Similarity of Appearance 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 15

Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created 

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

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

associated with navigation and flood control. 

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

has a negative impact on the marshes in the area. 

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

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

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

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

land birds that only breed in the interior of large forested areas. They also provide habitat for fisheating raptors that require forested habitat close to water. The forests protect the aquatic habitat for 

interjurisdictional fish and other aquatic organisms. Much of the development has been for crop 

production and these areas have potential for restoration, as crop prices do not justify the 

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

habitat restoration programs focus on bottomland forests. 

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

has not been as great in acreage or percentage of habitat lost, but there was originally much less of 

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

public desires to live and recreate in these areas and developers continue to destroy these areas. 

Pocosins and nonriverine hardwood forests have been logged, cleared, and drained for crop 

production. The fish and wildlife species associated with these habitats are in much greater jeopardy 

than those associated with bottomland hardwood forests. The potential for restoring these habitats is 

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

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

by intensive management of the habitat that remains with prescribed fire and water management. 

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

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

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

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

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

the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s biological diversity. 
16 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

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

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

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

sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

management objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs. These needs include those 

of wintering migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, large mammals, and other 

wide-ranging species. Often, management for one species or species group conflicts with the 

management objectives for another species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term 

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

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

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

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

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

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

habitat needs of neotropical migratory land birds that prefer a shrubby habitat. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

habitat for a diversity of species throughout their range. 

CHALLENGES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

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

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

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

caps began melting, the sea level rose; and it is believed that the river flows slowed, depositing organic 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 17

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

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

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

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

CLIMATE 

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

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

fairly large variation in temperature from winter to summer. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cold spells. Snowfall is not common. 

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

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

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

1989. Twelve inches of snow fell on the Outer Banks on January 23, 2003. Twenty-five inches is the 

record at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. 

Of the total annual precipitation, about 27 inches usually falls in May through September. The 

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

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

intensive rainfall. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the fall is December 7. The average growing season is 265 days. 
18 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is the product of wetland community development following 

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

Southeast was higher than it is presently. During the Wisconsin Ice Age, the sea level dropped to its 

current level and exposed large areas of the continental shelf. As a result, fast-flowing rivers cut 

through the coastal plain terrace to the Atlantic Ocean. During the next several thousand years, as 

the ice receded, sea levels gradually rose. During this period, it is believed the river flows were 

slowed and organic sediment loads were deposited in the interstream areas as flowing systems 

shifted to slow-moving streams (Daniel 1981). Aquatic plants began to grow in these shallow bodies 

of water, adding to the accumulation of sediment and aquatic debris. Simultaneous with this buildup 

of organic sediments, a climatic warming trend accompanied the end of the Ice Age (Whitehead 

1972). This warming trend helped to eliminate the cooler climate boreal forests and replace them 

with swamps, bogs, marshes, and pocosin habitats. 

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

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

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

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

around the westernmost segment of the Albemarle Sound system. 

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

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

dominant bottom sediment of the area’s sounds. This sediment contains up to 15% organic matter 

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

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

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

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

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

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

MINERALS 

Sand is the only mineral resource occurring in economic quantities. There are no sand pits in the 

vicinity of the refuge. 

 SOILS 

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

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

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

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

listed as hydric in Hydric Soils of the United States (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985) 

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

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

and regeneration of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation" (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985). 

These soils have seasonally high water tables within a foot of the surface of the soil. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 19

Figure 3. Soils of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
20 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Pocosin wetlands are characterized by deep organic soils known as mucks or peats. The depth of 

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

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

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

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

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

organic soils. Over the years, evolution has selected trees that are shorter. Formation of peat is an 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nitrogen and mercury—a negative impact on water quality. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fear, and Baymeade as prime farmland soils. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

period of time, all blackland soils will become mineral soils (Lilly 1981). 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 21

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

Series Approximate 

Acreage 

Surface 

Texture 

Muck 

Depth 

Water Table 

Depth 

Flooding 

Frequency 

Dorovan 561 Muck 90” 0-1’ Frequent 

Hobonny 5,473 Muck 90” 0-1’ Frequent 

Longshoal 766 Mucky Peat 72” 0-0.5’ Frequent 

Pungo 62,068 Muck 65” 0-1’ Rare 

Belhaven 48,135 Muck 45” 0-1’ Rare 

Currituck 3,845 Mucky Peat 40” 0-1’ Frequent 

Scuppernong 2,748 Muck 33” 0-1’ Rare 

Ponzer 7,065 Muck 30” 0-1’ Rare 

Roper 5,487 Muck 10” 0-1’ Rare 

Hyde 13,132 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Cape Fear 1,661 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Udorthents 58 Sand None >6’ Rare 

Acredale 17 Silt Loamy None 0-1’ Rare 

Ousley 19 Fine Sand None 1.5-3’ Common 

Baymeade 8 Fine Sand None 4-5’ Rare 

Total Land 151,043 

Water 1,217 

Total 152,260 

HYDROLOGY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ground becomes saturated during periods of intensive rainfall, some runoff occurs in roadside ditches 

and small intermittent freshwater ponds. 
22 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

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

gradational nature of sediments below the water table aquifer. 

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

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

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

changes due to flooding, tidal movement, and rainfall. 

WATER QUALITY 

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

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

supply treatment plants. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wildlife Refuge are listed below in Table 4. 

AIR QUALITY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

quality is due to the breezes blowing through the area from the ocean. 

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

Carolina specifies that prescribed fires purposely set to marshes for marsh management practices 

acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the Environmental Management Commission 

are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and regulations of governmental entities having 

jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses certain potential liabilities of burning 

even though permissible. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 23

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

Water Body or 

Stream 

Classification Best Uses 

Swan Creek 

Swan Creek Lake 

Whipping Creek 

Whipping Creek Lake 

Sandy Ridge Gut 

Sawyer Lake 

C– Low Quality Freshwater 

Sw – Low Velocity Water 

ORW – Outstanding 

Resource Water 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

Billy’s Ditch C– Low Quality Freshwater 

Sw – Low Velocity Water 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

Pamlico Sound 

Croatan Sound 

Spencer Creek 

Callaghan Creek 

Stumpy Point Bay 

Back Lake 

Long Shoal River 

Deep Creek 

Muddy Creek 

Clark Creek 

Pains Bay 

Parched Corn Bay 

Sandy Bay 

SA – Highest Quality 

Saltwater 

HQW – High Quality Water 

Commercial Shellfishing and All Other Tidal 

Saltwater Uses 

Albemarle Sound SB – Moderate Quality 

Saltwater 

Primary Recreation (Including Swimming) 

Alligator River 

Milltail Creek 

Boat Bay 

SC– Low Quality Saltwater 

Sw – Low Velocity Water 

ORW – Outstanding 

Resource Water 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

East Lake 

The Frying Pan 

South Lake 

Northeast Prong of 

 East Lake 

Liehue Gut 

Hooker Gut 

Deer Creek 

Deep Bay 

Broad Creek 

SC– Low Quality Saltwater 

Sw – Low Velocity Water 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)

Tom Mann Creek 

Gar Gut 

Davis Pond 

Spence Creek 

Poster Gut 

SC– Low Quality Saltwater Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)
24 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

provides wildlife viewing opportunities. 

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

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

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

highlights the refuge. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

degree of soil saturation, and hydroperiod. All cropland is classified as prior converted wetland. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 25

Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
26 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

Wildlife Refuge. 

Habitat Type Approximate Acreages 

Dare County Hyde County Total 

Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin 43,018 7,180 50,198 

Pond Pine/Cane Pocosin** 3,980 295 4,275 

Brackish Marsh* 16,681 2,333 19,014 

Low Shrub Pocosin 4,210 0 4,210 

Non-Alluvial Hardwood forest 14,703 0 14,703 

Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 24,468 0 24,468 

Atlantic White Cedar Forest 5,485 1,240 6.725 

High Shrub Pocosin 11,237 2,949 14,186 

Cropland 3,481 0 3,481 

Managed Wetlands 1,903 0 1,903 

Cypress-Gum Forest 7,515 0 7,515 

Freshwater Lakes, Ponds, Pools 1,036 546 1,582 

Total Acres 137,717 14,543 152,260 

* Includes flood-killed acreages from previous reports 

** Includes mixed pine and beetle-killed acreages from previous reports 

Freshwater Lakes, Ponds, and Pools 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

off of Albemarle Sound. Numerous man-made canals also dissect the refuge. 

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

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

(4–20 feet) and have vertical banks that are sometimes hollow underneath. There is a profound absence 

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

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

to 5.5. The water is darkly stained due to tannins from organic soils and vegetation with low turbidity. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 27

Brackish Marsh 

The Brackish Marsh community is found along the margins of sounds and estuaries in areas not 

subjected to regular flooding by salt water. Often referred to as "high marsh," this community is 

subjected to irregular flooding mostly from wind tides along the Outer Banks. Salinity in the brackish 

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

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

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

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

patches of giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) and reed (Phragmites australis) occur and can be 

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

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

myrtle, bulrush, sedges, and spikerushes. As salinity increases, this community can grade into salt 

marsh; if salinity decreases, it grades into freshwater marsh. The largest acreage of brackish marsh 

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

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

the mouth of almost every creek emptying into East and South lakes. 

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

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

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

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

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

Flood-killed Land 

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

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

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

point that some woody species no longer survive. 

Cropland 

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

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

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

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

assistance of cooperative farmers. Furthermore, the purchase and resulting development of waterfowl 

management units meets a goal established in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan for the 

Atlantic Flyway. Prulean Farms developed the cropland from forested wetlands by encircling it with dikes 

and constructing drainage ditches. Five pumps at two stations drain the area. Each pump is capable of 

removing 250,000 gallons of water per minute from the farm fields. Pumping is required to keep the area 

dry enough to farm. 

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

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

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

for reference purposes. 
28 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pocosins, often buried by organic soils, were deposited largely as recent marine sediments and vary 

from sand to clay. Considerable variation in mineral soils can occur over relatively short distances in 

pocosins. 

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

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

peat depth increases, nutrient availability decreases. 

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

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

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

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

from 0 to 2 percent. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cropland Management Objectives. The primary purpose of the agricultural program is to provide 

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

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

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

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

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

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

home range since release in 1987. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 29

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

the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Soil Series Surface 

Texture 

Texture of Marine 

Sediments Origin 

Estimated 

Corn Yield 

Estimated Soybean Yield 

Hyde Loam Loamy 150 45 

Roper Muck Loamy 160 45 

Cape Fear Loam Loamy, Clayey 140 45 

Belhaven Muck Loamy 125 40 

Ponzer Muck Loamy 130 40 

Pungo Muck Loamy, Clayey 100 25 

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

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

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

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

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

economical and efficient approach. 

Managed Wetlands (Moist-soil Management Units) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assistance from cooperative farmers through their lease agreements. 

Cypress-Gum Forest 

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

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

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

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

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

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

trees suitable for denning by many wildlife species, including the black bear, may be found throughout 
30 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

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

present. 

Atlantic White Cedar Forest 

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

pocosin, cypress-gum, and non-alluvial hardwood communities. The habitat type typically occurs as 

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

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

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

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

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

herbaceous plant present in substantial amounts. 

Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 

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

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

are the pine species present. Dominant shrubs are fetterbush, bitter gallberry, and sweet bay. Little or 

no herbaceous vegetation is present (Noffsinger et. al 1984). Cane may be found in some locations. 

Nonalluvial (Nonriverine) Hardwood Forest 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the only trees are a few scattered pond pines that are crooked and very stunted. These shrubdominated areas are commonly referred to as short or low pocosin. Short or low pocosin is usually 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

huckleberry that are less common in denser areas (Ash, McDonald, Kane, and Pories 1983). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the dominant shrubs with Virginia chain-fern as the dominant herbaceous plant where openings occur. 

Grasses, sedges and other herbaceous species are rarely present due to the dense shrub understory.

Pond Pine/Cane Pocosin. This cover type is found primarily northeast of the Navy Bombing Range 

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

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

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

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

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

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

due to factors other than fire frequency. Differences in hydroperiod and soil properties are the most 
32 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

likely explanations for the cane understory domination in some areas and not in others. For example, 

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

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

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

Threatened and Endangered Plants 

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

plants on the refuge. 

Plant Species 

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

However, Appendix VI represents the most comprehensive list available. This botanical list will be 

revised as new information becomes available. 

WILDLIFE 

General 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and its surrounding waters support many species of resident 

and migratory fish and wildlife. Of these, 48 species are fish (Allen et al. 1979; Baker and Smith 

1965; Hester and Copeland 1975; Johnson et al. 1980), 145 are birds (Potter 1982a), 48 are reptiles 

and amphibians (Allen et al. 1979; Braswell and Wiley 1982), and 40 are mammals (Clark et al. 

1985). The refuge supports wildlife species that are important from both a regional and a national 

standpoint (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Its large size and dense vegetation makes it a haven for species 

that avoid man, such as the black bear. Also, the refuge harbors many species adapted to living in 

forested habitat as opposed to disturbed areas such as field edges. The refuge also lies at or near 

the northern limit of ranges for several vertebrate species (Noffsinger et al. 1984). 

Birds 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge provides habitat for a wide variety of birds. Because of the 

refuge's large size and plant community diversity, habitat is provided for forest-dwelling species as 

well as marsh-dwelling species. This somewhat unique complex of various wetland habitat types 

results in the presence of some unique avian forms such the Wayne’s black-throated green warbler, a 

distinct form of prairie warbler, and an unusually dense population of worm-eating warblers (Watts 

and Paxton 2002). Approximately 250 species of birds visit the refuge regularly, with about 40 to 50 

additional species considered accidental visitors. 

The area is roughly at midpoint in the Atlantic Flyway and is a much-used and valuable feeding and 

resting area for numerous species of wintering waterfowl. Tundra swans, coots, and more than 25 

species of ducks winter either on the refuge or in its adjacent sounds and rivers. Migratory waterfowl 

numbers peak during the months of November through February. In addition to waterfowl, large 

numbers of hawks, owls, and many species of passerine birds may be seen. The avian species 

composition changes throughout the year since most are migratory. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 33

Waterfowl. Until the addition of the moist soil management units, the refuge did not support large 

numbers of waterfowl. The wood duck is the most abundant year-round species. The species is 

most often associated with the numerous ditches, canals, and swamps. The most prevalent wintering 

species in moist soil units and refuge marshes include pintail, green-winged teal, gadwall, widgeon, 

mallard, and black duck. Other species wintering or migrating on the refuge and surrounding waters 

may include blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, shovelor, scaup, canvasback, ruddy duck, red head, 

bufflehead, hooded merganser, and red-breasted merganser. Tundra swan numbers have increased 

steadily to a peak of about 1,500 birds on average. A few (less than ten) resident Canada geese are 

seen on the refuge periodically. Neither migratory Canada geese nor snow geese use the refuge. 

Breeding Birds. The species that breed on the refuge are characteristic of species that inhabit other 

coastal plain communities. However, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge differs noticeably from 

other coastal plain areas by having more warblers, especially prothonotary and black- throated green 

warblers, and fewer nuthatches, thrashers, and blue-gray gnatcatchers. The refuge is especially rich 

in woodpecker species, such as the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and the large pileated 

woodpecker. The red-cockaded woodpecker is found in pond pine pocosin. They use pond pine 

trees for nest cavity trees and the pond pine pocosin forest for foraging habitat. Typically, the redcockaded woodpecker prefers living trees 60 to 80 years old that are infected with red-heart fungus. 

The tree must also exude resin around the nest hole; a new cavity tree will be found when it no longer 

does so. The resin may serve as a defense against predators (Ash et al. 1983). Wading birds such 

as the great blue heron are common and breeding has been documented in at least two rookeries on 

and adjacent to the refuge. Bald eagles have also historically nested on the refuge and viable nests 

remain; nesting does not occur in every nest every year. 

Wintering Birds. Based upon results of the Christmas Bird Count since 2001, approximately 110 

bird species can be found on the refuge during the winter. The most common winter species are 

the American robin, yellow-rumped warbler, red-winged blackbird, sparrows, and northern 

bobwhite. Robins feed heavily on berries of redbay and greenbrier and roost in large 

concentrations in the Milltail Creek and Whipping Creek areas. Myrtle warblers use low-shrub 

pocosins, vegetated canal banks, and forest edges. They feed heavily on bayberry and wax 

myrtle berries. Northern bobwhite and red-winged blackbirds overwinter primarily in the 

agricultural fields within the refuge. Within the agricultural grassland filter strips, the song 

sparrow, fox sparrow, swamp sparrow, white-throated sparrow, and savannah sparrow may be 

observed. Mourning doves and crows winter on the refuge in smaller numbers making use of the 

farm fields. The American kestrel and the red-tailed hawk prey in the open areas of the refuge, 

while the northern harrier hunts over the marshes, fields, and low shrub pocosins. 

Transient Species. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge lies in the path of the Atlantic Flyway, a 

major migration route. The refuge provides resting and foraging areas for many migrant species 

which winter farther south. Species that migrate through the refuge during the fall include the bluewinged teal; raptors such as the broad-winged hawk and merlin; shorebirds; and a variety of perching 

birds such as the western kingbird, bank swallow, veery, Swainson's thrush, warblers (yellow, 

magnolia, Cape May, black-throated blue, blackpoll, and palm); bobolink; northern oriole; and rosebreasted grosbeak (Noffsinger et al. 1984). 

Mammals 

Of the 47 species of mammals commonly occurring in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, 42 

occur on the refuge. The most common land mammals are the black bear, opossum, and rodents 

such as the hispid cotton rat. Semiaquatic furbearers such as the muskrat, nutria, and river otter are 

common. Numbers of beaver are increasing. The white-tailed deer population has remained 
34 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

relatively constant at low numbers in recent years. However, deer herd health checks at five-year 

intervals show that the population is slightly higher than the carrying capacity for pocosin habitat. The 

black bear population is among the highest density populations in the southeast. Numerous sightings 

of eastern cougar have been reported, but none have been confirmed. 

American Black Bear. The refuge has what is believed to be one of the largest concentrations of 

black bear found in the southeastern United States. A decline in bear numbers in this and other 

areas seems to have resulted from man's disturbing influence and the destruction of habitat (Hamilton 

1978). According to Hamilton and Marchiuto (1977 and 1978), major wetland forest types such as 

pocosin must be protected to maintain the Coastal Plain bear population. 

Hardy (1974) suggested a Dare County bear population of 25 to 35 individuals, of which 13 to 20 

were adult males, four to eight were adult females, and five to nine were juveniles. There was very 

little evidence of reproductive success. The population imbalance probably resulted from selective 

mortality engendered by excessive hunting. 

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at Virginia Tech completed a study 

of the black bear population at Alligator River in 2005. The estimated population is between 180 and 

293, with a density on good habitat of three bears per square mile. The normal population on good 

habitat is one bear per square mile. 

High hunting pressure associated with increased access through road construction was the apparent 

mechanism that reduced bear on and off the refuge. In the 1970s, state legislation made it illegal to hunt 

black bear in Dare County. The population has increased steadily since. The state legislature reestablished a hunting season for Dare County in 1992, but the season was not opened on the refuge due 

to insufficient population data. A research project, conducted by the University of Tennessee from 1992–

1996, resulted in good information on habitat use, food habits, and reproduction. During the same study 

an attempt to estimate the population size was not successful due to low recapture numbers (Folta 1998; 

Allen 1998). An effort to estimate the population through genetic analysis of hair samples began during 

2003 by Virginia Tech and data collection will continue through 2004. 

Limiting factors on black bear on the refuge have been identified as blackgum mast, disturbance, and 

availability of escape cover. Although blackgum fruit has been identified as limiting, the diet of the 

black bear varies with the seasons and availability of food. Spring foraging appears to be largely 

opportunistic with a high occurrence of ants and leaves in the diet. Blueberries and switchcane 

stems are preferred through the summer. Fall feeding shifts to blackgum, with winter diets consisting 

mainly of greenbrier, sumac, and gallberry (North Carolina State University 1974). 

White-tailed Deer. The white-tailed deer is probably the most sought-after game species on the refuge. 

Hunters make extensive use of the refuge with its road system to gain access to large blocks of habitat 

suitable for deer hunting. White-tailed deer are considered to be browsers because they primarily 

consume woody vegetation. However, white-tailed deer will eat almost any available form of plant life. 

Because of this adaptability, it is impossible to single out one habitat as greatly superior to others. 

Interaction of deer and habitat is a combination of food preference and utilization, quantity and quality of 

food, and availability of cover (Halls 1984; Halls and Ripley 1961). However, best estimates suggest a 

much lower carrying capacity for pocosin habitat than other habitat types. For example, Monschein 

(1981) reported the following best estimates: approximately 6 deer per square mile for pocosin habitat; 

about 18 deer per square mile along pocosin borders; and 35–40 deer per square mile for coastal 

bottomland hardwoods. Basic differences involve the quantity, quality, and availability of food. 

Since establishment of the refuge, periodic abomasal parasite counts, necropsy findings, laboratory 

tests, and general physical condition indicate that the health of the deer population is fair to good. It 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 35

was concluded in 1985, 1992, and 1998 by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Study that the 

Alligator River deer were "...within an optimal stocking density for the nutritional capacity of the 

habitat. Additional increase in deer numbers should be avoided by removal of deer through 

management by sport-hunting" (Nettles 1985; Davidson 1992 and 1998). 

Furbearers. The Alligator River Refuge provides habitat for fur-bearing species such as bobcat, otter, 

mink, gray fox, muskrat, nutria, and raccoon. Raccoon, nutria, muskrat, otter and mink make use of 

the canals and streams that run through the refuge. The gray fox does not penetrate very deeply into 

the unmodified areas of the refuge, but it does make good use of the edges feeding on small 

mammals as well as blackberries and other fruits (Ash et al. 1983). Bobcats are common predators 

on the refuge and are most commonly observed around the farm unit, along the edges of pocosin 

areas, and in swamp forests. They may be found throughout the refuge because of the presence of 

the marsh rabbit, the bobcat's main prey (Ash et al. 1983). 

In addition to the mammals already mentioned, the refuge supports populations of the gray squirrel, 

cottontail rabbit, opossum, and several rodent and insectivore species. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

Sixty-one species of reptiles and amphibians are reported for the refuge. Reptiles and amphibians 

are most numerous and diverse around permanent and semi-permanent open water, marshes, 

creeks, lakes, and canals. They also thrive in disturbed or modified/transitional areas. Some of the 

species that inhabit the area are the brown, banded, and plain-bellied water snakes; common 

snapping, red-bellied and eastern painted turtles; the southern leopard frog; and a wide variety of 

snakes. Three species of venomous snakes have been documented on the refuge. They are the 

cottonmouth moccasin, canebrake (timber) rattlesnake, and copperhead. The pygmy rattlesnake has 

been documented in Hyde County; however, even though the refuge extends into Hyde County, none 

have been documented on the refuge. 

American Alligator. The refuge is near the northern extent of the American alligator's natural range in 

North America. This endangered reptile occurs in refuge marshes, slow-moving streams, and manmade canals. They prefer areas where the water turbidity is low and the water quality is high, with 

the presence of an adequate food source (McDonald et al. 1983). Milltail Creek Lake, Whipping 

Creek, and Swan Creek Lake usually provide prime alligator habitat (Noffsinger et al. 1984). 

Fish 

The fisheries on and surrounding Alligator River Refuge are diverse and productive. The refuge's 

interior lakes and streams support species characteristic of blackwater or oligohaline systems. Fish 

that inhabit the refuge include resident species, migratory species, anadromous species, and one 

catadromous species. 

Resident species such as gar, pickerel, white and yellow perch, a variety of sunfish, and catfish 

inhabit the blackwater streams and lakes of the refuge. They also use the open water of Alligator 

River and the sounds for spawning, nursery and foraging habitat. These resident species provide a 

large portion of the diet of migratory and anadromous species, which are important to both sport and 

commercial fishermen (Noffsinger et al. 1984). 
36 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Migratory species use the refuge's estuaries as spawning grounds and the surrounding waters as a 

nursery area. Migratory species that use the refuge include Atlantic croaker, spot, Atlantic 

menhaden, and the southern and summer flounders. 

Anadromous species are those that spawn in the refuge's freshwater streams and estuaries, inhabit 

these areas as juveniles, mature offshore, and return to these streams to spawn as adults. The Alligator 

River and Milltail and Whipping creeks are used heavily by these species, which include striped bass, 

alewife, and blueback herring. The mouth of Alligator River serves as an important wintering area for 

sexually immature female striped bass. This area is important because the Albemarle Sound population 

does not make coastal migrations as do other Atlantic coast striped bass populations. 

Insect and Disease Pests 

The gypsy moth is now well established as far south as northeastern North Carolina. The North 

Carolina Division of Plant Industry and U.S. Forest Service closely monitor gypsy moth populations. 

Both agencies use pheromone traps located throughout the Dare County mainland and the barrier 

islands, including refuge lands. When large-scale outbreaks are detected, they use integrated pest 

management techniques to suppress but not necessarily eliminate gypsy moths from the area. 

Although the refuge is within the quarantine area of northeastern North Carolina, there have not been 

any outbreaks of the gypsy moth requiring treatment other than on Roanoke Island. 

Since the mid-1990s, southern pine beetle outbreaks and cutting controlling buffers resulted in the 

conversion of over 5,000 acres of mostly pond pine habitat to shrub habitat. Without prescribed fire, 

this acreage will most likely remain as shrub habitat unless pond pine is planted after site preparation. 

During 2002 and 2003 the spread of southern pine beetle infestations was greatly diminished. 

Exotic and Pest Organisms 

At the present time little is known about exotic organisms on the refuge. Feral cats and dogs can be 

found on the refuge, but there is uncertainty as to numbers and extent of impact on wildlife. 

Fire ants are an increasing problem, especially in the farm unit. Due to pesticide use restrictions on 

the refuge, it is not possible to eradicate this species. 

The coyote, a carnivorous species native to the grasslands of the midwestern United States, has 

migrated eastward as wooded habitat was cleared. Coyotes are now present thoughout the refuge, 

but they represent a carnivore that is not native to the refuge or North Carolina. 

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) is currently found on the refuge in ditches adjacent to 

Highway 64, Milltail Road, and Longcurve Road. Common reed (Phragmities australis) is found 

throughout various refuge areas, including disturbed sites and farming units. Efforts have recently 

begun to control these invasive, noxious plants. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Several federally listed species occur in the area. Among them are the red-cockaded woodpecker, 

red wolf, bald eagle, and American alligator. All species except for the red-cockaded woodpecker 

occur throughout the refuge. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 37

The Service first reintroduced the red wolf on the refuge in 1987. Since the initial releases, wolves 

have reproduced in the wild and may be found throughout the refuge and four surrounding counties. 

Depending upon circumstances within and between packs, there can be from two to five packs of 

wolves on the refuge at a given point in time. An estimated 100 wolves now inhabit a 1.7 million acre 

area in eastern North Carolina. 

The red-cockaded woodpecker is federally listed as an endangered species. Known red-cockaded 

woodpecker clusters occur on the south end in the vicinity of Whipping Creek Road, north of U. S. 

Highway 264 just east of Stomper Road, and on the Dare County Bombing Range. One inactive cluster 

with one known cavity tree occurs in the vicinity of the east side of Koehring Road just north of the 

Pollock Road intersection. The area around Stumpy Point was surveyed by helicopter during 1999 and 

no evidence of the red-cockaded woodpeckers was found in the areas outside of those described. 

The bald eagle is federally listed as a threatened species and is seen infrequently throughout the 

year. Sighting numbers have been increasing in recent years. Eagle nesting has been documented 

near the North Twiford Farm Unit and near Swan Creek Lake on the south end of the refuge. Mature 

bald eagles have been observed adjacent to Stumpy Point Bay and nesting is suspected, but the 

refuge has not been able to find and confirm a nest. Another possible eagle nest may be under 

construction at the mouth of Laurel Bay Lake. 

The American alligator is listed as threatened by similarity of appearance in North Carolina and is 

found in aquatic habitat throughout the refuge. The Service has documented nesting in recent years 

on the refuge, but the current population is not known. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The wetland environment 

makes it unlikely that there are many cultural resources on the refuge. The small area of uplands is 

the most likely site of settlements or encampments. The staff must conduct management activities so 

as to avoid compromising sensitive sites. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge lies within mainland Dare and Hyde counties, North Carolina. 

Recently made more accessible to the mainland by bridges and ferries and primarily supported by 

tourism, coastal Dare and Hyde counties have seen an influx of tourists, visitors, and residents over 

the last few decades. This considerable population growth and development of the barrier islands 

has brought substantial economic benefit to a region historically rural and impoverished. As a result, 

the refuge, with its location along U.S. Highway 64, has seen greater recreational and public use due 

to this increase in visitors. However, the region’s natural resources of land and water have suffered 

increasing demands, often with negative impact. As one of the few remaining tracts of intact natural 

land, the refuge and, consequently, its management considerations, have become even more critical. 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and Dare and Hyde counties are located in the northeastern 

part of North Carolina and are bounded by the Albemarle Sound to the north, Tyrrell and Beaufort 

counties to the west, and the Pamlico Sound to the south. 
38 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Dare County. The Alligator River forms the western boundary of Dare County, which is bound to the 

north by the Albemarle Sound, to the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and to the south by the Hyde 

County line dividing the Pamlico Sound. 

For many decades, Dare County has been in the forefront of economic growth and development in 

the state of North Carolina, and historically, unemployment has been lower than the state average. 

Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks of Dare, Currituck, and Hyde counties every year. The 

next closest areas of economic growth and social life are Greenville, North Carolina, 100 miles west 

of the refuge; and Virginia Beach, Virginia, 100 miles north of the refuge. 

Despite the growth on the Outer Banks, Dare County is still predominantly rural, with the largest town 

being Kill Devil Hills (2000 population: 5,897). Like other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor 

activities are both popular and necessary. Hunting, recreational fishing, and bird watching are 

popular pastimes and commercial fishing is an important element of the economy. The importance of 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and its appropriate management is, therefore, easily 

understood. 

Hyde County. Hyde County is in northeastern North Carolina with the Atlantic Ocean and Dare 

County, North Carolina to the east, Pamlico Sound to the south, Beaufort County, North Carolina to 

the west, and the Tyrrell County, North Carolina to the north. The area has had little growth since 

1900 despite rapid growth in Dare County on the coast to the east and the major highway to the coast 

passing through the county. Ocracoke Island on the Outer Banks of North Carolina is the only part of 

the county with a growing population and economy. The lack of growth in mainland Hyde County is 

due in large part to the poorly drained, deep organic soil that makes development expensive and 

environmentally hazardous. The county’s unemployment and poverty rates are much higher than the 

state averages, and its high school and college graduation rates are below the state averages. The 

area is still predominantly rural, and the largest town and county seat is Swan Quarter (2000 

population: 300). Like other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor activities are both popular 

and necessary. Hunting and recreational fishing are popular pastimes. Farming, commercial fishing, 

and forestry are important elements of the economy. 

HISTORY 

Dare County. The original residents of the area were Native Americans described as those of the 

Coastal Algonkian linguistic group at the time of European contact. Northeastern North Carolina was 

the most southern extent of Coastal Algonkian habitation. One chiefdom was located on the Outer 

Banks on Hatteras Island (Haag 1958). They lived in permanent villages where they could hunt, fish, 

shellfish, and farm in close proximity to the village. The Algonkians utilized seasonal villages to follow 

migrating fish and wildlife populations. They grew corn, beans, sunflower, and squash in small 

gardens; and hunted deer, bear, alligators, turtles, and a variety of small mammals. Mention of the 

Algonkians ceased by the mid-eighteenth century (Mathis and Crow 1983). 

As early as 1584, English officers spent two months exploring Roanoke Island and its surrounding 

area. In 1585, Sir Walter Raleigh sent a fleet of seven vessels of men back to the island in an 

attempt to establish the first English colony in what is now eastern North Carolina. Fort Raleigh was 

built on Roanoke Island, but the following year the survivors returned to England. In 1587, Raleigh 

sent an expedition of 117 people that included women and children to give permanence to the colony. 

Led by John White, these settlers rebuilt the fort. On August 18, 1587, White’s granddaughter, 

Virginia Dare, was born in the colony; she was the first English child born in the New World. Later 

that year, White sailed back to England for supplies, but Spanish hostilities and England’s financial 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 39

hardships delayed his return for three years. Upon arriving back at Roanoke Island in 1590, he found 

no trace of the colonists. Many theories have been proposed about the fate of those 117 people—

“The Lost Colony”—but the mystery remains unsolved. 

The area remained unpopulated for more than a half century after the disappearance of the Lost Colony. 

Sir John Colleton established the first permanent settlement on Collington Island on the Outer Banks in 

the winter of 1664–1665. Shipwrecked sailors and settlers from Virginia established the first settlements. 

These settlers made an effort to grow tobacco, grow grapes for a winery, and raise hogs. The only real 

profit was from oil extracted from beached whales. Raising livestock on the grasslands of the dunes 

became an important occupation. The only agriculture was in small gardens (Stick 1958). 

In the early 1700s, pirates moved into the area to prey on ships that passed too close to the 

treacherous shoreline. The most famous of these pirates, Blackbeard, made his headquarters on the 

Outer Banks. His death in 1718 brought an end to early day piracy. Around 1726, residents built 

windmills to grind grain on Roanoke Island and the Outer Banks. The residents made a living from 

farming, fishing, hunting, and beachcombing (U.S. Department of the Interior 1981). 

Modern tourists first found the Outer Banks of Dare County at Nags Head in the 1830s when planters 

from inland counties came to escape the hot humid summer. Cottages and the Nags Head Hotel 

were home to visitors. The hotel was the scene of nightly dinners and dances, and built a railway for 

transportation to the beach (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). 

In the early 1800s, the Atlantic Ocean earned the name “Graveyard of the Atlantic” as numerous vessels 

sank. During the Civil War, Union forces captured Fort Hatteras and Roanoke Island to secure access to 

North Carolina by sea. The Union ironclad ship USS Monitor sank in a gale off Cape Hatteras on 

December 30, 1862 (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). In 1870, the state assembly 

established Dare County (named for Virginia Dare) from parts of Hyde, Currituck, and Tyrrell counties. 

During this time, most opportunities for work were in the U.S. Coast Guard as lighthouse operators or 

weather station employees. The improvements of inlets and advances in navigation and transportation 

allowed commercial fishing to become an important part of the economy (Stick 1958). 

On December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright made the first successful power-driven airplane 

flight from Kill Devil Hills near Kitty Hawk on the Outer Banks. German submarines filled the waters 

off the North Carolina coast during World Wars I and II. Since the World War II, tourism replaced 

hunting and fishing as the principal industry (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). 

The rivers and sounds were once the major transportation avenues in the area. As the area grew 

and the railroad arrived, boat traffic declined. In the twentieth century with the popularity of 

automobiles, the state developed a network of highways connecting the county to all areas of the 

eastern United States. The state replaced a drawbridge across the Croatan Sound on U.S. Highway 

64 at Manns Harbor in 2002 with a high-rise bridge so motorists can bypass downtown Manteo on 

their way to the Outer Banks. The state is widening U.S. Highway 64 to four lanes that will connect 

the area to Interstate 95 and the Outer Banks. There are small local airports in Manteo and Frisco; 

regional airports in Greenville; and an international airport in Norfolk, Virginia. Amtrak provides 

passenger rail service as far east as Rocky Mount. 

Hyde County. The inhabitants of Hyde County at the time of European settlement were also Coastal 

Algonkians called the Machapungo and Mattamuskeets. By the early 1700s, most of the Indians 

lived on a reservation in the eastern part of the county. In 1711 the number of Indians was about 30, 

and by 1761 only 6 remained. 
40 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

English explorers first arrived in the county in 1585. The early history of the county was dominated 

by maritime trade and featured the exploits of Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard the Pirate. 

The first settlers were castaways from ships. 

The North Carolina General Assembly formed Hyde County from Bath County in 1705 and originally 

named it Wickam County. It named the county Hyde County in 1712 in honor of Edward Hyde, the 

first governor of North Carolina. 

In the 1800s, residents built many plantation homes in the county. The best known is the Octagon 

House in the eastern part of the county. With its rich soil with an organic topsoil layer, Hyde County 

has always had a good reputation for agricultural production, especially in corn. People traveled to 

the county from across the state for corn. 

In 1837, the State Literary Board owned Lake Mattamuskeet and ordered the lake drained with a canal to 

the Pamlico Sound. This decreased the size of the lake from 120,000 to 50,000 acres and its depth from 

a range of six to nine feet to two to three feet. The state established Mattamuskeet Drainage District in 

1910 to drain Lake Mattamuskeet completely with more drainage canals and a pumping plant for crop 

production. The cost of maintaining the water levels necessary for production exceeded the profits from 

the crops. In 1932, the developers abandoned the operation. The large pumping plant built for the 

project was then converted into a hunting lodge and is now Mattamuskeet Lodge. 

In 1934, the lake and the surrounding area became the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. The lake 

attracts large populations of wintering waterfowl and the area is a haven for hunters and birdwatchers. 

Agriculture has remained the most important part of the county’s economy and lifestyle. The acreage in 

cropland increased dramatically in the 1970s when soybean prices increased substantially. Much of that 

land was difficult to drain and maintain water levels necessary for production, and has been abandoned. 

In the later part of the twentieth century, conservation agencies and organizations began to purchase 

areas less suited for agriculture and forestry production due to the deep organic soils. They manage 

those areas for wildlife habitat, the protection of unique ecological communities, and outdoor 

recreation. Recreation based on natural and cultural resources is a growing part of the local lifestyle. 

LAND USE 

Dare County. Logging and farming have never been important sources of income in Dare County 

due to the deep, sandy soils of the dunes, saturated soils of the marshes on the Outer Banks, and 

wetlands with deep organic soils on the mainland. The forest and marsh plant communities have 

always provided hunting opportunities, and the marshes are important nursery areas for fish. The 

beaches, dunes, wildlife, and fishing opportunities on the Outer Banks are major attractions to tourists 

for their summer vacations. 

There is limited residential construction in the marshes, pocosins, and forested wetlands of the 

county. The largest development has been on the northern end of the coastal barrier island known 

as the Outer Banks, from Hatteras Village to Corolla. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 41

Before the Civil War, farmers cultivated up to 5,000 acres of corn and tobacco on mainland Dare 

County in a settlement known as Beechlands near Milltail Creek. They also grazed cattle on 25,000 

acres of marsh. The Dare County Lumber Company harvested enough timber on 168,000 acres of 

mainland Dare County to set up a settlement called Buffalo City that eventually went bankrupt. Both 

areas are now part of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Today, Dare County is 57 percent forested (142,212 acres) and 3 percent farmland (4,961 acres). 

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms decreased slightly percent from 4,961 acres to 4,954 acres; the 

average size of farms increased 12 percent from 551 acres to 619 acres; the number of full-time farm 

operators remained the same at 6; the total market value of agricultural products sold increased 10 

percent from $836,000 to $916,000; and the average market value of agricultural products sold per 

farm increased 22 percent from $92,920 to $114,470 (Table 7). 

Soybeans are the most important crop in Dare County. Production decreased substantially between 

1997 and 2002 (Table 8) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1997). 

Hyde County. Today, Hyde County is 60 percent forested (235,800 acres); 24 percent cropland 

(95,327 acres); and 11 percent marsh (44,729 acres). 

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms increased 8 percent from 95,327 acres to 103,089 acres; the 

average size of farms decreased 25 percent from 953 acres to 716 acres; full-time farm operators 

increased 22 percent from 74 farms to 90 farms; total market value of agricultural products sold 

decreased slightly from $32,996,000 to $32,868,000; and average market value of agricultural 

products sold per farm decreased 31 percent from $329,965 to $228,251 (Table 9). 

In 2002 corn and soybeans accounted for 31,059 and 30,013 acres of cropland, the largest crops in the 

county. Cotton and wheat have also been important crops in Hyde County (Table 10) (USDA 2002). 

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

Number of Farms 8 

Acres in Farms 4,954 

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 619 

Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,098,170 

Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,268 

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $110,232 

Total Cropland (Acres) 2,094 

Market Value of All Products Sold $916,000 

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $114,470 

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 6 

Operators with Anther Occupation as Principal Occupation 2 

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 1,623 
42 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 2002-1997 Change 

Soybeans (acres) 1,623 3,516 Decreased 56% 

Wheat (acres) 471 0 N/A 

From the 2002 and 1997 USDA Census of Agriculture 

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

Number of Farms 144 

Acres in Farms 103,089 

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 716 

Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,264,802 

Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,819 

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $208,106 

Total Cropland (Acres) 91,524 

Market Value of All Products Sold $32,868,000 

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $228,251 

Market Value of Crops Sold $32,151,000 

Market Value of Livestock Sold $717,000 

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 90 

Operators with Another Occupation as Principal Occupation 54 

Hogs in Inventory 3,300 

Hogs Sold 7,160 

Beef Cows in Inventory 180 

Beef Cows Sold 99 

Land in Corn (Acres) 31,059 

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 30,013 

Land in Cotton (Acres) 22,906 

Land in Wheat (Acres) 10,614 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 43

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

USDA Census of Agriculture 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1992-1997 Change 

Corn (acres) 31,059 31,990 Decreased 3% 

Soybeans (acres) 30,013 36,381 Decreased 17% 

Cotton (acres) 22,906 4,212 Increased 444% 

Wheat (acres) 10,614 18,989 Decreased 44% 

Hog Inventory 3,300 9,890 Decreased 67% 

Hogs Sold 7,160 25,059 Decreased 71% 

Cattle Inventory 180 427 Decreased 58% 

Cattle Sold 99 142 Decreased 30% 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Dare County. Dare County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 29,967 in 2000 

(Table 11) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The county population increased 32 percent between 1990 

and 2000. Kill Devil Hills is the largest town with a population of 5,897. 

The population is 94.7 percent White, 2.7 percent Black, 2.2 percent Hispanic, 0.4 percent Asian, and 

0.3 percent Native American (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the median family income was 

$35,258, about the same as the state average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 8.1 percent, well 

below the state average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average unemployment 

rate in 2004 was 5.1 percent, slightly below the State of North Carolina’s unemployment rate of 5.5 

percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). 

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years old is 60 percent; the 

percentage of college graduates is 16 percent. The state averages are 56 percent for high school 

and 14 percent for college (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The home ownership rate is 74.5 percent, 

above the state average rate of 69.4 percent. There are 2.34 persons per household in Dare County, 

slightly below the state average of 2.49. 

Hyde County. Hyde County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 5,826 in 2000 

(Table 11) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The county population increased 7.7 percent between 1990 

and 2000 (U.S Census Bureau 2000). Swan Quarter, the county seat, is the largest town but the 

population is widely dispersed throughout the unincorporated areas of the county. 

The population is 62.7 percent White, 35.1 percent Black, 2.2 percent Hispanic, 0.3 percent Native 

American, and 0.4 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000 the mean family income was 

$23,568, substantially below the state average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 24.8 percent, well 

above the state average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average unemployment 

rate in 2004 was 7.2 percent, well above the State of North Carolina’s unemployment rate of 5.5 

percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). 
44 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

County Average 

Income1

Poverty 

Rate (%)1

Average 2004 

Unemployment 

Rate (%)2

2000 

Population1

Population Trend1

N. Carolina $35,320 12.6 5.5 8 million +21% since 1990 

Counties in the Vicinity of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Dare $35,258 8.1 5.1 29,967 +32% since 1990 

Hyde $23,568 24.8 7.2 5,826 -37% since 1900 

Other Northeastern North Carolina Counties 

Beaufort $28,614 17.4 6.9 44,958 +6% since 1990 

Bertie $22,816 12.6 8.2 19,773 Same as 1990 

Camden $35,423 12.2 3.8 6,885 +16% since 1990 

Carteret $34,348 11.8 4.7 59,383 +13% since 1990 

Chowan $27,900 18.7 4.9 14,526 +7% since 1990 

Craven $33,214 13.8 4.9 91,436 +12% since 1990 

Currituck $36,287 10.8 2.8 18,190 +32% since 1990 

Gates $30,087 15.4 4.2 10,516 Same as 1900 

Halifax $24,471 23.6 8.1 57,370 Same as 1950 

Hertford $23,724 23.1 8.0 22,601 Same as 1960 

Martin $26,058 20.1 7.1 25,593 Same as 1940 

Northampton $24,218 23.1 7.3 22,086 Same as 1980 

Pamlico $28,629 16.8 4.7 12,934 +14% since 1990 

Pasquotank $29,305 19.0 4.7 34,897 +11% since 1990 

Perquimens $26,489 19.5 4.8 11,368 Same as 1920 

Tyrrell $21,616 25.7 7.8 4,149 -17% since 1900 

Washington $27,726 20.5 7.3 13,723 Same as 1960 

1

 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of the United States 

2

 North Carolina Economic Security Commission, December, 2004 

EMPLOYMENT 

Dare County. The hotel and food service and retail trade industries are the largest employers in Dare 

County, employing 3,028 and 3,022 of 12,543 employees with an annual payroll of $281.6 million in 2000 

(U.S. Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns 2000). This is due in large part to the tourist 

industry on the Outer Banks (North Carolina Department of Economic Security Commission 1999). 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 45

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

hotel and food service, retail trade, construction, real estate, wholesale trade, professional services, 

administrative support, health care, manufacturing, and finance (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

County Business Patterns, 2000). 

Hyde County. Lodging and food service and retail trade are the largest employers in Hyde County, 

employing 277 and 223 of the county’s 1,044 employees with an annual payroll of $22.4 million in 

2000 (U.S. Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns 2000). This is due in large part to 

the tourists attracted to the Outer Banks of Hyde County (North Carolina Economic Security 

Commission, 2002). 

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

lodging and food service, retail trade, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, wholesale trade, 

health care, finance, forestry and fishing, real estate, administrative and support services, and 

recreation (U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census 2000). 

FORESTRY 

Dare County. Timber was a source of wealth for Dare County before the Civil War. However, the 

Service now manages much of the forestland primarily for wildlife habitat and timber is a secondary 

product of the land. 

Today, Dare County is approximately 57 percent forested, with 142,212 acres of timberland. In 

contrast, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Forty-nine percent of the county’s forest is in 

loblolly pine and 45 percent is oak-gum-cypress (USDA Forest Service 1991). 

Hyde County. Timber has always been a source of wealth for Hyde County. However, much of the 

timber was cleared in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops. 

Today, Hyde County is approximately 60 percent forested, with 235,800 acres of forestland. In 

contrast, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Fifty-two percent of the county’s forest is in pine, 

32 percent is in oak-gum-cypress, 11 percent is in oak-hickory, and 5 percent is in oak-pine (USDA 

Forest Service 2002). 

In 2000, private landowners were the largest forest landowners with 55 percent of the count’s 

forestland. The federal government owned 28 percent, forest industry owned 15 percent, and the 

state government owned 2 percent (USDA Forest Service 2002). 

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE AREA 

Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Dare and Hyde 

counties have always had an abundance of fish and game, due to their diversity of lands and waters. 

Early in the twentieth century, sportsmen established clubs to protect game and wildlife. Later, as 

part of a comprehensive wildlife management program, the Service established Alligator River 

National Wildlife Refuge to preserve and restore habitat for native wildlife and migratory birds. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service also manages the Pocosin Lakes and Mattamuskeet national wildlife 

refuges, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission manages the Dare County Bombing 

Range as a game land to provide hunting opportunities in the area. 
46 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Recreation in the area is also based on the water in the ocean, sounds, rivers, and lakes. Swimming in 

the ocean and sunbathing on the beach are the anchors of recreation on the Outer Banks. Boat ramps 

provide access to the river and sound. Numerous outfitters provide boats and guided tours. The North 

Carolina Coastal Plain Paddle Trails Guide lists trails through the Pea Island and Alligator River national 

wildlife refuges (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 2001). Many vendors sell and rent 

canoes, kayaks, sailboats, surfboards, and sailboards. There are numerous opportunities to fish in the 

surf, from piers, in small boats in the sounds and streams, and from large boats in the ocean. 

A variety of agencies and organizations provide environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities: the Fish and Wildlife Service at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge; the National Park 

Service at Cape Hatteras National Seashore; the State of North Carolina at Jockey’s Ridge State 

Park and the State Aquarium; the town of Manteo at Roanoke Island Festival Park; and The Nature 

Conservancy at Nags Head Woods. 

Many of the festivals in the area are focused on natural resources, including Wings over Water 

throughout the county and Wildfest in Manteo. At least one fishing tournament is held every month 

from May to November. The Nature Conservancy at Nags Head Woods holds week-long ecocamps 

throughout the summer. 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS 

Fish and wildlife are the focus of the refuge, but they are also important to the local economy. First, a 

considerable commercial fishery is present in area streams, lakes, and sounds. Striped bass, red 

drum, flounder, speckled trout, and gray trout are the major species harvested. Secondly, hunting 

and fishing are economically important to local businesses, both directly as the local population 

spends money and indirectly as an attraction that draws sportsmen from outside the county. 

Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the preservation of fish and wildlife resources, combined 

with channel dredging and wetland clearing and draining, has led to the loss of valuable fishery 

spawning grounds and the loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In the attempt to protect and 

restore some of these resources, Alligator River Refuge serves an important role, not only by 

providing habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, but also as a place where people can go 

to enjoy these resources, either through observation, photography, education, or interpretation; or 

more directly through fishing. 

There have been no studies performed on Alligator River Refuge or any other refuges in North 

Carolina on which to estimate the economic impact of outdoor recreation. The Service has surveyed 

all wildlife-dependent recreation participants in North Carolina. There has been a study of visitors to 

the interpretive facilities of a nongovernmental organization in northeastern North Carolina. There 

are also numerous studies of ecotourists and birdwatchers on national wildlife refuges and other 

areas throughout the United States. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service surveyed participants in wildlife-dependent recreation in North Carolina in 

2001. The survey documented an average expenditure of $69 per day by anglers, $74 per day for 

hunters, and $199 per day for wildlife observers and photographers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 

The Partnership for the Sounds sponsored a study of the economic impact of its facilities. The study 

demonstrated that the average visitor spent $108 per visit, with a range of $64 to $333 per day 

(Vogelsong 2001). A similar study of visitors at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia also 

showed a range of expenditures from $62 to $101 per day (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997). 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 47

A study commissioned by the State of New Jersey demonstrated that the average visitor to the 

shorebird migration spent $130 per day (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2000). 

Birdwatchers on eight national wildlife refuges in New Jersey reported a range of expenditures from 

$25 to $41 per day (Kerlinger 1994). 

Ecotourists on Dauphin Island, Alabama, spent an average of $60 per visitor per day (Kerlinger 

1999). 

Birdwatchers from the local area in High Island, Texas, reported an average expenditure of $46 per 

day, and nonresidents reported $693 per trip (Eubanks et al. 1993). The average visitor to the Great 

Texas Coastal Birding Trail spent $78 per day (Eubanks and Stoll 1999). 

Studies at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas demonstrated a range of 

expenditures from $88 to $145 per day on nature-based tourist activities. The Laguna Atascosa 

National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas reported a range of $83 to $117 per day (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 1997). 

Birdwatchers to the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge in California spent an average of $57 per day 

(National Audubon Society 1998). 

With improved facilities and staffing, Alligator River Refuge can continue to serve as an important 

commodity in the economic life of the community. Ecotourism, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental interpretation are increasingly being seen as a desirable industry. 

As the population increases and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife decreases, the refuge may 

become even more important to the local community. It can benefit the community directly by 

providing recreational opportunities for the local population, and indirectly by attracting tourists from 

outside the county to generate additional dollars to the local economy. 

TOURISM 

Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks of Dare, Currituck, and Hyde counties every year. 

Tourism in the area is based on the outdoor recreation opportunities described above and the 

cultural attractions in the area. Roanoke Island, on which Manteo is located, was the birthplace of 

Virginia Dare, the first English child born in America. The state legislature named the county in 

her honor. The county seat in Manteo has a historic district featuring old homes and limited 

development along the streams and the sound. Manteo also features Roanoke Island Festival 

Park with a historic visitor’s center and a replica of Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabethan Gardens 

managed by the National Park Service as a replica of a formal English garden, and Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site, the site of the first settlement. Other cultural attractions include the National 

Park Service’s Wright Brothers Memorial, Bodie Island Lighthouse, and Cape Hatteras Lighthouse; 

the North Carolina Maritime Museum; the Frisco Native American Museum; and the Chicamocomico 

Lifesaving Station. 

Cultural resources are the basis of many events that attract tourists. These include historical 

workshops, lectures, and programs at the North Carolina Maritime Museum; tours of historic homes 

and their gardens; readings of books on historical themes; Virginia Dare’s Birthday; National Aviation 

Day and Week at the Wright Brothers Memorial; Freedman’s Colony Celebration at Festival Park; and 

an Antique Fair at Festival Park. 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge could serve as an additional attraction to tourists visiting the 

area at least seasonally. If the refuge had more facilities and permanent staffing, tourists might stay 
48 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

longer in the area to enjoy the opportunities provided for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

interpretation. This could generate more income for the local economy. 

TRANSPORTATION 

In its early days, residents of the area relied on water transportation. The rivers and streams that 

crisscross the county served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication between 

almost every community in the area. Some of the important waterways in the area were the 

Albemarle, Pamlico, Croatan, and Roanoke sounds and the Alligator River. While today these 

waterways are no longer necessary for most of the transportation needs within the county, they are 

still important as sources of income and for recreation. 

U.S Highways 64and 264 run east and west through the refuge and connect population centers in central 

North Carolina and Interstate 95 to Dare County. U.S. Highways 158 and 168 run north and south 

through the Outer Banks to the east of the refuge and connect Dare County with population centers in 

southeastern Virginia. A number of smaller roads connect the various communities in the area. 

Visitors can reach Alligator River Refuge via U.S. Highways 64 and 264. The refuge’s dike roads are not 

open to vehicular traffic. The refuge has 100 miles of gravel roads. Travel off the roads by foot or boat 

will primarily be limited only by a user’s willingness to exert the manpower. 

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Dare County is a rural county in predominantly rural northeastern North Carolina. Cultural 

opportunities in the immediate area are limited to the history-based facilities outlined in the Tourism 

section; theater at local high schools and parks; music at local fairs, festivals, and nightclubs; and art 

at local fairs, festivals, and 20 small galleries. A summer-long production of “The Lost Colony” is 

offered annually at the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, commemorating the first English settlers on 

Roanoke Island since 1936. Greenville, North Carolina and East Carolina University, located 100 

miles west of the refuge, offer the nearest opportunities for large theatrical or musical performances. 

Norfolk, Virginia, located 100 miles to the north, has the area’s largest art museums and venues for 

the performing arts, with national touring collections and companies. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge currently covers 152,260 acres (Table 12). The refuge’s 

approved acquisition boundary is 239,800 acres (Figure 5). 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The refuge is an important link to the other natural areas that together make these experiences 

possible. Carefully selected and managed staff, programs, and facilities will provide the wildlifedependent environmental education, interpretation, and recreation opportunities that refuge visitors 

expect. A few commercial businesses have interests in guiding canoeing and kayaking tours and 

angling adventures. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 49

Figure 5. Current boundary of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
50 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 51

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

DATE TRACTS ACRES COST COST

ACRE 

TOTAL 

ACREAGE 

TOTAL 

COST 

1984 1 114,259.00 $0 $0 114,259.00 $0

1988 2 10,060.03 $3,518,000 $349 124,319.03 $3,518,000

1989 2 13,272.00 $951,000 $72 137,591.03 $4,469,000

1990 1 11,100.00 $0 $0 148,691.03 $4,469,000

1991 2 40.40 $687,167 $17,009 148,731.43 $5,156,160

1993 4 3,429.94 $507,100 $148 152,161.37 $5,663,260

1996 1 34.00 $0 $0 152,195.37 $5,663,260

2002 1 65.44 $31,000 $475 152,260.81 $5,694,260

Total 14 152,260.81 $5,694,260 $37

Hunting 

Hunting is restricted to specific areas, times, and seasons. A refuge hunting permit is required. In 

general, most species for which there are state seasons and bag limits are designated as game species 

on the refuge. The refuge’s hunting regulations are in keeping with management objectives to ensure the 

activity continues at a level compatible with the achievement of maintaining optimum populations of 

hunted species and other species that may be impacted by the hunt. Raccoon hunting is one of the rare 

night uses of the refuge. For refuge hunts, a state license is required, and all state regulations apply. 

Fishing 

Alligator River Refuge offers freshwater fishing throughout its navigable waterways. The refuge also 

provides access to boaters who wish to fish the waters surrounding the refuge. Several small, 

unimproved boat launching ramps are located within the boundary of the refuge, as well as 

riverbanks, canal banks, and bridges for land-based fishing activities. The Creef Cut Trail offers a 

universally accessible fishing platform. On the interior waters of the refuge, bluegill, crappie, 

blackfish, fliers, yellow perch, and madtom catfish are common. Depending on the salinity of the 

sound water, both freshwater and saltwater fish may be caught in the sounds. State regulations 

apply; a state fishing license is required for refuge fishing in most cases. 

Environmental Education 

The refuge offers guided canoe tours, nature talks and walks, outreach programs in the local school 

systems, and special seminars and conferences, including the nationally recognized Wings over 

Water, on a regular and continuing basis. The staff makes many of these program offerings in 

conjunction with Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The staff also makes themselves available to 

judge science fairs in local schools and provide guidance and encouragement for scout and other 

environmental education projects. 
52 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The refuge currently has no visitor center. The administrative office is located approximately fifteen 

miles east in Manteo. Several sites on the refuge offer refuge literature and educational panels. A 

refuge tour tape/compact disc and a Kuralt Trail tape/compact disc are available for purchase and 

offer educational information about the refuge. 

The refuge participates actively in a highly successful intern and workamper program, affording more 

specific environmental education opportunities to residents and visitors who take advantage of these 

unique resources. The book store at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge offers numerous books on 

the wildlife specific to Alligator River Refuge, and films and tapes on the refuge are available both at 

Pea Island Refuge and the Manteo office. 

Interpretation 

Alligator River Refuge offers two interpretive kiosks at roadside facilities easily accessible to the 

motoring public, as well as pamphlets providing information on the refuge, the red wolf program, and 

the refuge hunting program. A cassette outlining the unique habitats at Alligator River Refuge is 

available both in Manteo and at Pea Island Refuge. 

Regularly scheduled interpretive programs, including a guided canoe tour of the Milltail Creek area, 

are available during the warmer months. During the spring and summer months, “wolf howlings” are 

conducted on a regular basis to enable the public to gain a better understanding and enjoy a unique 

experience with this endangered mammal, which has successfully been reintroduced into the wild. 

Wildlife Observation 

The refuge offers two half-mile universally accessible trails: Creef Cut and Sandy Ridge. Boating, 

canoeing, and kayaking opportunities, a wildlife drive, and limited driving over former logging roads are 

available for unique wildlife observation opportunities. The black bear population at Alligator River 

Refuge is one of the largest in the northeast, and many visitors find it quite easy to get a glimpse of a 

bear in the wild. More fortunate visitors observe a red wolf or an alligator; however, these observations 

are usually a result of just being in the right place at the right time. While birding is not a major attraction 

here, there is a wide variety of land birds, raptors, and many species of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds. There is ample opportunity to view reptiles and small mammals, and more limited opportunity to 

see the threatened red-cockaded woodpecker, American alligator, and bald eagle. A number of plant 

species, terrestrial and hydrophytic, as well as the unusual pocosin areas, are also readily observed. 

Wildlife Photography 

The mammalian population of Alligator River Refuge, together with the walking trails along the 

waterways and in hardwood swamps and marshes, offer unlimited opportunities for landside wildlife 

photography. Canoe and kayak trips through the backwaters of the refuge offer waterfront 

photographic opportunities. But, as is true with wildlife photography in most places, a great deal of 

patience and perseverance is needed to accomplish professional quality shots. 

Universal Access 

Alligator River Refuge gives special attention to ensure that visitors with disabilities can visit the refuge for 

pleasure, education, interpretation, and wildlife observation opportunities. The Creef Cut Trail and Sandy 

Ridge Trail are level and accessible by wheelchair, and a wheelchair is available at no charge for those 

who request it. A special access permit is available to hunters with disabilities. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 53

Public Involvement 

The refuge offers nearly limitless involvement on either a volunteer or spectator basis for the 

interested public. It offers special educational opportunities to the scores of local residents and 

visitors who volunteer for these unique experiences. Waterfowl and black bear surveys and red wolf 

radio telemetry programs not only provide assistance for the species, but also enable the refuge staff 

to educate the public on the habits and habitats of these wildlife species. Volunteers and staff share 

their information with visitors who may otherwise have no interest, concern, or knowledge in 

protecting or managing those species. The Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society is the nonprofit local 

organization established to raise funds for continued maintenance of the refuge and its educational 

programs, and to recruit volunteers for continuation of this process. 

The refuge’s intern program provides unique experiences for college students and graduates geared 

towards careers in the environmental sciences. It also provides additional volunteers to maintain the high 

standards of the refuge. A work camping program, in which volunteers barter a campsite and utilities in 

exchange for work hours, enables the refuge to take advantage of a wide spectrum of individual 

experiences and expertises that will enhance the refuge. Each of these programs instills a sense of pride 

and public stewardship among the volunteers, ensures them of their role in ownership of the land, and 

heightens their awareness about the critical need for protecting the human/natural interactions. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

When the Service created Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, it combined Alligator River Refuge 

with Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge to manage the two refuges as a complex. Today, the refuge 

staff administers the Alligator River and Pea Island Refuges from an office located in Manteo. The 

refuge’s current staff is listed in Table 13. 
54 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

Position Status Percent of Time on 

Alligator River 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-14 PFT 40 

Deputy Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13 PFT 70 

Assistant Refuge Manager, GS-0485-12 PFT 75 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-12 PFT 40 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-12 PFT 40 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-09 PFT 10 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-09 PFT 70 

Administrative Officer, GS-0341-09 PFT 75 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07 PPT 75 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-07 PFT 50 

Forestry Technician, GS-0462-07 PFT 50 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-05 TEMP 10 

Secretary, GS-0318-05 TERM 75 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-05 TEMP 50 

Student Intern, GS-0499-04, SCEP 50 

Engineering Equipment. Operator Supervisor, WS-5716-09 PFT 75 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09 PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09 PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-08 PFT 90 

Automotive Worker, WG-5823-08 PFT 90 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-06 TERM 30 

Fire Management Program 

Fire Management Officer, GS-0460-12 PFT 50 

Fire Management Officer (Wildland Urban Interface), GS-0401-11 PFT 40 

Prescribed Fire Specialist, GS-0401-07 PFT 40 

Forestry Technician, (Fire) GS-0462-08 PFT 80 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-06 PFT 80 

Forestry Technician, (Fire) GS-0462-04 PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08 PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08 PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08 PFT 80 

Red Wolf Program 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-13* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-11* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-07* TERM 0 

Bio. Science Tech., GS-0404-07* PFT 0 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07* TERM 0 

PFT = Permanent Full Time employee 

TERM = Term Employee (up to four years) 

TEMP = Temporary Employee (not to exceed one year) 

SCEP = Student Cooperative Education Program 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 55

REFUGE INFRASTRUCTURE 

Roads and Trails 

The refuge has two established half-mile-long trails: the Creef Cut Trail and the Sandy Ridge Trail. 

These trails are accessible to visitors with disabilities and feature several overlooks and one wildlife 

observation platform. Pedestrians can walk, drive, or ride bicycles around 100 miles of gravel roads 

on the refuge. The trail is part of a series of trails among the eleven refuges and one fish hatchery in 

eastern North Carolina established in honor of the late Charles Kuralt for the recognition he brought 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

At the south end of Buffalo City Road, a series of four, color-coded paddle trails totaling 15 miles are 

available for canoes and kayaks. 

Communication Systems 

The refuge’s communications system currently consists of mobile radios with a base station on 

mainland Dare County. The staff uses cellular phones for communication between the field and 

office. 

Waste Collection and Disposal 

Volunteers and temporary staff transfer general trash to dumpsters located at the shop that Dare 

County empties for a fee. The North Carolina Department of Transportation is responsible for 

removing trash from the rights-of-way of U.S. Highways 64 and 264. Septic systems treat sanitary 

waste from the shop and intern quarters. There are portable toilets at the Creef Cut Trail parking lot 

at the intersection of Milltail Road and U.S. Highway 64 and at the end of Buffalo City Road. 
56 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 57

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

Representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agency personnel attended the initial 

planning meetings. At these initial meetings, they discussed strategies for completing the plan, identified 

the staff’s issues and concerns, and compiled a mailing list of likely interested government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and individual citizens. The Service invited these agencies, 

organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in a series of public scoping meetings that were 

held on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001, in Washington, Plymouth, Columbia, Swan Quarter, and 

Manns Harbor, North Carolina. At these public meetings, the audiences were introduced to the refuge 

and its planning process, and asked to identify their issues and concerns. The Service published 

announcements giving the locations, dates, and times for the public meetings in the Federal Register and 

legal notices in local newspapers. The Service also sent press releases to local newspapers and public 

service announcements to television and radio stations. Service personnel placed 50 posters 

announcing the meetings in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The Service expanded the planning team’s identified issues and concerns to include those generated 

by the agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. These issues 

and concerns formed the basis for the development and comparison of the objectives in the different 

alternatives described in the environmental assessment (Section B). 

The alternatives were subjects of discussion at a second-round public meeting held on April 26, 2005, in 

Manns Harbor, North Carolina. The planning staff again published announcements giving the location, 

date, and time for the public meeting as legal notices in local newspapers. They also sent press releases 

to local newspapers and as public service announcements to television and radio stations. The staff 

placed 75 posters announcing the meeting in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

At the second-round public meeting, staff from the refuge and planning office briefed members of the 

public on the alternatives. The audience provided feedback on the alternatives and suggested 

additions to the alternatives that were not mentioned in the previous meetings. The staff has 

considered that input in revising the plan and selecting a preferred alternative. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The input of local citizens and public agencies, the team members’ knowledge of the area, and the 

resource needs identified by the refuge staff and biological review team all contributed to the issues 

and concerns addressed in the plan. The Fish and Wildlife Service assembled a planning team (see 

Table 32) to evaluate the resource needs. The team then developed a list of goals, objectives and 

strategies to shape the management of the refuge for the next 15 years. 

These issues provided the basis for developing the refuge’s alternative management objectives and 

strategies. These issues played a role in determining the desired future conditions for the refuge and 

were considered in the preparation of the long-term comprehensive conservation plan. The issues 

and concerns are described below. They are of local, regional, and national significance and reflect 

similar issues that were, in part, identified by the public at the scoping meetings. 
58 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

HYDROLOGY 

Drainage Ditches 

Previous managers of the land that is now Alligator River Refuge developed a network of ditches to 

drain the land for agriculture and timber harvest. These ditches and the roads created from the 

excavated material from the ditches remain on the refuge. The establishment of water control 

structures and management of water on the refuge is important to the maintenance and restoration of 

wetland communities. Water management is also the key to successfully managing wildfire threats 

and prescribed burning. 

Global Warming and Sea Level Rise 

The outer boundaries of the refuge are at sea level. Saturated marshes, pocosins, and hardwood 

forests cover the majority of the refuge. Scientists predict that the sea level along the North Carolina 

coast will rise from two to three feet in the next 100 years due to global warming. This rise in the 

water levels has initiated change and will continue to change the types of vegetative cover on the 

refuge. The grass-dominated freshwater marshes that occupy the fringes of the sounds will expand 

into areas currently covered by pocosins and hardwood forests. Bald cypress and swamp tupelo 

forests will expand into areas currently occupied by hardwood forests. 

As the habitats change, the wildlife species that inhabit those habitats will also change. Colonial 

nesting birds such as herons and egrets that currently utilize tall trees along the river will lose their 

roost sites as trees die and fall. New candidate roost trees further upslope will be separated from 

open water by freshwater marshes. Cavity-nesting waterfowl, land birds, and mammals will lose their 

cavities as the trees they currently use fall, but other trees further upslope will replace them as cavity 

trees. The freshwater marshes that will expand into the former pocosins and hardwood forests will 

provide habitat for species of land birds and waterfowl not currently inhabiting the refuge and 

additional habitat for waterfowl and wading birds currently using the refuge. The marshes will also 

provide more habitats for groups of species currently on the refuge, including marsh birds and a 

greater abundance and diversity of aquatic species 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

The refuge staff and the public at the scoping meetings contributed ideas for the fish and wildlife 

population issues. In addition, staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies and 

organizations conducted a biological review of Alligator River Refuge in 1999 and 2000 as part of the 

comprehensive conservation planning process. They identified objectives and strategies needed to 

protect wildlife populations and meet the minimum feeding and nesting habitat requirements of 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds. A copy of the findings from this biological 

review is included in Appendix IX. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important 

responsibility delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Four threatened or 

endangered species of animals use (or could use) Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge: the bald 

eagle (federally threatened), red-cockaded woodpecker (federally endangered), red wolf (federally 

endangered), and American alligator (federally threatened). 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 59

Bald eagles use the refuge for foraging. Currently, two bald eagle nests are located within the refuge 

boundary; however, nesting does not occur in every nest every year. The refuge staff surveys the 

nests in January in conjunction with waterfowl surveys. The refuge should perform surveys in April 

and May to document nesting success. 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers nest in pines in the southern part of the refuge. Adequate pine habitat 

does exist on other areas of the refuge. Before Hurricane Isabel in September 2003, there were two 

active clusters on the refuge, at least one of which was successful every year. The red-cockaded 

woodpecker nesting areas received extensive damage during Hurricane Isabel. The extent of this 

damage and potential impacts should be evaluated in the future. The refuge also should survey the 

habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker and manage the stands to provide optimum habitat. The 

hurricane has reduced the canopy coverage and may have reduced the canopy enough to have 

improved the habitat to optimum condition. There is no commercial demand for the species in the 

forest the woodpeckers inhabit. 

The Service introduced red wolves to the refuge in 1987. The first animals were captive-bred animals 

that were the offspring of the last wild red wolves in existence. The total population on the AlbemarlePamlico peninsula is approximately 100 adults. 

American alligators are listed as threatened due to their similarity of appearance to crocodiles. They 

do live and reproduce throughout the refuge in small numbers. The exact population is uncertain. 

Waterfowl 

Management of the refuge’s moist-soil units and marshes for waterfowl is important for meeting the 

refuge’s purpose. The refuge’s waterfowl objectives help guide water management actions on the 

refuge. In order to meet its waterfowl objectives, the refuge must maintain the moist soil units to meet 

waterfowl habitat needs and provide sufficient sanctuary areas that provide undisturbed resting and 

feeding areas for waterfowl. 

Shorebirds 

Management of refuge’s moist-soil units for shorebirds is also important for meeting the refuge’s 

purpose. The refuge’s shorebird objectives help guide operation and management actions on the 

refuge. The refuge could manage the moist-soil units to meet shorebird habitat needs, especially 

during the fall and spring migration periods, and provide sufficient sanctuary areas that provide 

undisturbed resting and feeding areas for shorebirds. Extensive pumping and soil disturbance would 

be required to create the habitat. 

Wading Birds 

The refuge should protect heron rookeries and monitor them to document nesting success. Two 

rookeries are currently on the refuge: one on Whipping Creek Lake and one on Swan Creek Lake. 

Some canoeing and kayaking use occurs in those areas, but there is no access for surveys. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds are a species group of special management concern. Providing habitat 

(i.e., pocosins, hardwood forests, pine forests, brackish marshes, and maritime shrub) for these birds 

is a refuge objective. Strategic marsh management compatible with the refuge’s waterfowl habitat 
60 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

objectives contributes to the maritime shrub needs of neotropical migratory birds. Black-throated 

green warblers utilize the transition areas between Atlantic white cedar and pond pine stands. The 

staff must maintain that transition zone. 

Data Needs 

Wildlife data collection on the refuge has focused on waterfowl and recently black bear. Cooperating 

federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the public have all encouraged the 

Service to continue that data collection and expand it to include all the wildlife species on the refuge 

and the effects of refuge management and public use on the diversity and health of the wildlife. 

Specific needs include aerial surveys for red-cockaded woodpecker cavities and bald eagle nests and 

ground-truthing surveys for the red-cockeded woodpecker cavities. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

The refuge staff and the public at the scoping meetings contributed ideas for the fish and wildlife 

population issues. In addition, staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies and 

organizations conducted a biological review of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in 1999 and 

2000 as part of the comprehensive conservation planning process. They identified objectives and 

strategies needed to meet the minimum feeding and nesting habitat requirements of waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds. A copy of the findings from the Biological Review is 

included in Appendix IX. 

Moist-soil Area Management 

The staff manages the refuge’s moist-soil units for moist soil vegetation and submerged aquatic 

vegetation for waterfowl habitat, mud flats for shorebird habitat, and grass habitat for marsh birds. 

Providing quality habitat requires water management using water control structures and pumps; 

vegetation management with disking; prescribed burning; mowing; and monitoring of water levels, 

vegetation, and invertebrates. 

Marsh Management 

The staff manages the refuge marshes for perennial emergent vegetation that provides habitat for 

waterfowl, marsh birds, wading birds, shorebirds, and neotropical migratory songbirds. The marsh 

bird black rail is a federal species of concern. The staff must conduct prescribed burning so the 

secretive marsh birds have escape routes from the fire and so the fires create a mosaic of habitats. 

Providing quality habitat requires prescribed burning and control of invasive species such as common 

reed (Phragmites australis). 

Data Needs 

Data collection on the refuge has focused on managed wetlands (moist-soil units). Cooperating federal and 

state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the public have all encouraged the Service to continue 

that data collection and expand it to include all the habitats on the refuge and the effects of refuge 

management and public use on the diversity and condition of the habitats. The most significant of these 

needs are aerial surveys for red-cockaded woodpeckers and bald eagles, and ground surveys to monitor 

red-cockaded woodpecker nesting activity. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 61

VISITOR SERVICES 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge offers the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Wildlife observation and 

photography, along with educational and interpretive programs, attract thousands of visitors annually to the 

refuge. Fishing is popular in the refuge’s ditches, creeks, and lakes. Hunting for deer and small game is 

permitted on the refuge during state hunting seasons. Hunting for waterfowl is prohibited in farming units, but is 

allowed on state waters including Milltail Creek and Sawyer Lake. Access to the refuge by motor vehicle, 

bicycle, boats, and horseback is an important issue in the public use program. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The refuge’s network of roads and paddling trails gives visitors visual access to wildlife in many 

different habitats throughout the refuge. Especially in peak migration seasons but also throughout 

the year, the refuge welcomes thousands of avid birdwatchers, nature lovers, and fortunate passersby. 

Hunting 

Currently, hunting for deer, small game, and waterfowl is permitted on Alligator River Refuge. Hunting 

and fishing are integral parts of the rural North Carolina culture. It is not surprising that there is 

considerable state and local interest in providing additional hunting opportunities, especially for the black 

bear, which is hunted on private lands surrounding the refuge. Any expanded hunting opportunities will 

be dependent upon providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with refuge purposes. 

Fishing 

The refuge attracts several thousand annual visitors for its fishing opportunities, primarily in the 

drainage ditches but also in lakes and creeks. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

The refuge provides an array of public tours and educational/interpretive programs to educate visitors 

about the refuge and the diversity and significance of its wildlife and habitat. Due to the limitations of 

a small staff, the refuge relies heavily on a network of local volunteers, student interns, and 

workampers for the implementation of this public outreach. Year-round, the refuge staff and a 

dedicated group of volunteers work to highlight the importance of Alligator River Refuge and the work 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Nonpriority Public Uses 

The refuge owns the majority of the wild lands in Dare County and most of the access to streams that 

give the public access to the area’s bays and sounds. Since its establishment, the refuge has 

approved special use permits for several traditional noncommercial uses that have minimal impact to 

refuge resources. The public expressed concern that those uses be permitted in the future. The 

uses include the gathering of firewood; cutting small-diameter poles for pound nets; cutting big 

cordgrass to cover duck blinds; gigging frogs; and mooring small commercial fishing boats. 
62 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Cultural Resources 

There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The wetland environment 

makes it unlikely that there are many cultural resources on the refuge. The small area of uplands is 

the most likely site of settlements or encampments. The staff must conduct management activities so 

as to avoid compromising sensitive sites. 

Land Acquisition 

There are inholdings around the perimeter of the refuge within its approved acquisition boundary. 

Acquiring these inholdings would secure the Service’s ability to protect all refuge resources. 

Law Enforcement and Refuge Regulation 

The staff enforces applicable laws and regulations through the use of one full-time law enforcement 

officer who covers both the Alligator River and Pea Island Refuges. The officer has obligations for 

more than 158,000 acres, and this extensive territory limits his ability to perform his functions. His 

other workload limits the amount of time he can devote to the monitoring of permits and enforcement 

of the conditions of the permits. During the fall and winter months, it is important to have more of a 

law enforcement presence on Alligator River Refuge due to the large number of hunters on the 

refuge. During the summer months, it is important to have more of a law enforcement presence on 

Pea Island Refuge due to the large number of visitors to the beach and visitor center areas. 

Other Resource Protection 

Other threats to refuge resources require closer monitoring and management. Pest plants and animals 

and wildlife disease are all concerns to which the refuge should be paying closer attention. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land 

that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

inhabitation, and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition, or is a roadless island regardless of size; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored through 

appropriate management at the time of review; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 63

As a part of the planning process, the lands within the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge’s 

approved acquisition boundary were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for 

wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. The wilderness review identified 46,715 acres 

as wilderness study areas. The wilderness review is attached as Appendix IX. 
64 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 65

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

This draft comprehensive conservation plan was derived from Alternative 2, the preferred 

alternative, of the environmental assessment (Section B). Under this plan, the Service would 

protect, maintain, restore, and enhance refuge lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory 

nongame birds, and threatened and endangered species. The refuge staff would initiate 

extensive wildlife and plant census and inventory activities to develop the baseline biological 

information needed to implement management programs on the refuge. 

The refuge would direct all management actions towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes: (1) 

preserving nesting and migratory habitat for neotropical migratory land birds, and (2) helping to meet 

the habitat conservation goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. In addition, the 

staff would manage the refuge to contribute to other national, regional, and state goals for protecting 

and restoring populations of wildlife. 

The Service would implement active habitat management through forest management and moist-soil 

unit management designed to provide a historically diverse complex of habitats that meets the 

foraging, resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of species. 

Under this plan, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all willing seller inholdings within the 

present acquisition boundary. The primary purpose for this acquisition is to provide a system of coastal 

marshes, pocosins, and forested habitats of sufficient size and carrying capacity to reach regional 

objectives associated with area-sensitive neotropical birds, anadromous fish, colonial nesting birds, 

forest-associated waterfowl, and wetland forest landscapes. Lands acquired as part of the refuge would 

be available for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. 

During the 15-year life of this plan, the refuge staff would develop and implement a habitat 

management plan, designed to maintain the present spatially and specifically diverse mosaic of 

habitats with little negative effect to wildlife objectives. 

The Service would provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., hunting, 

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

activities. The refuge would maintain the interior and exterior access roads to provide all-weather 

vehicular access to a broad segment of the public. The staff would permit hiking to support 

wildlife-dependent recreation to the extent that these opportunities do not substantially interfere or 

detract from the achievement of wildlife conservation. They would provide wildlife observation 

sites and platforms; interpretive trails, boardwalks, and kiosks; and restrooms at specific sites to 

allow for fully accessible environmental education and interpretation programs. The plan provides 

for quality fishing and hunting programs, consistent with sound biological principles with sufficient 

focus on migratory bird needs for resting, loafing, feeding and courting requirements. The Service 

would permit fishing along the banks of streams and ditches and from boats. The staff would 

continue to implement an environmental education plan, incorporating an aggressive and 

proactive promotion of both on- and off-site programs. 
66 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

VISION 

The vision for the refuge is as follows: 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge’s unique wetland habitats will become more critical for many 

wildlife, fish, and plants as eastern North Carolina is developed. Refuge habitats will be managed, 

enhanced, and restored for optimal diversity of wildlife, fish, and plants. Healthy and viable 

populations of threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife, fish, and plants will be 

managed and conserved. 

People will visit this refuge in greater numbers to witness its subtle beauty and to seize the opportunity to 

explore. Refuge staff and volunteers will assume a greater role in educating the visiting public to ensure 

that biological integrity is maintained and that people have a safe, pleasant and educational experience. 

Visitors will be encouraged to participate in compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

The proposed visitor center will serve as a gateway, not only for adventure into Alligator River 

Refuge, but also to encourage the many visitors to the Outer Banks to venture inland to other local 

national wildlife refuges. There will be a growing responsibility to reach out to local and national 

communities about the refuge’s importance as a valuable piece of the puzzle that connects all wildlife 

habitats together. 

Working with others, the refuge’s staff and volunteers will adaptively manage the refuge’s natural 

resources and create in this wild place a legacy of fish, wildlife, and plants for future visitors to 

experience, enjoy, and cherish. 

GOALS 

WILDLIFE AND FISH POPULATIONS 

Inventory, protect, and manage to maintain healthy and viable populations of threatened and 

endangered species (e.g., red wolf and red-cockaded woodpecker), other priority wildlife (migratory 

birds and black bear), and fish. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Inventory and manage to provide diverse, high quality mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain forested wetlands, 

marshes, aquatic habitats, and areas intensively managed for wildlife. 

PUBLIC USE/OUTREACH 

Provide safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities for people to learn about and enjoy 

wildlife resources and habitats of the refuge and of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Limit the adverse impacts of development to refuge resources and allow natural processes to 

dominate on candidate wilderness areas. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 67

OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies addressed below are the Service's response to the issues, 

concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff, and the public. These goals, 

objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the purposes of the enabling 

legislation for the establishment of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge; the mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System; the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; and the purpose and vision for 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, 

and strategies during the next fifteen years. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

Fish 

Objective: Document the populations of fish and other freshwater/estuarine species annually in 

internal creeks, lakes, canals, and adjacent waters. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of fish species and quarterly studies and investigations of fisheries 

resources and water quality parameters. These studies and investigations will help evaluate the 

impact of refuge management on fisheries resources. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of fish species as they are observed. 

• Conduct quarterly studies and investigations on fisheries resources and water quality 

parameters. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

Invertebrate Species 

Objective: Document presence or absence of invertebrate species as they are identified. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of invertebrate species and invertebrate population surveys in moist 

soil units, ditches and canals every five years. These surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge 

management on invertebrates.

Strategies: 

• Conduct invertebrate population surveys in moist-soil units, ditches, and canals every five 

years prior to raising water levels. 
68 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

• Document presence or absence of invertebrate species as they are observed. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

Land Birds 

Objective: Document the use of resting, nesting, and foraging habitat by land birds annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of land bird species and grassland bird surveys in farmland filter strips 

each spring and fall. These surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on land birds. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of land bird species as they are observed. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct banding activities as requested or directed. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct studies and investigations, as requested. 

• Conduct grassland bird surveys in farmland filter strips each spring and fall. 

• Monitor response of land birds to habitat management activities using point counts or another 

statistically valid method in selected habitats for selected species. 

Mammals 

Objective: Monitor, collect data from, and manage for black bear, red wolf, white-tailed deer, and 

other selected mammals annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of mammal species. These surveys will help evaluate the impact of 

refuge management on mammals. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of mammal species as they are observed. 

 

• Document black bear and white-tailed deer populations in cooperation with cooperating 

agencies, organizations, and universities. 

• Maintain communication with the Red Wolf Recovery Team and its population monitoring efforts. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 69

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Objective: Monitor reptile and amphibian populations as opportunities present themselves. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of reptile and amphibian species and monthly breeding surveys. 

These surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on reptiles and amphibians. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of reptile and amphibian species as they are observed. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

• Conduct monthly breeding surveys of reptiles and amphibians. 

Shorebirds 

Objective: Document the use of habitat for shorebirds, to the extent possible, during the spring and 

fall migration and through the winter. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

documentation of the presence of shorebird species and woodcock and snipe surveys. These 

surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on shorebirds. 

Strategies: 

• Assist others with banding activities as directed. 

• Document presence or absence of shorebird species as they are observed utilizing 

International Shorebird Survey (ISS) protocols. 

• Count shorebirds in areas specifically managed for shorebirds. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

• Conduct woodcock and snipe surveys during fall migration and in winter. 

Waterbirds (Marsh Birds and Wading Birds) 

Objective: Document the use of habitat for waterbirds (wading birds and marsh birds) continuously. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for rookery 

surveys. These surveys will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on wading birds. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of waterbirds (wading birds and marsh birds) as they are 

observed. 
70 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

• Count waterbirds in areas specifically managed for waterbirds. 

• Assist others in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

• Conduct rookery surveys during the nesting season. 

Waterfowl 

Objective: Document the use of wintering habitat for 2,000 tundra swans and 6,000 dabbling ducks 

annually from November to March. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the same activities as the current management does. The current 

surveys help evaluate the impact of refuge management on waterfowl. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct about 18 ground surveys from October through March. 

• Conduct about 12 aerial surveys bimonthly from October through March. 

• Conduct productivity surveys for tundra swans each winter as requested. 

• Monitor 40 wood duck nest boxes annually. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct banding activities as directed. 

• Meet annual wood duck quota. 

• Assist others with and/or conduct studies and investigations to the extent possible, as requested. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Objective: Protect threatened and endangered animals species and associated habitats as identified. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for annual 

surveys of alligators. These surveys and the surveys currently conducted will help evaluate the 

impact of refuge management on threatened and endangered species. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct aerial surveys every five years to locate red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. 

• Groundtruth aerial surveys for red-cockaded woodpecker cavities as identified. 

• Monitor and band red-cockaded woodpeckers annually to determine population characteristics. 

• Document occurrence of alligators and conduct annual surveys during spring and summer. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 71

• Document occurrence of bald eagles and monitor nesting activity annually. 

• Conduct aerial and ground surveys for red wolves continuously. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Freshwater Pools, Ponds, and Lakes 

Objective: Protect about 1,582 acres of freshwater pools, ponds, lakes, creeks and canals 

continuously for the benefit of waterfowl, wading birds, fish, amphibians and other wildlife annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for studies 

and investigations on water quality parameters every five years. These studies will help evaluate the 

impact of refuge management on water quality. 

Strategies: 

• Compile existing data for water quality to establish baseline. 

• Conduct studies and investigations on water quality parameters every five years. 

• Evaluate impacts to water quality and create management recommendations to improve 

conditions, where feasible. 

Brackish Marsh 

Objective: Protect and manage 19,014 acres of brackish marsh continuously for the benefit of 

waterfowl, wading birds, land birds, and other wildlife and fisheries. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for scientific 

evaluations of selected management activities. These studies will help evaluate the impact of refuge 

management on brackish marsh. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain 2,000 to 3,000 acres of optimum quality emergent brackish marsh annually. 

• Utilize prescribed fire, herbicide application, and mechanical vegetation management. 

• Allow and assist minimal scientific evaluations of selected management activities. 

Managed Wetlands 

Objective: Provide about 1,903 acres of managed wetlands continuously for a variety of wildlife, 

1,200 acres of which will be managed to provide high quality moist-soil habitat for the benefit of 

waterfowl, marsh birds, and shorebirds. 

Discussion: This alternative is an improvement on the current management because it provides for an 

increase in acreage from 900 to 1,200 acres and evaluations of vegetation production annually. 
72 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Strategies: 

• Manage water levels and vegetation to provide optimum conditions for waterfowl and marsh birds. 

• Manage headlands to provide tall native grass habitat for marsh birds. 

• Monitor vegetation annually to evaluate the effectiveness of water and vegetation management. 

• Allow and assist evaluations of vegetation production annually. 

Cropland 

Objective: Manage 3,481 acres of cropland continuously, 1,500 acres of which will be managed to 

produce food for wintering waterfowl, black bear, red wolf, and other wildlife; and 1,500 acres of 

which will be managed as filter strips to effect water quality and to provide habitat for grassland birds, 

ground-nesting birds, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the survival and growth of planted hardwoods in the cropland. This monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on cropland. The filter strips are 75 feet on either side of 

150-foot-wide crop fields on a landscape with ditches 300 feet apart. Tundra swans seem to be 

reluctant to feed in the relatively narrow 150-foot-wide fields. Revised recommendations for filter strip 

widths will allow their narrowing to 25 feet on either side of a 250-foot crop field. 

Strategies: 

• Allow and assist evaluations of vegetation production annually. 

• Convert 15 acres of cropland annually to nonalluvial hardwoods to provide corridors and 

habitat for a variety of wildlife. 

• Monitor survival and growth of planted hardwoods annually. 

• Evaluate the use of crop fields by tundra swans. 

• Consider making filter strips more narrow and crop fields wider when the Conservation 

Reserve Program contract expires in fields close to moist soil areas. 

Cypress Gum Forest 

Objective: Protect, monitor, and inventory 7,515 acres of cypress-gum forest habitat continuously for 

black bear, colonial nesting birds, American bald eagle, land birds, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: The plan provides for the same activities as the current management does. The studies 

conducted by other agencies, organizations, and universities will help evaluate the impact of refuge 

management on cypress-gum forest. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 73

Strategy: 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Atlantic White Cedar Forest 

Objective: Protect 6,725 acres of white cedar habitat and manage selected areas continuously for 

land birds and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring and inventory of selected areas periodically and managing selected areas within the white 

cedar habitat type to insure perpetuation of the habitat type. This monitoring will help evaluate the 

impact of refuge management on Atlantic white cedar forest. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor and inventory selected areas periodically. 

• Manage selected areas within the white cedar habitat type to ensure perpetuation of the 

habitat type. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 

Objective: Protect 24,468 acres of mixed pine/hardwood forest habitat continuously for red wolf, black 

bear, American bald eagle, land birds and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. This monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on the mixed pine/hardwood forest. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Non-alluvial Hardwood Forest 

Objective: Protect 14,703 acres of non-alluvial hardwood forest habitat continuously for red wolf, 

black bear, American bald eagle, land birds, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

restoration of 400 acres and monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species 

present. The restoration will provide more habitat and the monitoring will help evaluate the impact of 

refuge management on non-alluvial hardwood forest. 
74 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Strategies: 

• Restore 400 acres of cropland over fifteen years. 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. 

• Manage the forest canopy through timber harvest and thinning to provide an adequate understory 

for wildlife. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin 

Objective: Protect and manage 50,198 acres of pond pine/shrub pocosin habitat continuously for redcockaded woodpeckers, other land birds, red wolf, black bear, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. The monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on pond pine/shrub pocosin. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor forest health annually. 

• Treat infestations of pests and diseases as needed. 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for its value for the wildlife species present. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Pond Pine/Cane Pocosin 

Objective: Protect and manage 4,275 acres of pond pine/cane pocosin habitat continuously for redcockaded woodpeckers, other land birds, red wolf, black bear, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present and restoration of areas 

killed by the southern pine beetle. The monitoring will help evaluate the impact of refuge 

management on pond pine/cane pocosin. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor forest health annually. 

• Treat infestations of pests and diseases as needed. 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for its value for the wildlife species present. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 75

• Restore areas killed by the southern pine beetle. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

High Shrub Pocosin 

Objective: Protect and manage 14,186 acres of high shrub pocosin habitat continuously for black 

bears and land birds. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. The monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on high shrub pocosin. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat for its value for the wildlife species present. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Low Shrub Pocosin 

Objective: Protect 4,210 acres of low shrub pocosin habitat continuously for black bear and land birds. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for 

monitoring the habitat for its value for the variety of wildlife species present. The monitoring will help 

evaluate the impact of refuge management on low shrub pocosin. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor and inventory the habitat annually for unique plant communities and its value for the 

wildlife species present. 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Objective: Protect threatened and endangered plant species and associated habitats as identified. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the same activities as the current management does. The studies 

will help evaluate the impact of refuge management on threatened and endangered species. 
76 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Strategy: 

• Allow and assist other agencies, organizations, and universities to conduct studies and 

investigations. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Hunting 

Objective: Provide annual opportunities for public hunting use days as follows: waterfowl, 350; other 

migratory birds, 125; upland game, 1000; and big game, 2,400. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for more 

big game hunting, an evaluation of hunting with pursuit hounds, and increased information and law 

enforcement. 

Strategies: 

• Evaluate, develop and update refuge hunting regulations annually. 

• Evaluate the potential to provide bear hunting, wild turkey, and increased quail hunting 

opportunities. 

• Meet annually with hunters and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

representatives to discuss refuge hunting. 

• Provide opportunities for hunting with pursuit hounds in selected areas (approximately 83,000 acres). 

• Evaluate the potential to provide new opportunities for hunting with pursuit hounds on the 

west side of the refuge (Gum Forest Unit). 

• Evaluate the discontinuation of hunting with pursuit hounds east of U.S. 264, and the area 

north of U.S. 64 and east of Billy’s Ditch. 

• Provide opportunities for hunting with retrievers in selected areas (approximately 34,000 acres). 

• Provide opportunities for hunting without dogs on approximately 35,000 acres. Hunting 

without dogs is allowed on all areas open to hunting. 

• Improve quality through increased information and law enforcement. 

Fishing 

Objective: Provide access opportunities for 4,250 fishing visits annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for more 

visitors by providing more access on the refuge and improving maintenance of access areas. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 77

Strategies: 

• Work with partners to maintain nine fishing and boating access areas on refuge and one 

universally accessible fishing platform around the refuge. 

• Improve and maintain parking and access roads for five fishing and boating access areas on refuge. 

• Disseminate fishing information via the refuge visitor center. 

Environmental Education 

Objective: Provide environmental education opportunities for 1,000 students per year on the refuge 

and 500 students per year off the refuge to meet demand. Provide environmental education 

opportunities for up to 35,000 additional students annually after refuge visitor center is completed. 

Discussion: This alternative is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a 100 

percent increase in visitation on the refuge and 100 percent increase off the refuge. The new visitor 

center will provide a valuable venue for programs and volunteers will be an important asset in conducting 

the programs. 

Strategies: 

• Train staff, college interns, workampers, and community volunteers to conduct education 

programs continuously. 

• Construct visitor center with space for environmental education programs. 

Interpretation 

Objective: Provide interpretation opportunities for 42,500 visitors, including staff/volunteer-conducted 

talks for 375 visitors, tours for 375 visitors, and demonstrations for 375 visitors; 6,250 kiosk visits; and 

29,375 visits on existing interpretive trails annually. Provide interpretive opportunities for 700,000–

800,000 annual visitors in a newly constructed visitor center. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a 25 

percent increase in visitation. This increase in planned capacity would meet the current demand for 

interpretive programs. The new visitor center and increased trail maintenance will be valuable assets 

to facilitate the increased capacity. 

Strategies: 

• Train staff, college interns, workampers, and community volunteers to conduct education 

programs continuously. 

• Improve interpretive programming and facilities (e.g., trails, kiosks, signage, and brochures) 

continuously. 

• Construct visitor center to provide interpretive opportunities. 
78 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Wildlife Observation 

Objective: Provide 45–50 quality guided observation tours annually, averaging 8 people each to meet 

current levels of use. Maintain observation facilities for 12,500 annual visits. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a 25 

percent increase in observation opportunities by providing more tours and maintaining access areas 

better. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain roads, trails, boardwalks, and platforms for access to wildlife observation 

opportunities continuously. 

• Evaluate the need for additional quality, low impact wildlife observation opportunities 

continuously. 

• Consider and manage means and methods of access (e.g., horseback riding, canoeing, 

kayaking, and bicycling) for wildlife observation continuously. 

Wildlife Photography 

Objective: Provide quality opportunities and facilities for wildlife photography sufficient for 2,400 visits 

annually. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a 20 

percent increase in photography opportunities by maintaining access areas better. 

Strategy: 

• Maintain roads, trails, boardwalks, and platforms for access to wildlife photography 

opportunities continuously. 

Public Use Facilities 

Objective: Construct and operate visitor center to provide education and interpretation for Alligator 

River and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuges. 

Discussion: The refuge currently has no central meeting place for staff, volunteers, and visitors. The 

entire refuge is wetlands and development on the refuge is prohibited. The Service owns land in 

Manteo on Roanoke Island adjacent to the National Park Service headquarters and Fort Raleigh 

Historic Site. Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks just east of Manteo. A visitor center built in 

Manteo will serve as a gateway to refuges and other public lands in eastern North Carolina. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 79

Strategies: 

• Secure funding for the visitor center. 

• Contact the engineering and contracting sections in the Service’s regional office for 

assistance in design, contracting, and construction inspection. 

• Contact the regional archeologist for a cultural resources investigation. 

Nonwildlife-dependent Public Uses 

Objective: Evaluate nonwildlife-dependent public uses on a monthly and case-by-case basis; regulate 

the numbers for certain tolerated uses to limit impacts; prohibit visits for recreational uses that are not 

feasible. 

Discussion: This plan proposes to improve on the status quo by actively enforcing refuge regulations 

with a refuge law enforcement officer. The refuge is located in a heavily used tourist area on the way 

to the Outer Banks. Visitors are not necessarily aware of the subtle differences between permitted 

recreational uses on the refuge and state or national parks. There is a practical limit as to how much 

signage the refuge can erect and how effective the signage is, and how many of the nonwildlifedependent recreational uses the refuge staff can prevent. The staff must prohibit noncompatible 

uses and enforce regulations efficiently. There are several traditional non-commercial uses of the 

refuge that the refuge allows by special use permit, including: gathering firewood, cutting small 

diameter poles for pound nets, and cutting big cordgrass to cover duck blinds. 

Strategies: 

• Utilize management and biological staff to evaluate requests for uses. 

• Enforce regulations with a full-time law enforcement officer. 

Outreach 

Objective: Maintain communication with media, conservation organizations, elected officials, local 

communities, and other potential supporters to provide basic and detailed refuge information on 

programs, resources, management, and regulations to approximately ten million people continuously. 

Discussion: The plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for an 

increase in the outreach audience and improvement in the quality of outreach tools. The plan 

provides for an extensive use of the Internet as an outreach tool. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain inventory of and distribute refuge brochures, tear sheets, and fact sheets 

continuously. 

• Develop press releases to publicize and report refuge activities and accomplishments as they 

are warranted. 
80 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

• Maintain the refuge’s web site continuously. 

• Maintain proactive monthly schedule of outreach contacts on the Internet. 

Refuge Support 

Objective: Work formally with the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society and informally with other groups to 

provide approximately $150,000 annually to support refuge programs and facilities. 

Discussion: This plan is an improvement on the current management because it provides for a larger 

fund-raising effort by the refuge’s Friends Group and the development of additional support groups. 

The refuge’s new visitor center will play a substantial role in attracting additional refuge support. 

Strategies: 

• Identify refuge need for additional organizational support and activity; develop additional 

support groups as needed. 

• Work formally and informally with advocacy groups. 

Special Events 

Objective: Work with others to plan, coordinate, and execute two major and four minor quality special 

events annually in eastern North Carolina for 3,000 people. 

Discussion: The plan provides for a 50 percent increase in special event participation. These events 

attract a new and different audience to the refuge and introduce them to the Service and the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Establish and maintain relationships with other agencies and organizations to conduct special 

events. 

• Publicize events with fliers and personal contacts, in the print media, and on the Internet. 

Visitor Protection 

Objective: Identify safety hazards and ensure the safety of visitors by eliminating hazards; controlling 

access into hazardous areas; and informing visitors of potential hazards. 

Discussion: The plan improves on the current management. It improves visitor protection by 

providing for patrols by the refuge law enforcement officer frequently enough to warn visitors of 

hazards. This alternative provides for additional staff to identify hazards and react to them 

appropriately. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain an awareness of potential safety hazards and inform the proper staff when hazards 

are reported or discovered. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 81

• Notify the public of safety hazards with signs and printed material. 

• Conduct law enforcement patrols on a regular basis. 

Volunteer Program 

Objective: Recruit, train, and coordinate volunteers to donate 12,500 hours of service annually to 

support and enhance designated refuge programs. 

Discussion: The plan proposes a 25 percent increase over the current level of management. 

Volunteers are critically important to the public use, biological, and maintenance programs on the 

refuge. College interns, workampers, and community volunteers all contribute to the volunteer effort. 

Strategies: 

• Recruit volunteers from the local community, conservation and youth organizations, 

universities, work camper news, and the Internet. 

• Utilize the public use staff to coordinate the volunteers. 

• Utilize the appropriate staff to train and supervise volunteers engaged in support of the public 

use, biological, and maintenance programs. 

Commercial Ecotours 

Objective: Allow permitted, quality, guided paddling ecotours and evaluate impacts on an annual basis. 

Discussion: This plan maintains the current management by evaluating permits as applications are 

received and evaluating the impacts of the ecotour activity. 

Strategies: 

• Review applications for permits for paddling ecotours and grant permits to the most qualified 

applicants. 

• Consider applications for permits for other ecotour opportunities. 

• Provide training and information to permitees to ensure that visitors are aware of the refuge 

and its mission. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Communication Towers 

Objective: Minimize impacts to refuge resources by providing review and comment on all 

communication tower projects that are proposed. 

Discussion: The plan is the same as the current level of management. Communication towers pose 

threats to migrating birds as they fly at night and strike the towers, often in large flocks. There is only 
82 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

one tower on the refuge, but there are great demands to erect more towers in the area in which the 

refuge is located. This plan provides for additional staff to assist with reviewing permits and 

coordinating with the operators of towers. 

Strategy: 

• Avoid adverse impacts to refuge resources by developing special use conditions for 

communication tower construction and maintenance proposals. 

Utility Line and Highway Corridors 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by coordinating on development and maintenance of 

corridors continuously. 

Discussion: The plan is the same as the current level of management. The State of North Carolina 

and the local electric cooperative have rights-of-way through the refuge. These rights-of-way are 

subject to conditions that ensure compatibility with the refuge purposes. The staff reviews proposals 

to move those rights-of-way and acquire new rights-of-way. 

Strategies: 

• Minimize impacts to refuge resources by providing review and comment on all other corridor 

projects that are proposed. 

• Avoid adverse impacts to refuge resources by developing terms and conditions to ensure the 

compatibility of corridor construction and maintenance proposals. 

Cultural Resources 

Objective: Avoid all impacts to cultural resources by following the policies and procedures in the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Manual continuously. 

Discussion: The plan is the same as the current level of management. The Historic Preservation Act 

mandates that the Service protect cultural resources on the refuge. There have been no 

comprehensive cultural resources studies of the refuge. The staff will refer all land-disturbing 

activities to the Service’s Regional Office. 

Strategies: 

• Evaluate all proposed external projects and coordinate with the Regional Office within thirty 

days of receiving a proposal. 

• Avoid all impacts to cultural resources by coordinating all internal projects with the Regional 

Office within thirty days of receiving funds. 

• Manage and limit impacts to identified cultural resources by restricting access to or regulating 

activities in the vicinity of cultural resources. 

• Document above-ground resources as they are discovered or as lands are acquired and 

stabilize the resources. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 83

Inholdings 

Objective: Monitor at least annually, the use, management, and potential future development of 

approximately 1,200 acres of refuge inholdings. 

Discussion: The plan is the same as the current level of management. Activities in inholdings have 

the potential to cause negative impacts on refuge resources. Activities on the refuge, such as 

prescribed burning and wetland restoration, have the potential to cause negative impacts in 

inholdings. The refuge works cooperatively with the owners of the inholdings to minimize conflicts. 

Strategies: 

• Enhance refuge resources and programs by coordinating specific inholder activities on a 

case-by-case basis. 

• Limit impacts to refuge resources by developing special use conditions for permitted inholder 

activities on the refuge. 

Interagency Coordination and Cooperative Agreements 

Objective: Facilitate and enhance refuge programs and protect refuge resources by coordinating with 

local, state, federal, public, and private agencies continuously. 

Discussion: The plan improves on management beyond the current level. The management of 

Alligator River Refuge requires an extraordinary amount of coordination because the Dare County 

Bombing Range and three small communities are located within the refuge, and two federal highways 

run through it. The plan provides for additional staff to coordinate with other agencies and 

organizations. 

Strategies: 

• Coordinate with local, state, federal, public, and private agencies at least 25 times annually. 

• Represent the Service throughout the year at a minimum of 25 local meetings, 25 state meetings, 5 

national meetings, 10 public meetings, and 5 meetings with private organizations annually. 

• Coordinate management programs with the Dare County Bombing Range, Dare County, 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, North Carolina Forest Service, and North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Review and revise existing cooperative 

agreements by meeting formally at least once per year. 

• Enhance refuge programs and resources by developing or maintaining cooperative 

agreements with other local, state, and federal agencies annually. 

Land Protection 

Objective: Acquire an estimated 1,200 acres of inholdings within the refuge, as they become available 

from willing sellers. Acquire an estimated 47,200 acres from the Dare County Bombing Range, as they 

become available. Acquire 39,140 acres of private land, as it becomes available from willing sellers. 
84 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Discussion: The refuge has an approved acquisition boundary 87,540 acres beyond the current 

refuge ownership. The refuge will maintain contact with the landowners within the boundary, pursue 

acquisition from willing sellers, and post and maintain the land that is acquired. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain contact with owners of land within the approved acquisition boundary. 

• Survey and post boundaries, suppress wildfires, conduct prescribed burns, perform law 

enforcement, and incorporate the areas into existing management programs. 

Law Enforcement 

Objective: Ensure public safety and protect refuge resources by encouraging voluntary compliance 

and enforcing refuge regulations as necessary. 

Discussion: The plan improves on the current management by encouraging voluntary compliance and 

developing cooperative agreements. 

Strategies: 

• Provide assistance to and coordinate with appropriate local, state, and federal law 

enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal laws. 

• Develop cooperative agreements with local and state law enforcement agencies. 

Navigable Waters 

Objective: Identify and manage 1,127 acres of selected navigable waters over which the refuge 

requires limited regulatory control to ensure protection of refuge resources. 

Discussion: There are lakes, streams, bays, and inlets on and adjacent to the refuge that are waters of 

the State of North Carolina, but are in close proximity to refuge lands. Enforcement of state laws on 

these waters would be facilitated if the refuge law enforcement officers had the authority to enforce those 

laws. This plan proposes to develop an agreement to allow cooperative management of those waters. 

Strategies: 

• Identify selected navigable waters (1,127 acres) over which the refuge requires limited 

regulatory control to ensure protection of refuge resources. 

• Consult with the state to establish a cooperative management agreement to regulate certain 

activities within selected waters. 

• Coordinate selection of waters with Fish and Wildlife Service coordinating refuge manager. 

Permits 

Objective: Limit impacts to or enhance refuge resources annually by evaluating approximately 60 use 

proposals on a case-by-case basis. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 85

Discussion: The plan improves management beyond current levels. It increases the capacity for permit 

review from 40 proposals in the status quo to 60 proposals. Visitors and researchers apply for permits to 

engage in recreation activities or perform research on the refuge. The staff reviews the permits and 

establishes and enforces conditions under which the applicants may engage in the activity. The plan 

adds staff to assist in permit review and development and monitoring of permit conditions. There are 

several traditional noncommercial uses that the refuge allows by special use permit, including the 

gathering of firewood; cutting small-diameter poles for pound nets; cutting big cordgrass to cover duck 

blinds; gigging frogs; and mooring small commercial fishing boats. 

Strategy: 

• Protect refuge resources annually by developing special conditions for those permitted uses 

that are compatible. 

Pest and Exotic Animals 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by monitoring, controlling, or eradicating pest animals as 

necessary. 

Discussion: The plan maintains the current level of management. Pest animals, particularly feral cats 

and dogs, are a threat to wildlife populations. 

Strategies: 

• Encourage the refuge staff to be vigilant of pest animals continuously. 

• Monitor populations of pest animals systematically and control them as necessary. 

Pest and Exotic Plants 

Objective: Monitor the refuge for pest plants and control and eradicate approximately 75 acres of pest 

plants per year in moist-soil units, public use trails, and ditch banks and road shoulders in the farm unit. 

Discussion: The plan maintains the current level of management. Pest plants, particularly common 

reed (Phragmites australis) and alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), are a threat to the 

refuge’s natural vegetative communities. The refuge staff is currently managing common reed with 

herbicides, and pest plants on roadsides and in the vicinity of the maintenance shop with mowing. 

Strategies: 

• Document the distribution of and assess the impacts of pest plants on native plant 

communities by monitoring the entire refuge for pest plants. 

• Improve and limit impacts to native plant communities by managing pest plants. 

• Control 75 acres of common reed. 
86 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Significant Natural Heritage Areas 

Objective: Manage significant natural heritage areas to maintain the natural vegetative communities. 

Discussion: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has designated the majority of the refuge 

as a significant natural heritage area in recognition of the integrity of the vegetative communities. 

The plan proposes to maintain the current level of management by conducting prescribed burning of 

fire-dependent communities at natural frequencies. 

Strategy: 

• Conduct prescribed burning of fire-dependent plant communities at natural frequencies to 

maintain the natural plant communities. 

Water Quality 

Objective: Monitor the water quality of pump discharges on the refuge and of runoff from the Dare 

County Construction and Demolition Landfill annually. 

Discussion: The plan improves the management over current level. Measuring the water quality of 

pump discharges annually will keep the staff aware of potential pollution from refuge ditches and 

moist-soil units. 

Strategy: 

• Measure dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, conductivity, and temperature annually. 

Wilderness Areas 

Objective: Actively manage and utilize the acreage identified as wilderness study areas (in the 

Wilderness Review - Appendix IX) in the same manner as they are currently being managed and 

utilized. 

Discussion: In examining the nature of the 46,715 acres selected as wilderness study areas more 

closely, it was determined that there would be mostly passive management whether the lands were 

designated as wilderness areas or not. There is little opportunity for recreation because the deep 

organic soils support very little pedestrian traffic. Frequent pedestrian traffic would result in habitat 

destruction. The complete lack of public facilities and the nature of the habitat do not invite 

pedestrian traffic. In effect, these lands would be managed and utilized the same way whether 

designated as wilderness or not. Therefore, it was decided not to propose the acreage as 

wilderness, since the designation would offer little additional protection. As a result of this decision, 

the question of whether lands falling within the currently approved acquisition boundary of the refuge 

would be proposed for wilderness designation is not addressed further as a part of this plan. Any 

future land acquisition outside the currently approved acquisition boundary would be evaluated 

independently for possible proposed wilderness designation. The Wilderness Review is attached as 

Appendix IX. 

Strategy:

• Review and evaluate newly acquired land for wilderness protection designation. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 87

Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention 

Objective: Manage refuge resources to minimize the potential for wildlife disease continuously. 

Discussion: The plan maintains the current level of management. There have not been any 

significant incidences of wildlife disease on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor for outbreaks continuously. 

• Minimize losses from disease outbreaks continuously. 

• Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies as necessary to monitor and minimize 

wildlife disease. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Capital Property Management 

Objective: Use increased level of resources to effectively operate, maintain, and dispose of capital 

property; and acquire minimum equipment necessary to support refuge programs. 

Discussion: The plan maintains the current level of capital management. The addition of a refuge 

operations specialist and computer specialist will increase the refuge’s capability to manage capital 

property. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct one capital property inventory annually. 

• Manage capital property according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 

Financial Management 

Objective: Manage budget and develop and administer contracts continuously in accordance with 

Fish and Wildlife Service policy. 

Discussion: This plan maintains the current level of financial management. 

Strategies: 

• Develop annual and long-term budgets. 

• Develop and execute contracts. 

• Process travel vouchers. 
88 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

• Maintain Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System 

(MMS) databases by adding new needs and deleting funded projects. 

• Apply for flex funding and other grants. 

Office Space and Utilities 

Objective: Coordinate with the Government Services Administration to provide adequate office space 

and parking facilities in Manteo for the staff levels prescribed in this plan. 

Discussion: The refuge headquarters is currently in leased office space that has the staff fragmented 

and cramped. The plan provides for the Service to construct a new office on Service-owned land in 

Manteo across the street from the National Park Service headquarters and Fort Raleigh Historic Site. 

Strategies: 

• Provide fuel, office supplies, and utilities for refuge operations and staff continuously. 

• Manage office space according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual continuously. 

• Construct a new headquarters and visitor center on property in Manteo currently owned by the Service. 

Personnel Management 

Objective: Hire and manage minimum levels of staff (24.75 full-time equivalents) to meet refuge 

objectives at approved full-time equivalent levels. 

Discussion: The plan maintains the current level of personnel management and adds five positions to 

better meet the goals, objectives, and strategies in the plan. 

Strategies: 

• Recognize employee performance annually through the employee incentive program. 

• Provide the minimum 40-hour staff training opportunity for professional, technical, and 

leadership development goals. 

• Manage personnel according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 

Real Property Management 

Objective: Use the level of funding and staff in this plan to maintain existing buildings, grounds, 

firebreaks, structures, roads, and equipment to protect the health and safety of the refuge staff and 

public continuously. 

Discussion: The refuge maintains a number of buildings, pumps, water control structures, and parking 

lots in addition to 100 miles of gravel roads. This plan maintains the current level of management of 

those facilities and adds a Service-owned office and visitor center in Manteo. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 89

Strategies: 

• Evaluate the need for, acquire, and maintain additional buildings, structures, and equipment to 

support refuge programs continuously. 

• Maintain the quality, quantity, and extent of current public use facilities and those specified in 

approved public use plans continuously. 

• Conduct one real property inventory annually. 

• Manage real property according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual continuously.

All Risk Management 

Objective: Prepare for and respond to risks present on the refuge daily and risks brought by natural 

disasters continuously. 

Discussion: The management of 152,260 acres of land involves the management of inherent risks of 

having employees and visitors working and recreating on the land. The refuge is also subject to 

natural disasters in the form of wildfires, hurricanes, and severe storms. This plan maintains the 

current level of management. 

Strategies: 

• Respond to wildfires on a case-by-case basis following current approved plan. 

• Respond to storms on a case-by-case basis. 

• Respond to catastrophes on a case-by-case basis. 

• Assess risk to human health and safety and provide minimal property protection. 

• Assess facility designs for surviving risk events. 

• Evaluate and determine mitigation measures. 
90 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 91

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter outlines the staff and activities that will execute the strategies specified in Chapter IV 

and the new staff, budget, equipment, and facilities that are needed. The priorities assigned to the 

Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) projects in 

Appendix VIII determine the priorities of the strategies. There is no direct correlation between a 

specific position, piece of equipment, or facility and a specific strategy because any one position, 

piece of equipment, or facility executes more than a single strategy. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

The proposed projects are summarized in Tables 14–18. 

Table 14. Projects supporting Wildlife Strategies 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Protect wildlife. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Hire new law enforcement officer 

(RONS 00098). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

refuge manager, assistant manager, administrative 

officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment to 

survey and protect wildlife. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 
92 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 15. Projects supporting Habitat Strategies 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Conduct prescribed burning. Use existing fire management officer, wildlife 

biologist, forestry technicians, and engineering 

equipment operators. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Protect habitat. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Hire new law enforcement officer 

(RONS 00098). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

refuge manager, assistant manager, administrative 

officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new forester (RONS 00003) 

and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment to 

manage habitat. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace facilities to 

manage habitat. 

Replace bulkheads and water control structures 

(various MMS projects). 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 93

Table 16. Projects supporting Public Use Strategies 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Plan, design, and conduct programs and 

outreach. 

Use existing park rangers. 

Recruit, hire, and train new park rangers 

Maintain education, interpretation, wildlife 

observation, and wildlife photography 

facilities. 

Use existing maintenance staff and volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, and train two new maintenance 

workers (RONS 97018 and 00092) and a heavy 

mobile equipment mechanic (RONS 00096). 

Protect visitors. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Recruit, hire, and train new law enforcement officer 

(RONS 00098). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

refuge manager, assistant manager, administrative 

officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

assistant manager, and park rangers. 

Recruit, hire, and train new park rangers. 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment to 

maintain facilities as necessary. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace parking lots, kiosks, boat ramp, and boat 

dock (various MMS projects). 
94 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 17. Projects supporting Resource Protection Strategies 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Maintain cooperation with agencies, 

organizations, and permit holders. 

Review permits and develop conditions for 

uses allowed by permits. 

Monitor pest animals and plants and permitted 

uses. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project 

leader, assistant manager, and wildlife 

biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001), forester (RONS 

00003), and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing maintenance staff and 

volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, and train two new maintenance 

workers (RONS 97018 and 00092) and a 

heavy mobile equipment mechanic (RONS 

00096). 

Enforce regulations. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Hire new law enforcement officer 

(RONS 00098). 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project 

leader, refuge manager, assistant manager, 

administrative officer, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing project leader, deputy project 

leader, assistant manager, and wildlife 

biologist. 

Recruit, hire, and train new refuge operations 

specialist (RONS 02001), forester (RONS 

00003), and wildlife biologist (RONS 00007). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment as 

necessary. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace parking lots, and kiosks 

(various MMS projects). 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 95

Table 18. Projects supporting Refuge Administration Strategies 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing project leader, deputy project leader, 

refuge manager, assistant manager, administrative 

officer, and office assistant. Recruit, hire, and train 

new refuge operations specialist (RONS 02001). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing maintenance staff and volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, and train two new maintenance 

workers (RONS 97018 and 00092) and a heavy 

mobile equipment mechanic (RONS 00096). 

Recruit, hire, and train new computer specialist 

(RONS 00094). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment as 

necessary. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Replace vehicles (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace bulkheads, water control structures, 

parking lots, wildlife observation platforms, and 

kiosks (various MMS projects). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

The Service administers Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge from an office in Manteo, North 

Carolina, ten miles east of the refuge’s eastern boundary. Construction on the refuge is prohibited 

because the entire refuge is wetland. The staff stores the refuge’s equipment on a site that previous 

owners had developed. The Service uses staff from the Manteo office and equipment from the 

refuge to also manage the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge that is fifteen miles east of Manteo. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Currently, the Service has approved a staff of 25 permanent positions to serve the Alligator River and 

Pea Island national wildlife refuges. Of the 25 positions, 17.8 full-time equivalents are spent on 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Of the 25 positions, nine are funded for fire management. 

To complete the extensive wildlife habitat management and restoration projects and conduct the 

necessary inventorying, monitoring, and mapping activities, the refuge requires funding to maintain and 

replace equipment and facilities, perform studies, and more staff to administer the refuge programs. 

The locations of the proposed public use facilities are shown on Figure 7. The proposed staffing plan 

(Table 19) outlines a staff of 39 employees (24.75 full-time equivalent positions dedicated to Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge) that would enable the refuge to achieve its plan objectives and strategies 

within a reasonable time. The annual cost of implementing the plan, including salaries and benefits, 

would be $1,896,000. 
96 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 7. Proposed visitor facilities for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 97

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

Position Status 

Percent 

of Time on Alligator 

River 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-14* PFT 40 

Deputy Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13* PFT 70 

Assistant Refuge Manager, GS-0485-12* PFT 75 

Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-0485-09** PFT 50 

Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-0485-09** PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-12* PFT 40 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-11** PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-07** PFT 55 

Forester, GS-0460-11** PFT 80 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-12* PFT 40 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-11** PFT 0 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-09* PFT 10 

Park Ranger (Volunteer Coordinator), GS-0025-09** PFT 40 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-09* PFT 70 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-07** PFT 50 

Computer Specialist, GS-0???-11** PFT 90 

Administrative Officer, GS-0341-09* PFT 75 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07* PPT 75 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-07* PFT 50 

Forestry Technician, GS-0462-07* PFT 50 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-05* TEMP 10 

Secretary, GS-0318-05* TERM 75 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-05* TEMP 50 

Student Intern, GS-0499-04* SCEP 50 

Engineering Equipment. Operator Supervisor, WS-5716-09* PFT 75 

Heavy Mobile Equipment Mechanic, WG-5716-10** PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09* PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09* PFT 90 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-08* PFT 90 

Automotive Worker, WG-5823-08* PFT 90 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-08** PFT 50 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-05** PFT 100 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-06* TERM 30 
98 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Position Status 

Percent 

of Time on Alligator 

River 

Fire Management Program 

Fire Management Officer, GS-0460-12* PFT 50 

Fire Management Officer (Wildland Urban Interface), 

GS-0401-11* 

PFT 40 

Prescribed Fire Specialist, GS-0401-07* PFT 40 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-08* PFT 80 

Forestry Technician (Fire Program Technician) (Fire), 

GS-0462-07** 

PFT 100 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-06* PFT 80 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-04* PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator (Fire), WG-5716-08* PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator (Fire), WG-5716-08* PFT 80 

Engineering Equipment Operator (Fire), WG-5716-08* PFT 80 

Red Wolf Program 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-13* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-11* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09* PFT 0 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-07* TERM 0 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-07* PFT 0 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07* TERM 0 

PFT = Permanent Full Time employee 

TERM = Term Employee (up to four years) 

TEMP = Temporary Employee (not to exceed one year) 

SCEP = Student Cooperative Education Program 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 99

VOLUNTEERS 

The refuge depends on volunteers extensively, especially for its visitor services programs. 

Volunteers currently contribute 10,000 staff hours; this plan anticipates contributions of 12,000 hours. 

The refuge utilizes volunteers from the community, college interns, and work campers. The college 

interns rotate through work assignments in the visitor services, biology, and maintenance programs. 

The staff recruits work campers for the skills the refuge needs. The refuge provides quarters for 

college interns and pads for recreational vehicles for the work campers. 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this comprehensive conservation plan is to establish partnerships with local 

volunteers, landowners, private organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. In 

the immediate vicinity of the refuge, opportunities exist to establish partnerships with sporting clubs, 

elementary and secondary schools, and community organizations. At regional and state levels, the 

Service might establish partnerships with organizations such as the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, The Nature Conservancy, 

Ducks Unlimited, and National Audubon Society. 

The refuge’s volunteer program and other partnerships generated would depend upon the number of 

staff positions the Service provides the refuge. As the Service commits staff and resources to the 

refuge, the refuge will take the opportunities to expand the volunteer program and develop 

partnerships. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the management direction of the 

refuge. Before the staff can implement some of the strategies and projects, they must prepare or update 

detailed step-down management plans. To assist in preparing and implementing the step-down plans, 

the refuge staff will develop partnerships with local agencies and organizations. The staff will develop 

these plans in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the identification 

and evaluation of alternatives and public review and comment prior to their implementation. 

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan (Develop): This plan will describe inventory and monitoring 

techniques and time frames. The staff will inventory all plant communities and associations in the 

refuge, as well as all trust species (migratory birds including land birds, neotropical passerines, and 

waterfowl); listed species (federal and state threatened and endangered species and species of 

concern); key resident species; and monitor population trends. 

Habitat Management Plan (Develop): This plan will describe the overall desired future habitat 

conditions needed to fulfill the refuge’s purpose and objectives. The plan will include sections dealing 

with each habitat on the refuge. The staff will develop procedures, techniques, strategies, and 

timetables for achieving desired future conditions into an overall plan. 

Moist Soil/Water Management Plan (Update): This plan will describe the strategies and procedures 

(timing and duration of flooding and disturbance) for manipulating the refuge’s water management 

units to meet habitat management objectives. 

Marsh Management Plan (Develop): This plan will describe strategies for meeting the refuge’s 

marsh management objectives. The plan will also address scrub/shrub habitat management. 
100 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (Develop): This plan will address the complex issue of bringing 

exotic and nuisance plants and animals to a maintenance control level on the refuge. It will cover 

chemical pesticide use (aerial and ground application), mechanical eradication, and biological 

controls. The Nuisance/Exotic Animal and Plant Control plans will be sections of this plan. 

Nuisance/Exotic Animal Control Plan (Update): This plan (as part of the Integrated Pest 

Management Plan) will describe survey, removal or control, and monitoring techniques for both 

terrestrial and aquatic nuisance and exotic animals (vertebrate and invertebrate). The plan will 

include wild dogs, feral cats, and resident Canada geese 

Nuisance/Exotic Plant Control Plan (Develop): This plan (as part of the Integrated Pest 

Management Plan) will describe survey, removal or control, and monitoring techniques for both 

terrestrial and aquatic nuisance and exotic plants. 

Fire Management Plan (Update): This plan will describe wildfire and prescribed fire management 

techniques that the staff will employ on the refuge. The wildlife habitat objectives will guide planning 

for prescribed burning. Wildfire control descriptions will include initial attack strategies and 

cooperative agreements with other agencies. 

Visitor Services Plan (Develop): This plan will describe the refuge’s wildlife-dependent recreation, 

environmental education, and interpretive programs. It will address specific issues or items such as 

access, facility requirements, site plans, and universal accessibility for visitors with disabilities. The 

environmental education, fishing, hunting, and sign plans will be sections of this plan. 

Environmental Education Plan (Develop): This plan will reflect the objectives and strategies of the 

comprehensive conservation plan and address environmental education guidelines following Service 

standards. 

Fishing Plan (Update): This plan, as part of the Visitor Services Plan, will address specific aspects 

of the refuge’s fishing program. It will define season structures, fishing areas, methods, access, 

universal accessibility for anglers with disabilities, facilities needed, and refuge-specific regulations. 

Hunting Plan (Update): This plan, as part of the Visitor Services Plan, will address specific aspects 

of the refuge’s hunting program. It will define season structures, area designations, methods, access, 

universal accessibility for hunters with disabilities, facilities needed, and refuge-specific regulations. 

Sign Plan (Update): This plan, as part of the Visitor Services Plan, will describe the refuge’s strategy 

for informing visitors via signage. It will incorporate Service guidelines. 

Law Enforcement Plan (Update): This plan will provide a reference to station policies, procedures, 

priorities, and programs concerning law enforcement. 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources under 

which the staff utilizes the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information to evaluate 

and change practices. More specifically, adaptive management is a process by which projects are 

implemented within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions and 

assumptions outlined within a plan. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 101

To apply adaptive management, the staff would adopt specific survey, inventory, and monitoring 

protocols for the refuge. They would evaluate habitat management strategies systematically to 

determine management effects on wildlife populations. They would use the information to refine 

approaches and determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations would 

include ecosystem team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation 

indicate undesirable effects for target and nontarget species and/or communities, then the refuge 

would alter its management projects. Subsequently, the staff would revise the refuge’s 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

The Service would describe specific monitoring and evaluation activities in the step-down 

management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The staff will review this comprehensive conservation plan annually to determine the need for 

revision. A revision would occur if and when substantial information becomes available, such as a 

change in ecological conditions or when the Service plans a major refuge expansion. The staff would 

augment the plan by detailed step-down management plans to address the completion of specific 

strategies in support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to the comprehensive 

conservation plan and the step-down management plans would be subject to public review and 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 
102 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 103

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

The purpose of this environmental assessment for the plan is to determine and evaluate a range of 

reasonable management alternatives for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The staff generated 

each alternative with the potential to be fully developed into a final comprehensive conservation plan. 

The environmental assessment also predicts and evaluates the biological, physical, and 

socioeconomic effects of implementing each alternative. From this range of alternatives, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service identified the proposed management action. 

In accordance with the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Service identified a 

number of issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency managers, and 

professionals. From these issues and concerns the Service’s planning team identified a range of 

three alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected 

Alternative 2 as the proposed management action. In the opinion of the Service and the planning 

team, Alternative 2 is the best approach to guide the refuge’s management direction. 

To date, general guidance in the National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966 has guided refuge 

management. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires that all 

national wildlife refuges have a comprehensive conservation plan in place within 15 years to help 

fulfill the mission of the System to ensure integrated management. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on this environmental assessment, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative for 

implementation as the comprehensive conservation plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Service will then prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) if the selected alternative 

will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. If the selected alternative 

will have a significant effect, the Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to further 

assess the impacts and propose mitigation measures. Several factors will guide this determination: 

an evaluation of the refuge purposes, the missions of the Service and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and other legal mandates. Assuming that the Service finds no significant impacts, 

implementation of the plan will begin, and the staff will monitor the plan’s implementation on an 

annual basis and revise it when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is in northeast North Carolina in mainland Dare and Hyde 

counties. The Croatan and Pamlico sounds lie to the east and the Alligator River lies to the west. 

The cities of Greenville, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia, are the nearest major cities and 

are located 100 miles west and north of the refuge, respectively. The major villages in the area are 

Manns Harbor, Engelhard, Stumpy Point, and East Lake. 
104 Environmental Assessment 

The Service presently owns and manages all but approximately 87,800 acres identified as lying within 

the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary. The Service will seek to acquire these areas if they 

become available. This environmental assessment will identify management on refuge lands, as well 

as those lands proposed for acquisition by the Service. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

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

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The refuge staff achieved compliance with this Act 

through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of this environmental assessment, with a 

description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental consequences of the 

alternatives (Chapters III and IV). When fully implemented, the plan will achieve the vision and 

purposes of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which Congress established the 

refuge. 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 

compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In addition, “wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety.” 

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the system, as listed in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

PLANNING PROCESS 

Representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agency personnel attended the 

initial planning meetings. At these initial meetings, they discussed strategies for completing the plan, 

identified the staff’s issues and concerns, and compiled a mailing list of likely interested government 

agencies, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and individual citizens. The Service invited 

these agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in a series of public scoping 

meetings held on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001, in Washington, Plymouth, Columbia, Swan 

Quarter, and Manns Harbor, North Carolina. At these scoping meetings, the audiences were 

introduced to the refuge and its planning process, and asked to identify their issues and concerns. 

The Service published announcements giving the locations, dates, and times for the public meetings 

in the Federal Register and legal notices in local newspapers. The Service also sent press releases 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 105

to local newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio stations. Service 

personnel placed 50 posters announcing the meetings in local post offices, local government 

buildings, and stores. 

The Service expanded the planning team’s identified issues and concerns to include those generated 

by the agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. These issues 

and concerns formed the basis for the development and comparison of the objectives in the different 

alternatives described in this environmental assessment. 

The alternatives were subjects of discussion at a second-round public meeting held on April 26, 2005, 

in Manns Harbor, North Carolina. The planning staff again published announcements giving the 

location, date, and time for the public meeting as legal notices in local newspapers. The staff also 

sent press releases to local newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio 

stations. The staff placed 75 posters announcing the meeting in local post offices, local government 

buildings, and stores. 

At the second-round public meeting, members of the public expressed concern that refuge roads be 

maintained better to support all public use and that trapping be reinstated as a permitted activity. The 

Service had recently withdrawn permission to trap because the refuge did not have an approved 

trapping plan. 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified and addressed during the 

planning process. A complete summary of these issues and concerns is provided in Chapter III, Plan 

Development, of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A). 
106 Environmental Assessment 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 107

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). 
108 Environmental Assessment 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 109

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and the goals identified in the comprehensive 

conservation plan; the priorities and goals of the Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear Ecosystem Team; 

the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Alternatives are formulated to address the important 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. A major consideration in the formulation of the alternatives is the ability to obtain sufficient 

proprietary interest in lands to facilitate a physical and biological connection between habitats, and to 

restore the functions and values of wetlands. 

Refuge managers assessed the biological conditions and analyzed the external relationships 

affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the development of goals and objectives and, in 

turn, helped to formulate the alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents different sets of 

objectives for reaching refuge goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on how much progress it 

would make and how it would address the identified issues related to fish and wildlife populations, 

habitats, land protection and conservation, education and visitor services, and refuge administration. 

All of the management alternatives are designed for the area within the current boundary of 152,260 

acres (Figure 1). The land protection alternatives are proposed independently of the management 

alternatives. Acquisition of a large area beyond the existing boundary would require a revision of the 

comprehensive conservation plan to develop programs that consider the larger area. 

DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, goals and sets of objectives were developed by managers to 

achieve the refuge’s purpose and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Objectives are 

desired conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and for this planning effort, consolidated 

into three alternatives. These alternatives, overall, represent a range of different management 

treatments or approaches for managing the refuge over a 15-year time frame. The three alternatives 

are summarized below. 

ATERNATIVE 1 – CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION/NO WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE) 

This alternative represents the current management of the refuge. Under this “status quo” 

alternative, the Service would protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 152,260 acres of refuge lands 

(Figure 1) for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory nongame birds, and threatened and endangered 

species. Under this alternative, none of the five wilderness study areas would be recommended for 

wilderness designation. The areas would be managed to accomplish refuge purposes in accordance 

with legal and policy guidance for the Refuge System. The refuge staff would continue to gather 

inventory data on waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, red wolves, and other wildlife. They would 

direct all refuge management actions towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (conserving 

unique wetland habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife and helping to meet the habitat 

conservation goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other
110 Environmental Assessment 

national, regional, and state goals to protect and restore red wolf, neotropical breeding bird, wood 

duck, and anadromous fish populations. The Service would practice active habitat management 

through prescribed burning in marshes and pond pine woodlands, water management in managed 

wetlands (moist-soil units), and firebreak maintenance. 

The Service would maintain the current level of wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, 

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

The refuge would maintain interior or exterior access roads to provide all-weather vehicular access to 

a broad segment of the public. Administrative roads would be available for vehicular and pedestrian 

access to support wildlife-dependent recreation to the extent that these opportunities do not interfere 

substantially with or detract from the achievement of wildlife conservation. The staff would maintain 2 

half-mile trails, 12 miles of paddling trails, 10 miles of wildlife drives, one wildlife observation platform, 

and an interpretive kiosk (Figure 6). The refuge would continue quality hunting programs for 3,500 

annual users consistent with sound biological principles. The refuge could expand the hunting 

program to include additional species such as, but not limited to, black bear and wild turkey. The 

Service would permit fishing for 3,400 annual users along the canals and in managed wetlands. The 

staff would conduct environmental education programs for 500 students on-site and 250 students offsite, maintain interpretive materials and facilities for 34,000 annual users, and conduct outreach for 

an audience of 5 million. They would maintain wildlife observation facilities for 10,000 annual users 

and wildlife photography facilities for 2,000 annual users. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of properties from willing sellers 

within the present acquisition boundary (Figure 7). The Service would make lands acquired as part of 

the refuge available for compatible public wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education 

opportunities. Purchases from willing sellers would be the preferred option to expand conservation 

efforts in the acquisition area. Other important options include outreach and partnerships with 

adjacent landowners, hunt clubs, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service through 

conservation easements, cooperative agreements, and federal programs such as the Wetlands 

Reserve Program. These land conservation options would promote the linkage of forest and brackish 

marsh tracts and contribute to overall natural resource conservation within the acquisition area. 

The Service would maintain the refuge as resources allow. The staff would have 18.81 full-time 

equivalent positions. The volunteer program would have an annual target of 10,000 hours and would 

be coordinated by a collateral duty staff member. The existing intern program would be maintained. 

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative is the Service’s proposed alternative. It represents a moderate increase in the active 

management of the refuge. Under this alternative, the Service would protect, maintain, restore, and 

enhance 152,260 acres of refuge lands (Figure 1) for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory birds, and 

threatened and endangered species. Under this alternative, none of the five wilderness study areas 

would be recommended for wilderness designation. Refuge management activities within the five 

areas, such as prescribed burning, intensive forest management activities (e.g., thinning or 

mechanical and chemical site preparation), wildlife surveys, visitor services, and law enforcement 

could be routinely conducted using motorized equipment and mechanical transport. The Service 

would not manage the five areas to maintain wilderness values. 

The refuge staff would implement management programs with inventory data only on waterfowl, 

shorebirds, wading birds, marshbirds, black bears, and red wolves. They would document the 

presence of all other wildlife species on the refuge. They would direct all refuge management actions 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 111

towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (conserving migratory habitat for waterfowl; 

providing production habitat for wood ducks; and helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other national, regional, and 

state goals to protect and restore red wolf, neotropical breeding bird, wood duck, and anadromous 

fish populations. The Service would practice active habitat management through prescribed burning 

in marshes and pond pine woodlands; water management in managed wetlands (moist-soil units); 

canopy management on nonalluvial hardwood forest; and firebreak maintenance. The staff would 

inventory and monitor conditions in all habitats, and manage Atlantic white cedar and mixed pine 

hardwood forests. 

The Service would maintain the current level of wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, 

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

The refuge would maintain interior or exterior access roads to provide all-weather vehicular access to 

a broad segment of the public. Administrative roads would be available for vehicular and pedestrian 

access to support wildlife-dependent recreation to the extent that these opportunities do not interfere 

substantially with or detract from the achievement of wildlife conservation. The staff would maintain 2 

half-mile trails, 12 miles of paddling trails, 10 miles of wildlife drives, one wildlife observation platform, 

and an interpretive kiosk (Figure 6). The refuge would continue quality hunting programs for 3,800 

annual users consistent with sound biological principles. The refuge could expand the hunting 

program to include additional species such as, but not limited to, black bear and wild turkey. The 

Service would permit fishing for 4,300 annual users along the canals and in managed wetlands. The 

staff would conduct environmental education programs for 625 students on-site and 500 students offsite, maintain interpretive materials and facilities for 42,000 annual users, and conduct outreach for 

an audience of 10 million. They would maintain wildlife observation facilities for 12,500 annual users 

and wildlife photography facilities for 2,400 annual users. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of properties from willing sellers 

within the present acquisition boundary (Figure 7). The Service would make lands acquired as part of the 

refuge available for compatible public wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education 

opportunities. Purchases from willing sellers would be the preferred option to expand conservation 

efforts in the acquisition area. Other important options include outreach and partnerships with adjacent 

landowners, hunt clubs, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service through conservation 

easements, cooperative agreements, and federal programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program. 

These land conservation options would promote the linkage of forest and brackish marsh tracts and 

contribute to overall natural resource conservation within the acquisition area. 

The Service would maintain the refuge as resources allow. The staff would have 24.46 full-time 

equivalent positions. The volunteer program would have an annual target of 12,000 hours and would 

be coordinated by a collateral duty staff member. The existing intern program would be maintained. 

ALTERNATIVE 3 (ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE) 

Under this alternative, all five of the wilderness study areas (46,715 acres) would be recommended 

for wilderness designation. Since Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on 

wilderness designation, the wilderness recommendations are preliminary administrative 

determinations that will receive further review and possible modification by the Director of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Interior, or the President of the United States. However, the 

analysis of the environmental consequences of this alternative is based on the assumption that 

Congress would accept the recommendation and designate all five areas as wilderness. 
112 Environmental Assessment 

If the five areas are designated as Wilderness, they would be managed according to the provisions of the 

Wilderness Act and Service wilderness management regulations (50 CFR 35) and wilderness 

management policy in the Refuge Manual (6 RM 8). The areas would be managed to accomplish refuge 

purposes while also preserving wilderness character and natural values for future generations. Use of 

motorized vehicles, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport would be allowed for emergency 

purposes and when necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area as 

Wilderness and to accomplish refuge purposes. Proposed or new refuge management activities, or 

refuge uses would be evaluated through a minimum requirements analysis and NEPA compliance to 

assess potential impacts and identify mitigating measures to protect wilderness character. 

This alternative also represents a substantial increase in the management a significant part of the 

refuge. Under this alternative, the Service would protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 105,545 

acres of refuge lands (Figure 1) for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory birds, and threatened and 

endangered species. The substantial increase in active management would occur on refuge lands 

outside of the five wilderness study areas. The refuge staff would implement management programs 

with inventory data on waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, marshbirds, red wolves, fish, 

invertebrates, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. They would direct all refuge management actions 

towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (conserving migratory habitat for waterfowl; 

providing production habitat for wood ducks; and helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other national, regional, and 

state goals to protect and restore red wolf, neotropical breeding bird, wood duck, and anadromous 

fish populations. The Service will practice active habitat management through prescribed burning in 

marshes and pond pine woodlands; water management in managed wetlands (moist-soil units); 

canopy management in nonalluvial hardwood forests; and firebreak maintenance. The staff would 

inventory and monitor conditions in all habitats and manage all habitats. 

The Service would maintain the current level of wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, 

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

The refuge would maintain interior or exterior access roads to provide all-weather vehicular access to 

a broad segment of the public. Administrative roads would be available for vehicular and pedestrian 

access to support wildlife-dependent recreation to the extent that these opportunities do not interfere 

substantially with or detract from the achievement of wildlife conservation. The staff would maintain 2 

half-mile trails, 12 miles of paddling trails, 10 miles of wildlife drives, one wildlife observation platform, 

and an interpretive kiosk (Figure 6). The refuge would continue quality hunting programs for 3,800 

annual users consistent with sound biological principles. The refuge could expand the hunting 

program to include additional species such as, but not limited to, black bear and wild turkey. The 

Service would permit fishing for 4,600 annual users along the canals and in managed wetlands. The 

staff would conduct environmental education programs for 2,000 students on-site and 1,000 students 

off-site, maintain interpretive materials and facilities for 50,000 annual users, and conduct outreach 

for an audience of 25 million. They would maintain wildlife observation facilities for 15,000 annual 

users and wildlife photography facilities for 2,800 annual users. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all properties from willing sellers 

within the present acquisition boundary (Figure 7). The Service would make lands acquired as part of the 

refuge available for compatible public wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education 

opportunities. Purchases from willing sellers would be the preferred option to expand conservation 

efforts in the acquisition area. Other important options include outreach and partnerships with adjacent 

landowners, hunt clubs, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service through conservation 

easements, cooperative agreements, and federal programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program. 

These land conservation options would promote the linkage of forest and brackish marsh tracts and 

contribute to overall natural resource conservation within the acquisition area. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 113

The Service would maintain the refuge as resources allow. The staff would have 55.86 full-time 

equivalent positions. The volunteer program would have an annual target of 15,000 hours and would 

be coordinated by a collateral duty staff member. The existing intern program would be maintained. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Tables 20 through 24 compare the objectives and strategies associated with each alternative for 

wildlife, habitat, public use, resource protection, and administration. 

Table 25 summarizes the projects proposed under each alternative. Table 26 compares the project 

costs proposed in all three alternatives 

Tables 27, 28, and 29 summarize the costs of the projects proposed in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, 

respectively. 
114 Environmental Assessment 

Table 20. Summary of wildlife objectives and strategies 

Species Alternative 

Group Activity 1 2 3 

Refuge Management for Water Quality Yes Yes Yes 

Level of Participation in Cooperative Studies 

of Selected Species 

Allow 

and 

Assist 

Allow 

and 

Assist 

Allow and 

Assist 

Document Presence No Yes Yes 

Water Quality Monitoring No Yes Yes 

Fish 

Survey and Monitor Populations No No Yes 

Level of Participation in Cooperative Studies 

of Selected Species 

Allow 

and 

Assist 

Allow 

and 

Assist 

Allow and 

Assist 

Document Presence No Yes Yes 

Frequency of Density Surveys in Moist Soil 

Units 

None Every 5 

Years 

Every 2 Years

Invertebrates 

Conduct New Studies and Investigations No No Yes 

Number of Land Bird Species 100 100 100 

Assist with Banding Yes Yes Yes 

Document Presence from Incidental 

Observations 

Yes Yes Yes 

Level of Participation in Cooperative Studies 

of Selected Species 

Allow Allow 

and 

Assist 

Allow and 

Assist 

Survey of Grassland Birds No Yes Yes 

Land Birds 

Surveys of All Land Birds Annually 0 0 36 

Monitor, Collect Data, Evaluate Data on 

Selected Species 

Yes Yes Yes 

Document Presence from Incidental 

Observation 

Yes Yes Yes 

Review and Revise Species List Yes Yes Yes 

Allow Cooperators to Conduct Research Yes Yes Yes 

Mammals 

Assist with Cooperative Studies of Selected 

Species 

Yes Yes Yes 

Level of Participation in Cooperative Studies 

of Selected Species 

Allow 

and 

Assist 

Allow 

and 

Assist 

Allow and 

Assist 

Document Presence or Absence No Yes Yes 

Breeding Surveys No Yes Yes 

Reptiles and 

Amphibians 

Survey of Deformities No No Yes 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 115

Species 

Group 

Activity Alternative 

1 2 3 

Provide Habitat Yes Yes Yes 

Assist with Banding Yes Yes Yes 

Document Presence from Incidental 

Observation 

Yes Yes Yes 

Level of Participation in Cooperative Studies of 

Selected Species 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow and 

Assist 

Woodcock and Snipe Surveys of Selected 

Species 

No Yes Yes 

Shorebirds 

and 

Marshbirds 

Rail Surveys No No Yes 

Document Presence from Incidental 

Observation 

Yes Yes Yes 

Level of Participation in Cooperative Studies of 

Selected Species 

Allow 

and 

Assist 

Allow and 

Assist 

Allow and 

Assist 

Known Rookery Surveys No Yes Yes 

Rookery Fledging Survey No No Yes 

Wading Birds 

Aerial Rookery Location Survey No No Yes 

Acres of Tundra Swan Habitat 2,000 2,000 2,000 

Acres of Dabbling Duck Habitat 6,000 6,000 30,000 

Annual Aerial Surveys 12 12 12 

Annual Ground Surveys 18 18 18 

Conduct/Assist with Banding Yes Yes Yes 

Level of Participation in Cooperative Studies of 

Selected Species 

Allow 

and 

Assist 

Allow and 

Assist 

Allow and 

Assist 

Swan Productivity Survey Yes Yes Yes 

Waterfowl 

Wood Duck Cavity Survey No No Yes 

Aerial Surveys of RCW Cavities Yes Yes Yes 

Ground Survey of RCW Cavities Yes Yes Yes 

Monitor and Band RCW Yes Yes Yes 

Document Alligator Occurrence Yes Yes Yes 

Document Bald Eagle Occurrence Yes Yes Yes 

Threatened 

and 

Endangered 

Wildlife 

Species 

Aerial and Ground Survey of Red Wolf Yes Yes Yes 
116 Environmental Assessment 

Table 21. Summary of habitat objectives and strategies 

Alternative Habitat Activity 

1 2 3 

Acres of Habitat Protected 1,582 1,582 1,582 

Compile Existing Data Yes Yes Yes 

Frequency of Water 

Quality Studies 

Never Every 5 Years Every 2 Years 

Evaluate Impacts of 

Refuge Management on 

Water Quality 

Yes Yes Yes 

Freshwater 

Pools, Ponds, 

and Lakes 

Frequency of Aquatic 

Vegetation Survey 

Never Never Every 2 Years 

Acres of Habitat Protected 

and Managed 

19,014 19,014 19,014 

Acres of Habitat 

Maintained in Optimum 

Condition 

2,000-3,000 2,000-3,000 4,000-5,000 

Basis of Management 

Evaluation 

Known 

Evidence 

Minimal 

Inventory 

Scientific 

Survey 

Brackish 

Marsh 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 

Acres of Managed 

Wetlands 

1,903 1,903 1,903 

Acres of High Quality 

Habitat 

900 1,200 2,500 

Number of Vegetation 

Productivity Surveys per 

Year 

1 1 2 

Managed 

Wetlands 

(Biological 

Review 

definition) 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 

Acres of Cropland Managed 3,481 3,481 3,481 

Acres of Grain Managed 1,500 1,500 900 

Acres of Filter Strips 

Managed 

1,500 1,500 900 

Acres Converted to Nonalluvial Hardwoods Per 

Year 

15 15 15 

Cropland 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 117

Alternative Habitat Activity 

1 2 3 

Acres of Habitat Protected 7,515 7,515 7,515 

Monitor and Inventory 

Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

Manage Habitat No No Yes 

Cypress-Gum 

Forest 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 

Acres of Habitat Protected 6,725 6,725 6,725 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 

Monitor Habitat No Yes Yes 

Atlantic White 

Cedar Forest 

Manage Habitat No Yes Yes 

Acres of Habitat Protected 24,468 24,468 24,468 

Monitor and Inventory 

Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

Manage Habitat Yes Yes Yes 

Mixed Pine 

Hardwood 

Forest 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 

Acres of Habitat Protected 14,703 14,703 14,703 

Restore Habitat Yes Yes Yes 

Monitor and Inventory 

Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

Manage Habitat No Yes Yes 

Non-Alluvial 

Hardwood 

Forest 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 

Acres of Habitat Protected 50,198 50,198 50,198 

Restore Pine Beetle Kills No Yes Yes 

Monitor Health Yes Yes Yes 

Species of Pests and 

Diseases Treated 

Southern Pine 

Beetles 

All All 

Monitor and Inventory 

Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

Manage Habitat Yes Yes Yes 

Pond Pine 

Shrub Pocosin 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 
118 Environmental Assessment 

Alternative Habitat Activity 

1 2 3 

Acres of Habitat Protected 4,275 4,275 4,275 

Restore Habitat No Yes Yes 

Monitor Health Yes Yes Yes 

Species of Pests and 

Disease Treated 

Southern Pine 

Beetles 

All All 

Monitor and Inventory 

Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

Manage Habitat Yes Yes Yes 

Pond Pine 

Cane Pocosin 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 

Acres of Habitat Protected 14,186 14,186 14,186 

Monitor and Inventory 

Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

Manage Habitat No No Yes 

High Shrub 

Pocosin 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 

Acres of Habitat Protected 4,210 4,210 4,210 

Monitor and Inventory 

Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

Low Shrub 

Pocosin 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 

Threatened Protect Yes Yes Yes 

and 

Endangered 

Plant Species 

Level of Participation in 

Cooperative Studies 

Allow Allow and 

Assist 

Allow, Assist 

and Solicit 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 119

Table 22. Summary of public use objectives and strategies 

Alternative Program Activity 1 2 3 

Revise Hunting Regulation 

Brochure 

Yes Yes Yes 

Evaluate Bear, Turkey, and 

Quail Hunting Potential 

Yes Yes Yes 

Frequency of Meetings with 

Hunters 

Periodically Annually Annually 

Waterfowl Hunting Use Days 350 350 350 

Other Migratory Waterfowl 

Hunting Use Days 

125 125 125 

Small Game Hunting Use Days 800 1,000 1,000 

Big Game Hunting Use Days 2,300 2,400 2,400 

Acreage Available for Hunting 

with Pursuit Hounds 

83,000 83,000 83,000 

Acreage Available for Hunting 

with Retrievers 

34,000 34,000 34,000 

Acreage for Hunting without 

Dogs 

35,000 35,000 35,000 

Hunting 

Evaluate Exchanging Pursuit 

Dog Areas 

No Yes Yes 

Annual Angler Use Days 3,400 4,300 4,600 

Fishing and Boating Access 

Areas Maintained on Refuge 

9 9 9 

Disabled Fishing Platforms 

Maintained on Refuge 

1 1 1 

Fishing 

Fishing Information 

Dissemination 

Yes Yes Yes 

Annual Visitors 60,000 70,000 80,000 

Annual Guided Tours 35-40 45-50 55-60 

Number of Observation 

Platforms 

3 3 3 

Number of Interpretive Trails 3 3 3 

Number of Auto Tour Routes 1 1 1 

Wildlife 

Observation 

Miles of Paddling Trails 12 12 12 

Annual Visitors 2,000 2,500 3,000 

Number of Observation 

Platforms 

3 3 3 

Number of Interpretive Trails 2 3 3 

Wildlife 

Photography 

Number of Auto Tour Routes 1 1 1 
120 Environmental Assessment 

Alternative Program Activity 1 2 3 

Annual Students 

(On Refuge) 

500 1,000 2,000 

Annual Students 

(Off Refuge) 

250 500 1,000 

Environmental 

Education 

Annual Students 

(Visitor Center) 

None 35,000 35,000 

Annual Visitors 40,000 45,000 50,000 

Annual Visitors at Staff 

Presentations 

300 400 500 

Annual Visitors at Tours 2,000 3,000 4,000 

Annual Visitors at Kiosks 20,000 25,000 30,000 

Number of Kiosks 1 1 1 

Annual Visitors on Interpretive 

Trails 

25,000 30,000 35,000 

Number of Interpretive Trails 2 3 3 

Visitors in Visitor Center None 700,000-

800,000 

700,000-

800,000 

Interpretation 

Visitor Center Construction No Yes Yes 

Annual Target Outreach 

Audience (Internet and Media) 

5 million 10 million 25 million 

Maintain Monthly Outreach 

Schedule 

No Yes Yes 

Annual Target Outreach 

Audience for Non-traditional 

Users 

None 5,000 650,000 

Outreach 

Actively Identify New Contacts 

and Supporters 

No No Yes 

Major Annual Events 1 2 2 

Minor Annual Events 1 4 10 

Special Events 

Annual Target Audience 2,000 2,000 4,000 

Annual Volunteer Hours 10,000 12,000 15,000 

Annual Fundraising $50,000 $150,000 $300,000 

Volunteers 

Refuge Support 

Advocacy Yes Yes Yes 

Visitor 

Protection 

Health and Safety Yes Yes Yes 

Non Wildlife 

Dependent 

Recreation 

Evaluate Case-by-Case 

Proposals 

Yes Yes Yes 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 121

Alternative Program Activity 

1 2 3 

Manage Visitor Center Site Yes Yes Yes 

Construct and Operate Visitor Center No Yes Yes 

Annual Visitor Center Visits None 1,000,000+ 1,000,000+ 

Number of Wildlife Trails 2, 1⁄2 mile 3, 1⁄2 mile 3, 1⁄2 mile 

Parking Capacity 25 cars, 

 4 buses 

35 cars, 

5 buses 

35 cars, 

5 buses 

Miles of Paddling Trails 12 12 12 

Public Use 

Facilities 

Miles of Wildlife Drives 10 10 10 

Commercial Ecotours Yes Yes Yes 

Activities Permits Yes Yes Yes 
122 Environmental Assessment 

Table 23. Summary of resource protection objectives and strategies 

Alternative Program Activity 1 2 3 

Review and Comment on Permit Applications Yes Yes Yes 

Develop Conditions for Permits Yes Yes Yes 

Communication 

Towers 

Monitor Projects Annually as Required Yes Yes Yes 

Review and Comment on Permit Applications Yes Yes Yes 

Develop Conditions for Permits Yes Yes Yes 

Right-of-Way 

Corridors 

Monitor Projects Annually as Required Yes Yes Yes 

Protect Identified Sites Yes Yes Yes 

Evaluate Proposed Projects Yes Yes Yes 

Document Above Ground Resources as Found Yes Yes Yes 

Cultural 

Resources 

Conduct Comprehensive Inventory No No Yes 

Monitor Annually Yes Yes Yes 

Coordinate Activity in In-holdings Yes Yes Yes 

In-holdings 

Develop Permit Conditions Yes Yes Yes 

Annual Formal and Informal Coordination Meetings 20 25 30 

Review and Revise Agreements Yes Yes Yes 

Annual Local Meetings Attended to Represent 

Service 

20 25 30 

Annual State Meetings Attended to Represent 

Service 

15 20 25 

Annual National Meetings Attended to Represent 

Service 

5 5 5 

Annual Public Meetings Attended to Represent 

Service 

10 15 20 

Intra-agency 

Coordination of 

Meetings and 

Agreements 

Annual Private Organization Meetings Attended to 

Represent Service 

5 10 15 

Acquire In-Holdings from Willing Sellers Yes Yes Yes 

Acquire Bombing Range Yes Yes Yes 

Post Boundary of Newly Acquired Land Yes Yes Yes 

Protect Newly Acquired Land Yes Yes Yes 

Land 

Protection 

Manage Newly Acquired Land No Yes Yes 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 123

Alternative Program Activity 

1 2 3 

Law Enforcement Goal Enforce 

Regulations 

Encourage 

Voluntary 

Compliance 

Proactive 

Enforcement 

and Outreach 

Coordinate with Law 

Enforcement Agencies 

Yes Yes Yes 

Law 

Enforcement 

Develop Written Agreements No Yes Yes 

Navigable Identify Co-managed Waters Yes Yes Yes 

Waters Establish Cooperative 

Agreement 

Yes Yes Yes 

Evaluation Capacity 

(Number of Permits) 

40 60 60 

Develop Special Use 

Conditions 

Yes Yes Yes 

Permits (SUPs) 

Monitor Permitted Activities 

for Impacts to Biological 

Resources and Assets 

No No Yes 

Pest and Exotic 

Animals 

Monitor, Control, Eradicate 

Selected Species in Priority 

Habitats 

Yes Yes Yes 

Monitor, Control, Eradicate 

Selected Species in Priority 

Habitats 

Yes Yes Yes 

Acres of Phragmites Control 

Annually 

25 75 250 

Pest and Exotic 

Plants 

Miles of Alligatorweed 

Control Annually 

 

Frequency of Monitoring Every 5 Years 

with Ecological 

Services Office

Water Quality Annually Quarterly 

of Pump 

Discharge 

Parameters Monitored Dependent on 

Study 

Dissolved 

Oxygen, pH, 

Turbidity, 

Conductivity, 

Temperature 

Dissolved 

Oxygen, pH, 

Turbidity, 

Conductivity, 

Temperature, 

Heavy 

Metals, 

Toxics 
124 Environmental Assessment 

Alternative Program Activity 

1 2 3 

Wilderness Management and Monitoring Yes Yes Yes 

Study Areas Proposed for Wilderness 

Designation 

No No Yes 

Wildlife Monitor and Minimize Yes Yes Yes 

Disease Coordinate with Others Yes Yes Yes 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 125

Table 24. Summary of administration objectives and strategies 

Alternative Program Activity 1 2 3 

Number of Annual 

Inventories 

1 1 1 

Evaluate Operating 

Condition 

Yes Yes Yes 

Maintenance/ 

Replacement Goal 

As Property 

Breaks Down 

Minimum 

Maintenance to 

Support Refuge 

Programs 

Sufficient to 

Support All 

Refuge Programs 

Capital 

Property 

Capital Property 

Management According 

to Manual 

Yes Yes Yes 

Capacity Current Staff Minimum Staff in 

New 

Headquarters 

Optimum Staff in 

New 

Headquarters 

Office Space 

and Utilities 

Office Property 

Management According 

to Manual 

Yes Yes Yes 

Staffing Level Refuge 

Programs (Full Time 

Equivalents) 

19.70 26.75 37.45 

Training Minimum Per 

Service Policy 

Minimum Per 

Service Policy 

Necessary to 

Meet Regional 

and National 

Goals 

Recognize Performance Yes Yes Yes 

Personnel 

Personnel Management 

According to Manual 

Yes Yes Yes 

Maintenance and 

Rehabilitation Goal 

Maintain 

Safety 

Maintain Safety 

and Avoid 

Failure 

Maintain Safety 

and Efficiency 

Number of Annual Real 

Property Inventories 

1 1 1 

Real 

Property 

Real Property 

Management According 

to Manual 

Yes Yes Yes 

Wildfire Yes Yes Yes 

Major Storms Yes Yes Yes 

All Risk 

Management 

Catastrophes Yes Yes Yes 
126 Environmental Assessment 

Table 25. Summary of projects proposed in each alternative 

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Staff Projects (Staff who spend 0% of their time at Alligator River are still supervised by the 

project leader) 

Utilize existing GS-14 project leader (40% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-13 deputy project leader (70% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-13 natural resources planner (10% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-12 assistant manager (75% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-12 wildlife biologist (40% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-12 fire management officer (fire) 

(90% Alligator River). 

X X X 

Utilize existing GS-12 supervisory park ranger (40% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-11 wildlife biologist (wildland urban interface) (fire) (90 

% Alligator River). 

X X X 

Utilize existing GS-9 prescribed fire specialist (fire) 

(90 % Alligator River). 

X X X 

Utilize existing GS-9 park ranger (10% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-7 biologist (50% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-7 forestry technician (90% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-9 office assistant (75% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-7 office assistant (75% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing WS-8 maintenance worker supervisor 

(75% Alligator River) 

X X X 

Utilize existing WG-10 engineering equipment operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

X X X 

Utilize existing WG-9 engineering equipment operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

X X X 

Utilize existing WG-8 engineering equipment operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

X X X 

Utilize existing WG-8 automotive worker (90% Alligator River). X X X 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 127

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Utilize existing WG-8 engineering equipment operator (fire) 

(90% Alligator River). 

X X X 

Utilize existing WG-8 engineering equipment operator (fire) 

(90% Alligator River). 

X X X 

Utilize existing WG-8 engineering equipment operator (fire) 

(90% Alligator River). 

X X X 

Utilize existing GS-8 forestry technician (fire) (90% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-7 forestry technician (fire) (90% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-6 forestry technician (fire) (90% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-4 forestry technician (fire) (90% Alligator River). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-9 park ranger (law enforcement) 

(70% Alligator River). 

X X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-7 refuge operations specialist 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 97039). 

X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-11 wildlife biologist 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 00095). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train new WG-5 maintenance worker 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97018) 

X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-11 computer specialist 

(90% Alligator River)(RONS 00094). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train new WG-10 heavy mobile equipment operator (90% 

Alligator River)(RONS 00096). 

X X 

Recruit, hire, train new forestry technician (fire program technician) (90% 

Alligator River)(No RONS). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-11 forester (80% Alligator River) 

(RONS 00003). 

X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-7 biologist 

(55% Alligator River)(RONS 00007). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train new WG-8 maintenance worker 

(50% Alligator River)(RONS 00092). 

X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-7 park ranger (law enforcement) (50% 

Alligator River)(RONS 00098). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-9 refuge operations specialist 

(50% Alligator River)(RONS 02001). 

X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-9 park ranger (Volunteer Coordinator) (40% 

Alligator River)(RONS 98011). 

 X X 
128 Environmental Assessment 

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-7 refuge operations specialist 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 97039). 

X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-11 wildlife biologist 

(0% alligator River)(RONS 00095). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-11 park ranger (interpretation) 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 00099). 

X X 

Recruit, hire, train new recruit, hire, train new GS-9 forester 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97005) 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train new recruit, hire, train new GS-7 forestry technician 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97005) 

X 

Recruit, hire, train new recruit, hire, train new WG-8 engineering 

equipment operator (100% Alligator River) (RONS 97005) 

X 

Recruit, hire, train new recruit, hire, train new GS-7 biological technician, 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97011) 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train new recruit, hire, train new GS-9 resource specialist 

(hydrologist) (100% Alligator River) (RONS 97021) 

X 

Recruit, hire, train new recruit, hire, train new WG-8 engineering 

equipment operator (100% Alligator River) (RONS 97021) 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train new WG-5 maintenance worker 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 97028). 

X 

Recruit, hire, train new WG-5 maintenance worker 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 97028). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-9 resource specialist 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 97040). 

X 

Recruit, hire, train new FTE GS-5 biological technician 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 97041). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train new FTE GS-5 biological technician 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 97043). 

X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-7 park ranger (interpretation) 

(10% Alligator River)(RONS 97045). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-7 park ranger (interpretation) 

(50% Alligator River)(RONS 97045). 

X 

Recruit, hire, train new WG-6 maintenance worker 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 97045). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train new WG-6 maintenance worker 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 97045). 

X 

Recruit, hire, train new FTE GS-5 biological technician 

(0% Alligator River)(RONS 98005). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train new refuge operations specialist, GS-9 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 99001) 

X 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 129

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-5 file clerk (100% Alligator River) 

(RONS 99001) 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train new GS-11 park ranger (outreach specialist) 

(50% Alligator River)(RONS 99003). 

X 

Budget Projects

Process payroll, travel, purchasing, and contract documents. X X X 

Prepare annual budget, revise RONS and MMS. X X X 

Apply for grants. X X X 

Improve resource management planning (RONS 97007). X X 

Improve water quality monitoring capabilities (RONS 97010). X X 

Reduce or eradicate invasive Phragmites pest plant (RONS 97022). X X 

Improve resource management data collection (RONS 97025) X X 

Improve information resource management (RONS 97047). X X 

Identify and protect cultural resources (RONS 98003). X 

Improve fisheries management capabilities (RONS 98006). X X 

Restore the ecosystem’s coastal plain forests (RONS 99002) X X 

Conduct environmental contaminants study (RONS 99004). X X 

Implement Ambassador Program (RONS 00012) X X 

Maintain roads. X X X 

Maintain parking lots and trails. X X X 

Maintain buildings. X X X 

Maintain public use facilities. X X X 

Resurface Milltail Road (MMS 90041) X X X 

Replace Laurel Bay and Creef Pump Stations (MMS 95001) X X X 
130 Environmental Assessment 

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Construct Visitor Center and Administrative Office Complex (MMS 

97008) 

X X X 

Construct Peter Point Informational Visitor Trail Area (MMS 97009) X X X 

Rehabilitate Equipment Repair Facility (MMS 97049) X X X 

Replace Worn Shaft Bearings on Laurel Bay Waterfowl Pumps (MMS 

98007) 

X X X 

Rehabilitate and Gravel Milltail Road (MMS 98009) X X X 

Replace Secondary Refuge Road System (MMS 98012) X X X 

Rehabilitate Creef Cut Walking Trail (MMS 98017) X X X 

Rehabilitate South Twiford Dike (MMS98019) X X X 

Rehabilitate Primary Refuge Road System (MMS 98025) X X X 

Rehabilitate Primary Canal System (MMS 98030) X X X 

Replace Refuge Road Gates (MMS 98048) X X X 

Replace Water Control Structures (MMS 98052) X X X 

Replace Worn Shaft Bearings on Creek Waterfowl Moist Soil Unit Pumps 

(MMS 98065) 

X X X 

Repair Parking Area Surface (MMS 99007) X X X 

Remove Military Facility Structures (MMS 01001) X X X 

Replace Refuge Operations Facility (MMS 02039) X X X 

Construct Red Wolf Processing Facility (MMS 02040) X X X 

Construct Two HAZMAT Storage Buildings (MMS 02043) X X X 

Construct Biological Program Storage Building (MMS 02044) X X X 

Replace Stockpile of Aggregate Road Maintenance Material (MMS 

03013) 

X X X 

Rehabilitate Station Heliport (MMS 03014) X X X 

Replace Laurel Bay Pump Vehicular Crossing (MMS 03015) X X X 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 131

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Resurface Milltail Road (2.2 miles) (MMS 04001) X X X 

Rehabilitate Pump Road (MMS 04) X X X 

Repave Creef Cut Trail (MMS 04010) X X X 

Replace Worn CAT 320 Long Reach Excavator (MMS 04011) X X X 

Rehabilitate Koehring Road (MMS 04012) X X X 

Rehabilitate Bear Road (MMS 04013) X X X 

Rehabilitate Blueberry Road (MMS 04014) X X X 

Rehabilitate Borrow Pit Road (MMS 04015) X X X 

Rehabilitate Brier Hall Road (MMS 04016) X X X 

Rehabilitate Deep Bay Road (MMS 04017) X X X 

Rehabilitate Grouse Road (MMS 04018) X X X 

Rehabilitate Long Curve Road (MMS 04019) X X X 

Rehabilitate Milltail Road (MMS 04020) X X X 

Rehabilitate Pamlico Road (MMS 04021) X X X 

Rehabilitate Point Peter Road (MMS 04022) X X X 

Rehabilitate Whipping Creek Road (MMS 04024) X X X 

Rehabilitate Dry Ridge Road (MMS 04025) X X X 

Rehabilitate Possum Road (MMS 04026) X X X 

Rehabilitate Twiford Road (MMS 04027) X X X 

Rehabilitate Buffalo City Road (MMS 04028) X X X 

Rehabilitate Lake Neighborhood Road (MMS 04029) X X X 

Rehabilitate Sandy Ridge Road (MMS 04030) X X X 

Rehabilitate Bay Road (MMS 04031) X X X 
132 Environmental Assessment 

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Rehabilitate Cypress Road (MMS 04032) X X X 

Rehabilitate Cedar Road (MMS 04033) X X X 

Rehabilitate Jake Road (MMS 04034) X X X 

Rehabilitate West Widgeon Road (MMS 04035) X X X 

Rehabilitate Pollock Road (MMS 04036) X X X 

Rehabilitate Widgeon Road (MMS 04037) X X X 

Rehabilitate Canvasback Road (MMS 04039) X X X 

Rehabilitate Little Field Road (MMS 04039) X X X 

Rehabilitate Eagle Road (MMS 04040) X X X 

Rehabilitate Storm Road (MMS 04041) X X X 

Rehabilitate Reuben Road (MMS 04042) X X X 

Rehabilitate Sassafras Road (MMS 04043) X X X 

Rehabilitate Alligator Road (MMS 04044) X X X 

Rehabilitate H&B Road (MMS 04046) X X X 

Rehabilitate Richmond Road (MMS 04047) X X X 

Rehabilitate Chip Road (MMS 04048) X X X 

Rehabilitate Beaver Road (MMS 04050) X X X 

Rehabilitate River Road (MMS 04051) X X X 

Rehabilitate Hickory Road (MMS 04052) X X X 

Rehabilitate Wynne Road (MMS 04053) X X X 

Rehabilitate Osprey Road (MMS 04054) X X X 

Rehabilitate Hook Road (MMS 04055) X X X 

Rehabilitate North Perimeter Road (MMS 04056) X X X 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 133

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Rehabilitate Peterson Road (MMS 04057) X X X 

Rehabilitate Sawyer Lake Road (MMS 04058) X X X 

Rehabilitate Creef Road (MMS 04059) X X X 

Rehabilitate Bobcat Road (MMS 04060) X X X 

Rehabilitate Gadwall Road (MMS 04061) X X X 

Rehabilitate Link Road (MMS 04062) X X X 

Rehabilitate Butler Road (MMS 04063) X X X 

Rehabilitate Laurel Bay Road (MMS 04064) X X X 

Rehabilitate Blueberry Road Parking Area (MMS 04067) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate (Koehring) Wildlife Parking Area (MMS 04068) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Pollock/Koehring Wildlife Parking Area 

(MMS 04069) 

X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Cedar Road Parking Lot (MMS 04070) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Koehring Road Parking Lot (MMS 04071) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Borrow Pit Parking Lot (MMS 04072) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Peter Point Road Parking Area (MMS 04073) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Sawyer Lake (Buffalo Ramp) Parking Area 

(MMS 04077) 

X X X 

Repair/ Rehabilitate Deep Bay Boat Launch Area (MMS 04078) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Dipper Road Parking Area (MMS 04079) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Widgeon Road Parking (MMS 04080) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Twiford Road Parking #1 (MMS 04080) X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Pamlico Road Heliport Parking Area 

(MMS 04083) 

X X X 

Repair/Rehabilitate Twiford Road Parking #2 (MMS 04087) X X X 
134 Environmental Assessment 

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Repair/Rehabilitate H&B Parking Area (MMS 04088) X X X 

Increase office space (RONS 98004). X X 

Construct New Employee Housing (RONS 04001) X 

Maintain vehicles and boats. X X X 

Maintain heavy equipment and hand tools. X X X 

Maintain computers and software. X X X 

Replace Military Truck Tractor (MMS 98010) X X X 

Replace Ford 545 Mowing Tractor (MMS 98011) X X X 

Replace Timer Equipment Trailer (MMS 98013) X X X 

Replace Mowers (MMS 98029) X X X 

Replace 1976 D3 crawler Tractor (MMS 98032) X X X 

Replace Ford 6610 Mowing Tractor (MMS 98037) X X X 

Replace 15-Ton crane and 10-Ton Forklift (MMS 98039) X X X 

Replace Workhorse Equipment Transport Trailer (MMS 98041) X X X 

Replace John Deere 644G Front-end Loader (MMS 98042) X X X 

Replace Caterpillar D6H Crawler Tractor (MMS 98044) X X X 

Replace Caterpillar EL200B Excavator (MMS 98045) X X X 

Replace John Deere 770B Road Grader (MMS 98046) X X X 

Replace Boat, Motor and Trailer (MMS 98047) X X X 

Replace Nodwell Flex Tracked Vehicle (MMS 99001) X X X 

Replace Refuge Radio System (MMS 99002) X X X 

Replace Allis Chalmers Front End Loader (MMS 99005) X X X 

Replace Ford L9000 Dump Truck (MMS 99006) X X X 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 135

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Replace Air Boat (MMS 99009) X X X 

Replace Spryte Thiokol Marsh Buggy (MMS 99011) X X X 

Replace 1994 Ford Truck Tractor (MMS01007) X X X 

Replace 1994 Chevy Wildland Fire Pumper Unit (MMS 01009) X X X 

Replace 1996 Ford L9000 Truck Tractor Hauling Unit (MMS 01010) X X X 

Replace 1997 Ford F150 Pickup (MMS 01017) X X X 

Replace 1997 Ford F150 Pickup (MMS 01018) X X X 

Replace 1997 Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup (MMS 01020) X X X 

Replace 1998 Ford Explorer (MMS 01021) X X X 

Replace 1997 Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup (MMS 01023) X X X 

Replace 1997 Ford F350 Crewcab Pickup (MMS 01024) X X X 

Replace 1996 Ford Van (MMS 01025) X X X 

Replace Worn 1988 IHC Truck Tractor (MMS01028) X X X 

Replace 1979 Osh Kosh Truck Tractor and Trailer (MMS 01029) X X X 

Replace 1997 Ford Explorer (MMS 01030) X X X 

Replace Flex Tracked Fire Fighting Tractor (AX4) (MMS 01031) X X X 

Replace Flex Tracked Fire Fighting Tractor (AX2) (MMS 01032) X X X 

Replace Full Tracked Fire Fighting Tractor (AX6) (MMS 01033) X X X 

Replace Trailer Mounted Pump Unit Engine (Gator 1) (MMS 01034) X X X 

Replace Trailer Mounted Pump Unit engine (Gator 2) (MMS 01035) X X X 

Replace Trailer Mounted 16” Water Pump (Pump 1) (MMS01036) X X X 

Replace Trailer Mounted 16” Water Pump (Pump 2) (MMS 01037) X X X 

Replace Heavy Equipment Transport Trailer (Witzco) (MMS 01038) X X X 
136 Environmental Assessment 

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Replace Heavy Equipment Transport Trailer (Boaz) (MMS 01039) X X X 

Replace Ford 8260 Agricultural Tractor (MMS 01040) X X X 

Replace Military Excess Bucyrus Erie Dragline (MMS 01041) X X X 

Replace Worn Ford 6640 Boomaxe Agricultural Tractor (MMS 01042) X X X 

Replace Fully Tracked Firefighting (Tractor) Equipment (AX5) (MMS 

01043) 

X X X 

Replace Military Pettibone Forklift (MMS 01048) X X X 

Replace 1998 Ford Taurus (MMS 02001) X X X 

Replace 1999 Ford F-250 (MMS 02002) X X X 

Replace 1999 Ford F-150 (MMS 02003) X X X 

Replace 1999 Ford F-150 (MMS 02004) X X X 

Replace 1999 Chevy C-7500 Dump Truck (MMS 02005) X X X 

Replace 2001 Dodge 2500 (MMS 02006) X X X 

Replace 2001 Dodge 2500 (MMS 02007) X X X 

Replace 2001 Dodge 2500 (MMS 02008) X X X 

Replace 2000 Chevy Tahoe (MMS 02009) X X X 

Replace 2000 Ford Expedition (MMS 02010) X X X 

Replace 2000 Chevy Astro (MMS 02011) X X X 

Replace 1999 Ford F-250 (MMS 02002) X X X 

Replace 1999 Ford F-150 (MMS 02003) X X X 

Replace 1999 Ford F-150 (MMS 02004) X X X 

Replace 1999 Chevy C-7500 Dump Truck (MMS 02005) X X X 

Replace 2001 Dodge 2500 (MMS 02006) X X X 

Replace 2001 Dodge 2500 (MMS 02007) X X X 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 137

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Replace 2001 Dodge 2500 (MMS 02008) X X X 

Replace 2000 Chevy Tahoe (MMS 02009) X X X 

Replace 2000 Ford Expedition (MMS 02010) X X X 

Replace 2000 Chevy Astro (MMS 02011) X X X 

Replace 2001 Dodge Ram 2500 (MMS 02012) X X X 

Replace 2001 Ford F-150 (MMS 02013) X X X 

Replace 2001 Ford F-150 (MMS 02014) X X X 

Replace 2002 Ford F-150 (MMS 02015) X X X 

Replace 2002 Ford F-150 (MMS 02016) X X X 

Replace 2002 Ford F-150 (MMS 02017) X X X 

Replace 2002 Ford F-150 (MMS 02018) X X X 

Replace 2002 Sterling L-9500 (MMS 02019) X X X 

Replace 2002 LE Dodge LE 1500 (MMS 02020) X X X 

Replace 2002 Ford Expedition (MMS 02021) X X X 

Replace 2002 Ford F-250 (MMS 02022) X X X 

Replace 2002 Ford F-250 (MMS 02023) X X X 

Replace 2002 Ford F-450 (MMS 02024) X X X 

Replace Allis Chalmers Forklift (MMS 02025) X X X 

Replace Caterpillar D3C LGP (MMS 02026) X X X 

Replace Case 4X4 Front End Loader (MMS 02027) X X X 

Replace Dresser TD12 LGP Dozer (MMS 02029) X X X 

Replace Trail King Dump Trailer (MMS 02030) X X X 

Replace Ford 8160 Agricultural Tractor (MMS 02031) X X X 
138 Environmental Assessment 

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Replace Ford 8830 Agricultural Tractor (MMS 02032) X X X 

Replace Gyro Trac Heavy Duty Brushcutter (MMS 02033) X X X 

Replace Fontaine Low Boy Trailer (MMS 02034) X X X 

Replace John Deere 4100 Mowing Tractor (MMS 02035) X X X 

Replace John Deere 5400 Mowing Tractor (MMS 02036) X X X 

Replace Terez D7F Dozer (MMS 02037) X X X 

Replace 45’ Bridge Trailer (MMS 02038) X X X 

Replace champion 710A Road Grader (MMS 02128) X X X 

Replace Worn/ Deteriorated 2002 Ford F-250 (MMS 03000) X X X 

Replace Hyster Forklift (MMS 03001) X X X 

Replace Worn 2002 Ford Explorer (MMS 03002) X X X 

Replace Worn 2002 Ford Explorer (MMS 03003) X X X 

Replace Worn 2003 Ford F-250 (MMS 03004) X X X 

Replace Worn 2003 F-150 (MMS 03005) X X X 

Replace 1995 Ford F-150 (MMS 03006) X X X 

Replace Worn Chevy Silverado (MMS 03007) X X X 

Replace 21’ Boston Whaler (MMS 03008) X X X 

Replace Water Tender Truck (Tanker) (MMS 03009) X X X 

Replace 2 Worn Creef Pump Engines (MMS 03011) X X X 

Replace 2 Worn Laurel Bay Pump Engines (MMS 03012) X X X 

Replace Worn Caterpillar 420D Backhoe/Loader (MMS 03017) X X X 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 Pickup (MMS 04002) X X X 

Replace 2004 Ford F650 Pickup (MMS 04003) X X X 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 139

Alternatives 

Project Description 

1 2 3 

Replace 2004 Ford F650 Pickup (MMS 04004) X X X 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 Crew Cab Pickup (MMS 04005) X X X 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 Crew Cab Pickup (MMS 04006) X X X 

Replace 2004 Ford Expedition (MMS 04007) X X X 

Replace 2003 Ford F150 Pickup (MMS 04008) X X X 

Replace 2003 Ford Expedition (MMS 04009) X X X 

Replace Worn CAT 320 Long Reach Excavator (MMS 04011) X X X 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 Pickup (MMS 04097) X X X 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 Pickup (MMS 04098) X X X 

Purchase new low boy trailer and tractor (RONS 97048) X X X 

Purchase new excavator (RONS 98008). X X X 

Purchase new vehicles (RONS 98010). X X X 
140 Environmental Assessment 

Table 26. Cost of projects proposed in all alternatives 

Costs 

Projects First Year or 

One Time Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First Year 

Costs 

Alternative 1 

Staff Projects $0 $1,312,000 $1,312,000 

Budget Projects In Staff Base In Staff Base In Staff Base 

Facility Projects $23,138,000 $0 $23,138,000 

Equipment Projects $8,673,000 $23,000 $8,696,000 

Land Acquisition 

(40,000 Acres at $500 per Acre) 

$20,000,000 $0 $20,000,000 

Total for Alternative 1 Projects $51,811,000 $1,335,000 $53,146,000 

Alternative 2 

Staff Projects $451,000 $1,736,000 $2,187,000 

Budget Projects $396,000 $57,000 $453,000 

Facility Projects $23,218,000 $80,000 $23,298,000 

Equipment Projects $8,673,000 $23,000 $8,696,000 

Land Acquisition 

(40,000 Acres at $500 per Acre) 

$20,000,000 $0 $20,000,000 

Total For Alternative 2 Projects $52,738,000 $1,896,000 $54,634,000 

Alternative 3 

Staff Projects $955,000 $2,286,000 $3,241,000 

Budget Projects $828,000 $57,000 $885,000 

Facility Projects $23,548,000 $121,000 $23,669,000 

Equipment Projects $8,673,000 $23,000 $8,696,000 

Land Acquisition 

(40,000 Acres at $500 per Acre) 

$20,000,000 $0 $20,000,000 

Total for Alternative 3 Projects $54,004,000 $2,487,000 $56,491,000 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 141

Table 27. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 1 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Staff Projects

Existing GS-14 Project Leader 

(40% Alligator River). 

$1,312,000 

Existing Base 

$1,312,000 

Existing Base

Existing GS- 13 Deputy Project Leader 

(70% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-12 Assistant Manager 

(75% Alligator River. 

Existing GS-12 Wildlife Biologist 

(40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-12 Supervisory Park Ranger 

(40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-12 Fire Management Specialist 

(Fire) (50% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-11 Fire Management Specialist 

(Fire) (40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-9 Fire Management Specialist 

(Fire) (40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-9 Park Ranger (Public Use) 

(10% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-9 Park Ranger (Law 

Enforcement)( 70% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-7 Biological Technician 

(50% Alligator River) 

Existing GS-7 Forestry Technician 

(50% Alligator River) 

Existing GS-9 Administrative Officer 

(75% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-7 Office Assistant 

(75% Alligator River). 

Existing WS-9 Maintenance Supervisor 

(75% Alligator River) 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Automotive Worker 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-8 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 
142 Environmental Assessment 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Existing GS-7 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-6 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-6 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Total Staff Projects $0 $1,312,000 $1,312,000

Budget Projects

(Contracts, Research) 

Process payroll, travel, purchasing, and 

contract documents. $0 In Base $0

Prepare annual budget, revise RONS and 

MMS. $0 In Base $0

Apply for grants. $0 In Base $0

Total Budget Projects $0 In Base $0

Facility Projects

Rehabilitate and Gravel Milltail Road 

(MMS 90041) $0 $0 $0

Replace Laurel Bay and Creef Pump Stations 

(MMS 05001) $1,879,000 $0 $1,879,000

Construct Visitor Center and Administrative 

Office Complex (MMS 97008) $3,724,000 $0 $3,724,000

Construct an Informational Trail Area 

(MMS 97009) $54,000 $0 $54,000

Rehabilitate Equipment Repair Facility 

(MMS 97049) $522,000 $0 $522,000

Replace Worn Shaft Bearings on Laurel Bay 

Waterfowl Pumps (MMS 98007) $50,000 $0 $50,000

Rehabilitate and Gravel Milltail Road 

(MMS 98009) $0 $0 $0

Rehabilitate Creef Cut Walking Trail 

(MMS 98017) $38,000 $0 $38,000

Rehabilitate Primary Refuge Road System 

(MMS 98025) $283,000 $0 $283,000

Rehabilitate Primary Canal System 

(MMS 98030) $60,000 $0 $60,000

Replace Refuge Road Gates 

(MMS 98048) $31,000 $0 $31,000
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 143

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Replace Water Control Structures 

(MMS 98052) $53,000 $0 $53,000

Replace Worn Shaft Bearings on Creek 

Waterfowl Moist Soil Unit Pumps 

(MMS 98065) 

$32,000 $0 $32,000

Repair Parking Area Surface 

(MMS 99007) $43,000 $0 $43,000

Remove Military Facility Structures 

(MMS 01001) $32,000 $0 $32,000

Replace Refuge Operations Facility 

(MMS 02039) $1,670,000 $0 $1,670,000

Construct Red Wolf Processing Facility 

(MMS 02040) $131,000 $0 $131,000

Construct Two HAZMAT Storage Buildings 

(MMS 02043) $60,000 $0 $60,000

Construct Biological Program Storage 

Building (MMS 02044) $40,000 $0 $40,000

Replace Stockpile of Aggregate Road 

Maintenance Material (MMS 03013) $84,000 $0 $84,000

Rehabilitate Station Heliport (MMS 03014) $29,000 $0 $29,000

Replace Laurel Bay Pump Vehicular 

Crossing (MMS 03015) $235,000 $0 $235,000

Rehabilitate Pump Road (MMS 04) $189,000 $0 $189,000

Resurface Milltail Road (2.2 miles) 

(MMS 04001) $400,000 $0 $400,000

Repave Creef Cut Trail (MMS 04010) $35,000 $0 $35,000

Rehabilitate Koehring Road (MMS 04012) $696,000 $0 $696,000

Rehabilitate Bear Road (MMS 04013) $293,000 $0 $293,000

Rehabilitate Blueberry Road 

(MMS 04014) $285,000 $0 $285,000

Rehabilitate Borrow Pit Road 

(MMS 04015) $122,000 $0 $122,000

Rehabilitate Brier Hall Road (MMS 04016) $364,000 $0 $364,000
144 Environmental Assessment 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Rehabilitate Deep Bay Road 

(MMS 04017) $129,000 $0 $129,000

Rehabilitate Grouse Road (MMS 04018) $115,000 $0 $115,000

Rehabilitate Long Curve Road 

(MMS 04019) $933,000 $0 $933,000

Rehabilitate Milltail Road (MMS 04020 $975,000 $0 $975,000

Rehabilitate Pamlico Road (MMS 04021) $212,000 $0 $212,000

Rehabilitate Point Peter Road 

(MMS 04022) $169,000 $0 $169,000

Rehabilitate Whipping Creek Road 

(MMS 04024) $429,000 $0 $429,000

Rehabilitate Dry Ridge Road 

(MMS 04025) $717,000 $0 $717,000

Rehabilitate Possum Road (MMS 04026) $274,000 $0 $274,000

Rehabilitate Twiford Road (MMS 04027) $363,000 $0 $363,000

Rehabilitate Buffalo City Road 

(MMS 04028) $243,000 $0 $243,000

Rehabilitate Lake Neighborhood Road 

(MMS 04029) $175,000 $0 $175,000

Rehabilitate Sandy Ridge Road 

(MMS 04030) $92,000 $0 $92,000

Rehabilitate Bay Road (MMS 04031) $158,000 $0 $158,000

Rehabilitate Cypress Road (MMS 04032) $57,000 $0 $57,000

Rehabilitate Cedar Road (MMS 04033) $180,000 $0 $180,000

Rehabilitate Jake Road (MMS 04034) $80,000 $0 $80,000

Rehabilitate West Widgeon Road 

(MMS 04035) $138,000 $0 $138,000

Rehabilitate Pollock Road (MMS 04036) $236,000 $0 $236,000

Rehabilitate Widgeon Road (MMS 04037) $134,000 $0 $134,000

Rehabilitate Canvasback Road 

(MMS 04038) $173,000 $0 $173,000

Rehabilitate Little Field Road 

(MMS 04039) $115,000 $0 $115,000

Rehabilitate Eagle Road (MMS 04040) $113,000 $0 $113,000
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 145

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Rehabilitate Storm Road (MMS 04041) $111,000 $0 $111,000

Rehabilitate Reuben Road (MMS 04042) $79,000 $0 $79,000

Rehabilitate Sassafras Road 

(MMS 04043) $59,000 $0 $59,000

Rehabilitate Alligator Road (MMS 04044) $323,000 $0 $323,000

Rehabilitate H&B Road (MMS 04046) $386,000 $0 $386,000

Facility Projects

Rehabilitate Richmond Road 

(MMS 04047) $159,000 $0 $159,000

Rehabilitate Chip Road (MMS 04048) $143,000 $0 $143,000

Rehabilitate Lake Worth Road 

(MMS 04049) $107,000 $0 $107,000

Rehabilitate Beaver Road (MMS 04050) $165,000 $0 $165,000

Rehabilitate River Road (MMS 04051) $151,000 $0 $151,000

Rehabilitate Hickory Road (MMS 04052) $125,000 $0 $125,000

Rehabilitate Wynne Road (MMS 04053) $148,000 $0 $148,000

Rehabilitate Osprey Road (MMS 04054) $98,000 $0 $98,000

Rehabilitate Hook Road (MMS 04055) $151,000 $0 $151,000

Rehabilitate North Perimeter Road 

(MMS 04056) $573,000 $0 $573,000

Rehabilitate Peterson Road (MMS 04057) $203,000 $0 $203,000

Rehabilitate Sawyer Lake Road 

(MMS 04058) $405,000 $0 $405,000

Rehabilitate Creef Road (MMS 04059) $223,000 $0 $223,000

Rehabilitate Bobcat Road (MMS 04060) $258,000 $0 $258,000

Rehabilitate Gadwall Road (MMS 04061) $177,000 $0 $177,000

Rehabilitate Link Road (MMS 04062) $97,000 $0 $97,000

Rehabilitate Butler Road (MMS 04063) $290,000 $0 $290,000

Rehabilitate Laurel Bay Road 

(MMS 04064) $442,000 $0 $442,000
146 Environmental Assessment 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Facility Projects

Rehabilitate Blueberry Road Parking Area 

(MMS 04067) $30,000 $0 $30,000

Repair/Rehabilitate (Koehring) Wildlife Parking 

Area (MMS 04068) $36,000 $0 $36,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Pollock/Koehring Wildlife 

Parking Area (MMS 04069) $26,000 $0 $26,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Cedar Road Parking Lot 

(MMS 04070) $62,000 $0 $62,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Koehring Road Parking Lot 

(MMS 04071) $25,000 $0 $25,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Borrow Pit Parking Lot 

(MMS 04072) $47,000 $0 $47,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Peter Point Road Parking 

Area (MMS 04073) $30,000 $0 $30,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Sawyer Lake (Buffalo 

Ramp) Parking Area (MMS 04077) $26,000 $0 $26,000

Repair/ Rehabilitate Deep Bay Boat Launch 

Area (MMS 04078) $51,000 $0 $51,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Dipper Road Parking Area 

(MMS 04079) $28,000 $0 $28,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Widgeon Road Parking 

(MMS 04080) $65,000 $0 $65,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Twiford Road Parking #1 

(MMS 04080) $122,000 $0 $122,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Pamlico Road Heliport 

Parking Area (MMS 04083) $34,000 $0 $34,000

Repair/Rehabilitate Twiford Road Parking #2 

(MMS 04087) $39,000 $0 $39,000

Total Facility Project Cost $23,138,000 $0 $23,138,000

Equipment Projects

Replace Military Truck Tractor 

(MMS 98010) $104,000 $0 $104,000 

Replace Ford 545 Mowing Tractor 

(MMS 98011) $55,000 $0 $55,000 

Replace Timer Equipment Trailer 

(MMS 98013) $53,000 $0 $53,000 

Replace Mowers (MMS 98029) $274,000 $0 $274,000 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 147

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Equipment Projects

Replace 1978 D3 Crawler Tractor 

(MMS 98032) $136,000 $0 $136,000 

Replace Ford 6610 Mowing Tractor 

(MMS 98037) $88,000 $0 $88,000 

Replace 15-Ton Crane and 10-Ton Forklift 

(MMS 98039) $120,000 $0 $120,000 

Replace Workhorse Equipment Transport 

Trailer (MMS 98041) $71,000 $0 $71,000 

Replace John Deere 644G Front-end Loader 

(MMS 98042) $186,000 $0 $186,000 

Replace Caterpillar D6H Crawler Tractor (MMS 

98044) $235,000 $0 $235,000 

Replace Caterpillar EL200B Excavator (MMS 

98045) $238,000 $0 $238,000 

Replace John Deere 770B Road Grader (MMS 

98046) $230,000 $0 $230,000 

Replace Boat, Motor and Trailer 

(MMS 98047) $55,000 $0 $55,000 

Replace Nodwell Flex Tracked Vehicle (MMS 

99001) $82,000 $0 $82,000 

Replace Allis Chalmers Front End Loader 

(MMS 99005) $164,000 $0 $164,000 

Replace Ford L9000 Dump Truck 

(MMS 99006) $120,000 $0 $120,000 

Replace Air Boat (MMS 99009) $39,000 $0 $39,000 

Replace Spryte Thiokol Marsh Buggy (MMS 

99011) $110,000 $0 $110,000 

Replace 1994 Ford Truck Tractor 

(MMS 01007) $105,000 $0 $105,000 

Replace 1994 Chevy Wildland Fire Pumper Unit 

(MMS 01009) $64,000 $0 $64,000 

Replace 1996 Ford L9000 Truck Tractor 

Hauling Unit (MMS 01010) $105,000 $0 $105,000 

Replace 1997 Ford F150 Pickup (Wolf) (MMS 

01017) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace 1997 Ford F150 Pickup (Wolf) (MMS 

01018) $31,000 $0 $31,000 
148 Environmental Assessment 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Replace 1997 Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup (Wolf) 

(MMS 01020) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace 1998 Ford Explorer (Wolf) 

(MMS 01021) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace 1997 Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup (Wolf) 

(MMS 01023) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace 1997 Ford F350 Crewcab Pickup (Fire) 

(MMS 01024) $38,000 $0 $38,000 

Replace 1996 Ford Van (MMS 01025) $38,000 $0 $38,000 

Replace Worn 1988 IHC Truck Tractor (MMS 

01028) $105,000 $0 $105,000 

Replace 1979 Osh Kosh Truck Tractor and 

Trailer (MMS 01029) $169,000 $0 $169,000 

Replace 1997 Ford Explorer 

(MMS 01030) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace Flex Tracked Fire Fighting Tractor 

(AX4) (MMS 01031) $185,000 $0 $185,000 

Replace Flex Tracked Fire Fighting Tractor 

(AX2) (MMS 01032) $233,000 $0 $233,000 

Replace Full Tracked Fire Fighting Tractor 

(AX6) (MMS 01033) $233,000 $0 $233,000 

Replace Trailer Mounted Pump Unit Engine 

(Gator 1) (MMS 01034) $21,000 $0 $21,000 

Replace Trailer Mounted Pump Unit engine 

(Gator 2) (MMS 01035) $21,000 $0 $21,000 

Replace Trailer Mounted 16” Water Pump 

(Pump 1) (MMS 01036) $10,000 $0 $10,000 

Replace Trailer Mounted 16” Water Pump 

(Pump 2) (MMS 01037) $10,000 $0 $10,000 

Replace Heavy Equipment Transport Trailer 

(Witzco) (MMS 01038) $53,000 $0 $53,000 

Replace Heavy Equipment Transport Trailer 

(Boaz) (MMS 01039) $53,000 $0 $53,000 

Replace Ford 8260 Agricultural Tractor (MMS 

01040) $58,000 $0 $58,000 

Replace Military Excess Bucyrus Erie Dragline 

(MMS 01041) $287,000 $0 $287,000 

Replace Worn Ford 6640 Boomaxe Agricultural 

Tractor (MMS 01042) $79,000 $0 $79,000 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 149

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Replace Fully Tracked Firefighting (Tractor) 

Equipment (AX5) (MMS 01043) $233,000 $0 $233,000 

Replace Military Pettibone Forklift 

(MMS 01048) $169,000 $0 $169,000 

Replace 1998 Ford Taurus (MMS 02001) $27,000 $0 $27,000 

Replace 1999 Ford F-250 (Wolf) (MMS 02002) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 1999 Ford F-150 (MMS 02003) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 1999 Ford F-150 (MMS 02004) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 1999 Chevy C-7500 Dump Truck 

(MMS 02005) $42,000 $0 $42,000 

Replace 2001 Dodge 2500 (MMS 02006) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2001 Dodge 2500 (MMS 02007) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2001 Dodge 2500 (MMS 02008) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2000 Chevy Tahoe (MMS 02009) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace 2000 Ford Expedition (Planners) (MMS 

02010) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace 2000 Chevy Astro (Planners) (MMS 

02011) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace 2001 Dodge Ram 2500 (Wolf) (MMS 

02012) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2001 Ford F-150 (MMS 02013) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2001 Ford F-150 (MMS 02014) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2002 Ford F-150 (MMS 02015) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2002 Ford F-150 (MMS 02016) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2002 Ford F-150 (MMS 02017) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2002 Ford F-150 (MMS 02018) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2002 Sterling L-9500 (MMS 02019) $99,000 $0 $99,000 

Replace 2002 LE Dodge LE 1500 (MMS 02020) $29,000 $0 $29,000 
150 Environmental Assessment 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Replace 2002 Ford Expedition (MMS 02021) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace 2002 Ford F-250 (Wolf) 

(MMS 02022) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2002 Ford F-250 (Wolf 

(MMS 02023) $29,000 $0 $29,000 

Replace 2002 Ford F-450 (MMS 02024) $47,000 $0 $47,000 

Replace Allis Chalmers Forklift 

(MMS 02025) $42,000 $0 $42,000 

Replace Caterpillar D3C LGP 

(MMS 02026) $73,000 $0 $73,000 

Replace Case 4X4 Front End Loader (MMS 

02027) $167,000 $0 $167,000 

Replace Dresser TD12 LGP Dozer 

(MMS 02029) $188,000 $0 $188,000 

Replace Trail King Dump Trailer 

(MMS 02030) $42,000 $0 $42,000 

Replace Ford 8160 Agricultural Tractor (MMS 

02031) $84,000 $0 $84,000 

Replace Ford 8830 Agricultural Tractor (MMS 

02032) $94,000 $0 $94,000 

Replace Fontaine Low Boy Trailer 

(MMS 02034) $63,000 $0 $63,000 

Replace John Deere 4100 Mowing Tractor 

(MMS 02035) $16,000 $0 $16,000 

Replace John Deere 5400 Mowing Tractor 

(MMS 02036) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace Terez D7F Dozer (MMS 02037) $261,000 $0 $261,000 

Replace 45’ Bridge Trailer (MMS 02038) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace Champion 710A Road Grader (MMS 

02128) $136,000 $0 $136,000 

Replace Hyster Forklift (MMS 03001) $26,000 $0 $26,000 

Replace Worn 2002 Ford Explorer 

(MMS 03002) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace Worn 2002 Ford Explorer 

(MMS 03003) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace Worn 2003 Ford F-250 (Wolf) (MMS 

03004) $31,000 $0 $31,000 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 151

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Replace Worn 2003 F-150 (MMS 03005) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace 1995 Ford F-150 (MMS 03006) $31,000 $0 $31,000 

Replace Worn Chevy Silverado (Fire) (MMS 

03007) $37,000 $0 $37,000 

Replace 21’ Boston Whaler (MMS 03008) $63,000 $0 $63,000 

Replace Water Tender Truck (Tanker) (MMS 

03009) $73,000 $0 $73,000 

Replace 2 Worn Creef Pump Engines (MMS 

03011) $94,000 $0 $94,000 

Replace 2 Worn Laurel Bay Pump Engines 

(MMS 03012) $94,000 $0 $94,000 

Replace Worn Caterpillar 420D 

Backhoe/Loader (MMS 03017) $84,000 $0 $84,000 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 (MMS 04002) $30,000 $0 430,000 

Replace 2004 Ford F650 Service Truck (MMS 

04003) $62,000 $0 $62,000 

Replace 2004 Ford F650 Service Truck (Fire) 

(MMS 04004) $62,000 $0 $62,000 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 Crew Cab 

(MMS 04005) $30,000 $0 $30,000 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 Crew Cab 

(MMS 04006) $30,000 $0 $30,000 

Replace 2004 Ford Expedition (Fire) (MMS 

04007) $36,000 $0 $36,000 

Replace 2003 Ford F150 (MMS 04008) $30,000 $0 $30,000 

Replace 2004 Ford Expedition 

(MMS 04009) $36,000 $0 $36,000 

Replace Worn CAT 320 Long Reach Excavator 

(MMS 04011) $180,000 $0 $180,000 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 Pickup 

(MMS 04097) $30,000 $0 $30,000 

Replace 2004 Ford F150 Pickup 

(MMS 04098) $30,000 $0 $30,000 

Purchase New Low-Boy Trailer and Tractor 

(RONS 97048) $210,000 $10,000 $220,000 

Purchase New Excavator (RONS 98008) $235,000 $10,000 $245,000 
152 Environmental Assessment 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Purchase New Vehicles (RONS 98010) $200,000 $3,000 $203,000 

Total Equipment Project Cost $8,673,000 $23,000 $8,696,000 

Grand Total Cost $42,311,000 $1,335,000 $43,646,000 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 153

Table 28. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 2 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Staff Projects

Existing GS-14 Project Leader 

(40% Alligator River). 

$1,312,000 

Existing Base $1,312,000

Existing GS- 13 Deputy Project Leader 

(70% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-12 Assistant Manager 

(75% Alligator River. 

Existing GS-12 Wildlife Biologist 

(40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-12 Supervisory Park Ranger

(40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-12 Fire Management 

Specialist (Fire) (50% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-11 Fire Management 

Specialist (Fire) (40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-9 Fire Management 

Specialist (Fire) (40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-9 Park Ranger (Public Use) 

(10% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-9 Park Ranger (Law 

Enforcement)(70% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-7 Biological Technician 

(50% Alligator River) 

Existing GS-7 Forestry Technician 

(50% Alligator River) 

Existing GS-9 Administrative Officer 

(75% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-7 Office Assistant 

(75% Alligator River). 

Existing WS-9 Maintenance Supervisor 

(75% Alligator River) 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Automotive Worker 

(90% Alligator River). 
154 Environmental Assessment 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Existing GS-8 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-7 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-6 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-6 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

New WG-5 Maintenance Worker 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97018) $65,000 $49,000 $114,000

New GS-9 Refuge Operations Specialist 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 97039) $0 $0 $0

New GS-9 Park Ranger (Volunteer 

Coordinator) (40% Alligator River) 

(RONS 98011) 

$26,000 $28,000 $54,000

New GS-11 Forester (Ecologist) 

(80% Alligator River) (RONS 00003) $52,000 $59,000 $111,000

New GS-7 Biologist (55% Alligator 

River) (RONS 00007) $32,000 $27,000 $59,000

New WG-8 Maintenance Worker 

(50% Alligator river) (RONS 00092) $33,000 $27,000 $60,000

New GS-11 Computer Specialist 

(90% Alligator River) (RONS 00094) $59,000 $63,000 $122,000

New GS-11 Wildlife Biologist 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 00095) $0 $0 $0

New WG-10 Heavy Mobile Equipment 

Mechanic (90% Alligator River) 

(RONS 00096) 

$59,000 $54,000 $113,000

New GS-7 Park Ranger (Enforcement) 

(50% Alligator River) (RONS 00098) $33,000 $29,000 $62,000

New GS-11 Park Ranger (Interpretation) 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 00099) $0 $0 $0

New GS-9 Refuge Operations Specialist 

(50% Alligator River) (RONS 02001) $32,000 $35,000 $67,000
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 155

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

New GS-7 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(Fire Program Technician) 

(100% Alligator River) (No RONS) 

$60,000 $53,000 $113,000

Total Staff Costs $451,000 $1,736,000 $2,187,000

Budget Projects (Contracts, Research)

Process payroll, travel, purchasing, and 

contract documents. $0 In Base $0

Prepare annual budget, revise RONS 

and MMS. $0 In Base $0

Apply for grants. $0 In Base $0

Improve resource management planning 

(RONS 97007). $60,000 $5,000 $65,000

Improve water quality monitoring 

capabilities (RONS 97010). $40,000 $10,000 $50,000

Reduce or eradicate invasive 

Phragmites pest plant (RONS 97022). $85,000 $15,000 $100,000

Improve resource management data 

collection (RONS 97025). $38,000 $5,000 $43,000

Improve information resource 

management (RONS 97047). $39,000 $10,000 $49,000

Improve fisheries management 

capabilities (RONS 98006). $40,000 $5,000 $45,000

Restore the ecosystem’s coastal plain 

forests (RONS 99002). $30,000 $0 $30,000

Conduct environmental contaminants 

study (RONS 99004). $48,000 $0 $48,000

Implement Ambassador Program 

(RONS 00012). $16,000 $7,000 $23,000

Total Budget Projects $396,000 $57,000 $453,000

Equipment Projects 

Projects Listed in Alternative 1 $8,673,000 $23,000 $8,696,000

Total Equipment Projects $8,673,000 $23,000 $8,696,000

Facility Projects 
156 Environmental Assessment 

Costs 

Project Description First Year or 

One Time Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Projects Listed in Alternative 1 $23,138,000 $0 $23,138,000

Increase Refuge Office Space 

(RONS 98004) $80,000 $80,000 $160,000

Total Facility Projects $23,218,000 $80,000 $23,298,000

Grand Total $43,238,000 $1,896,000 $45,134,000
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 157

Table 29. Cost of projects proposed Alternative 3 

Project Description Costs 

Staff Projects 

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Existing GS-14 Project Leader 

(40% Alligator River). 

$1,312,000 

Existing 

Base 

$1,312,000 

Existing Base

Existing GS- 13 Deputy Project Leader 

(70% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-12 Assistant Manager 

(75% Alligator River. 

Existing GS-12 Wildlife Biologist 

(40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-12 Supervisory Park Ranger 

(40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-12 Fire Management Specialist 

(Fire) (50% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-11 Fire Management Specialist 

(Fire) (40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-9 Fire Management Specialist (Fire) 

(40% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-9 Park Ranger (Public Use) 

(10% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-9 Park Ranger (Law Enforcement)( 

70% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-7 Biological Technician 

(50% Alligator River) 

Existing GS-7 Forestry Technician 

(50% Alligator River) 

Existing GS-9 Administrative Officer 

(75% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-7 Office Assistant 

(75% Alligator River). 

Existing WS-9 Maintenance Supervisor 

(75% Alligator River) 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(90% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Automotive Worker 

(90% Alligator River). 
158 Environmental Assessment 

Project Description Costs 

Staff Projects 

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Existing GS-8 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-7 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-6 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing GS-6 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

Existing WG-8 Equipment Operator (Fire) 

(80% Alligator River). 

New WG-5 Maintenance Worker 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97018) $65,000 $49,000 $114,000

New GS-9 Refuge Operations Specialist (0% 

Alligator River) (RONS 97039) $0 $0 $0

New GS-9 Park Ranger (Volunteer Coordinator) 

(40% Alligator River) 

(RONS 98011) 

$26,000 $28,000 $54,000

New GS-11 Forester (Ecologist) 

(80% Alligator River) (RONS 00003) $52,000 $59,000 $111,000

New GS-7 Biologist (55% Alligator River) 

(RONS 00007) $32,000 $27,000 $59,000

New WG-8 Maintenance Worker 

(50% Alligator river) (RONS 00092) $33,000 $27,000 $60,000

New GS-11 Computer Specialist 

(90% Alligator River) (RONS 00094) $59,000 $63,000 $122,000

New GS-11 Wildlife Biologist 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 00095) $0 $0 $0

New WG-10 Heavy Mobile Equipment Mechanic 

(905 Alligator River) 

(RONS 00096) 

$59,000 $54,000 $113,000

New GS-7 Park Ranger (Enforcement) (50% 

Alligator River) (RONS 00098) $33,000 $29,000 $62,000

New GS-11 Park Ranger (Interpretation) (0% 

Alligator River) (RONS 00099) $0 $0 $0

New GS-9 Refuge Operations Specialist (50% 

Alligator River) (RONS 02001) $32,000 $35,000 $67,000
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 159

Project Description Costs 

Staff Projects 

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

New GS-7 Forestry Technician (Fire) 

(Fire Program Technician) 

(100% Alligator River) (No RONS) 

$60,000 $53,000 $113,000

New GS-9 Forester (100% Alligator River) 

(RONS 97005) 

New GS-7 Forestry Technician 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97005) 

New WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97005) 

$162,000 $182,000 $344,000

New GS-7 Biological Technician 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97011) $65,000 $59,000 $124,000

New GS-9 Hydrologist (100% Alligator River) 

(RONS 97021) 

New WG-8 Equipment Operator 

(100% Alligator River) (RONS 97021) 

$100,000 $138,000 $238,000

New WG-5 Maintenance Worker 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 97028) $0 $0 $0

New WG-5 Maintenance Worker 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 97028) $0 $0 $0

New GS-9 Resource Specialist 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 97040) $0 $0 $0

New GS-5 Biological Technician 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 97041) $0 $0 $0

New GS-5 Biological Technician 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 97043) $0 $0 $0

New GS-7 Park Ranger (Interpretation) (10% 

Alligator River) (RONS 97045) $7,000 $6,000 $13,000

New GS-7 Park Ranger (Interpretation) (10% 

Alligator River) (RONS 97045) $7,000 $6,000 $13,000

New WG-6 Maintenance Worker 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 97045) %0 $0 $0

New WG-6 Maintenance Worker 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 97045) $0 $0 $0

New GS-5 Biological Technician 

(0% Alligator River) (RONS 98005) $0 $0 $0

New GS-9 Refuge Operations Specialist (100% 

Alligator River) (RONS 99001) 

New GS-5 File Clerk (100% Alligator River) 

(RONS 99001) 

$130,000 $118,000 $248,000
160 Environmental Assessment 

Project Description Costs 

Staff Projects 

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

New GS-11 Park Ranger (Outreach) 

(50% Alligator River) (RONS 99003) $33,000 $41,000 $74,000

Staff Project Cost $955,000 $2,286,000 $3,241,000

Process payroll, travel, purchasing, and contract 

documents. $0 In Base $0

Prepare annual budget, revise RONS and MMS. $0 In Base $0

Apply for grants. $0 In Base $0

Improve resource management planning (RONS 

97007). $60,000 $5,000 $65,000

Improve water quality monitoring capabilities 

(RONS 97010). $40,000 $10,000 $50,000

Reduce or eradicate invasive Phragmites pest 

plant (RONS 97022). $85,000 $15,000 $100,000

Improve resource management data collection 

(RONS 97025). $38,000 $5,000 $43,000

Improve information resource management 

(RONS 97047). $39,000 $10,000 $49,000

Improve fisheries management capabilities 

(RONS 98006). $40,000 $5,000 $45,000

Restore the ecosystem’s coastal plain forests 

(RONS 99002). $30,000 $0 $30,000

Conduct environmental contaminants study 

(RONS 99004). $48,000 $0 $48,000

Implement Ambassador Program 

(RONS 00012). $16,000 $7,000 $23,000

Identify and protect cultural resources (RONS 

98003). $432,000 $0 $432,000

Total Budget Projects $828,000 $57,000 $885,000

Equipment Projects 

Projects Listed in Alternative 1 $8,673,000 $23,000 $8,696,000

Total Equipment Projects $8,673,000 $23,000 $8,696,000

Facility Projects 

Projects Listed in Alternative 1 $23,138,000 $0 $23,138,000
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 161

Project Description Costs 

Staff Projects 

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Increase Refuge Office Space 

(RONS 98004) $80,000 $80,000 $160,000

Provide Entry Level Employee Housing 

(RONS 04001) $330,000 $41,000 $371,000

Total Facility Projects $23,548,000 $121,000 $23,669,000

Grand Total $44,504,000 $2,487,000 $46,991,000

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

LAND ACQUISITION 

The acquisition of land within the approved refuge acquisition boundary would continue. All land 

acquisitions are subject to contaminant surveys. 

Funding for land acquisition would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, or donations from conservation organizations. Conservation easements and leases 

can sometimes be used to obtain minimum interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives if the refuge 

staff can adequately manage uses of the areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service can negotiate 

management agreements with local, state, and federal agencies, and accept conservation easements. 

Some tracts within the proposed refuge acquisition boundary may be owned by other public or private 

conservation organizations. The Service would work with the interested organizations to identify 

additional areas needing protection and provide technical assistance if needed. The acquisition of private 

lands is entirely contingent on the landowners and their willingness to participate. 

REFUGE REVENUE SHARING 

Annual refuge revenue-sharing payments to Dare and Hyde counties would continue at similar rates 

under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the payments would increase 

accordingly and would be paid to the counties in which the land lies. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

As the refuge’s visitor service program is developed, the staff would continue to assess the program 

and its potential impact on refuge resources. Changes in the program would be implemented as 

needed to address any impacts identified and to respond to anticipated wildlife population increases. 

To ensure a quality wildlife-dependent recreation experience while achieving the “wildlife first” 

mandate, the number of users and conflicts among users may be limited by the following: (1) 

permitting uses; (2) designating roads, trails, and sites for specific kinds of wildlife-dependent 

recreational use; and (3) permitting uses at certain times of the year. 

There are a number of situations where future refuge closures or restrictions on access may be 

warranted. Examples of these situations include, but are not limited to, the following: protection of 
162 Environmental Assessment 

endangered species; protection of nesting birds and bear den sites; restriction of recreation activities to 

achieve specific wildlife population objectives; safety concerns due to high water; minimization of conflicts 

with other refuge management programs; and limitations from inadequate funds and/or staff to administer 

the use. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

The maintenance and operation of the refuge’s administrative facilities would continue, regardless of 

the alternative selected. Periodic updating of facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility and to 

support staff and management needs. Funding needs have been identified for several projects, 

including providing additional facilities and equipment to support refuge operation and maintenance. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The refuge staff selected Alternative 2 as the proposed action for the comprehensive conservation 

plan for managing Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15 years. Alternative 2 

meets all the refuge’s wildlife and habitat management goals, but it is not as extensive in public use 

and resource protection as Alternative 3. Alternative 2 does propose to increase the size of the 

refuge staff from 19.7 to 26.7 full-time equivalent positions and increase the number of visitors for 

various public uses from 10 percent to 100 percent for various activities. After public review and 

comment on this draft plan, a final plan will be developed and the refuge staff will use the outlined 

goals, objectives, and strategies in managing the refuge. 

IImplementing the proposed alternative would result in better habitat management and increased 

public use opportunities, while meeting the refuge’s primary purpose of protecting habitat for 

migratory birds. Specific results would include increased songbird and wood duck use and 

production; enhanced habitat and increased protection for other forest interior-dependent wildlife; 

enhanced resident wildlife populations; optimum wetland condition within a managed flow 

situation; and greater opportunities for a variety of compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and 

environmental education activities. 

An overriding concern reflected in this draft plan is that wildlife conservation is the first priority in 

refuge management. The Service allows public uses if they are compatible and appropriate with 

wildlife and habitat conservation. It emphasizes wildlife-dependent public uses (e.g., hunting, 

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

interpretation). 

UnderAlternative 2, the Service would protect, maintain, restore, and enhance refuge lands for 

resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory nongame birds, and threatened and endangered species. 

Refuge staff would initiate extensive wildlife and plant census and inventory activities to develop 

the baseline biological information needed to implement management programs on the refuge. 

The refuge would direct all management actions towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes: (1) 

conserving nesting and migratory habitat for neotropical migratory land birds; (2) providing production 

habitat for wood ducks; and (3) helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan. In addition, the staff would manage the refuge to contribute to other 

national, regional, and state goals for protecting and restoring populations of wildlife. 

The Service would implement active habitat management through forest management and moistsoil unit management designed to provide a historically diverse complex of habitats that meets the 

foraging, resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of species. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 163

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all inholdings from willing 

sellers within the present acquisition boundary. The primary purpose for this acquisition would be 

to provide a system of coastal marshes, pocosins, and forested habitats of sufficient size and 

carrying capacity to reach regional objectives associated with area-sensitive neotropical birds, 

anadromous fish, colonial nesting birds, forest-associated waterfowl, and wetland forest 

landscapes. Lands acquired as part of the refuge would be available for compatible wildlifedependent recreation and environmental education. 

During the 15-year life of this plan, the refuge staff would develop and implement a habitat 

management plan, designed to maintain the present spatially and specifically diverse mosaic of 

habitats with little negative effect on wildlife objectives. 

The Service would provide opportunities for compatible, quality wildlife-dependent recreation activities. 

The refuge would maintain the interior and exterior access roads to provide all-weather vehicular access 

to a broad segment of the public. The staff would permit hiking to support wildlife-dependent recreation 

to the extent that these opportunities do not substantially interfere or detract from the achievement of 

wildlife conservation. They would provide wildlife observation sites and platforms; interpretive trails, 

boardwalks, and kiosks; and restrooms at specific sites to allow for fully accessible environmental 

education and interpretation programs. The plan provides for quality fishing and hunting programs, 

consistent with sound biological principles with sufficient focus on the needs of migratory birds for resting, 

loafing, feeding, and courting requirements. The Service would permit fishing along the banks of streams 

and ditches and from boats. The staff would continue to implement an environmental education plan, 

incorporating an aggressive and proactive promotion of both on- and off-site programs. 

COMPATIBLE SECONDARY USES 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and 

waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be found to be 

compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In addition, “wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety.” 

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the system, as listed in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. 
164 Environmental Assessment 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

The Service would manage all activities that could affect natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral reservations; utility lines and easements; soils, water, and air; and historical and 

archaeological resources to comply with all laws and regulations. The Service has a legal 

responsibility to consider the effects of its actions on cultural resources. Under all alternatives, the 

Service would manage these resources in accordance with public law and agency policy. Individual 

projects would require additional consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and 

the State of North Carolina’s Historic Preservation Office. The Service would require additional 

consultation, surveys, and clearance where it develops projects on the refuge or when activities 

would affect properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 165

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences of each of 

the three management alternatives described in Chapter III. The planning team selected the 

following impact topics for analysis: effects on the biological environment; effects on the physical 

environment; effects on the social environment; and effects on the economic environment. These 

topics were chosen based on the important issues and concerns raised at the public scoping 

meetings and planning team meetings. Each alternative portrays the expected outcomes for fish and 

wildlife species through the year 2020, varying as to the intensity of management. Table 31 

compares the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1, the existing condition. 

COMPARISON OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVES 

The refuge’s current management actions described in Alternative 1, such as its water management, 

prescribed burning, cooperative farming, and hunting programs, and its present efforts to acquire inholdings within the current approved refuge acquisition boundary, would have minimal to no effects 

on the biological or socioeconomic environment. 

The proposed management actions described in Alternative 2, such as monitoring a wider range of 

wildlife species and habitats; managing Atlantic white cedar and mixed pine-hardwood forests; 

increasing opportunities for public use; and acquiring private property from willing sellers would have 

positive effects on the biological environment and society. 

The proposed management actions described in Alternative 3, such as monitoring all wildlife species 

and habitats on the refuge; managing all habitats; implementing a habitat management plan; and 

developing enhanced environmental education and wildlife observation programs would have positive 

effects on the biological environment and society. Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

produce new economic opportunities from the salaries of the new staff, refuge expenditures in the 

local economy, and refuge visitors participating in outdoor recreation and environmental education 

opportunities. The purchase of land from willing sellers in all three alternatives would reduce the 

amount of taxes paid to the counties in real estate taxes. However, this decrease in tax revenue is 

partially offset through refuge revenue-sharing. 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Each alternative would protect existing habitat important to migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. Alternative 2 would provide data on more species on the refuge 

and management of the Atlantic white cedar and mixed pine-hardwood forests. Alternative 3 would 

provide data on all species on the refuge and management of all habitats on the refuge. 

The increased public use provided in Alternatives 2 and 3 may affect the refuge’s wildlife populations 

due to disturbance and habitat degradation. However, nesting and foraging habitat for waterfowl and 

land birds would improve under Alternatives 2 and 3 because of the improved habitat management. 

Populations of all wildlife species would increase slightly under Alternative 2 and moderately under 

Alternative 3. 
166 Environmental Assessment 

Each alternative would protect sites important to migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

land birds. Alternative 3 has the potential to provide greater management capabilities and larger 

areas of habitat protection. 

Each alternative would protect sites important to federally listed species, such as the red wolf, redcockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, and American alligator. 

The refuge’s white-tailed deer population is currently at carrying capacity for pocosin habitat. Under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, habitat management actions could increase the deer population, but not 

significantly. The refuge’s natural habitats and adjacent croplands provide forage for deer. Under all 

alternatives, the staff would monitor deer populations and use hunting to manage the populations in 

order to provide a compatible recreational activity and prevent habitat damage. Hunting would also 

ensure the health of the deer herd and minimize the effects to other wildlife species and habitat. 

The refuge initiated a wild turkey restoration project in 1999 in cooperation with the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission. Currently, the turkey population is doing well with a number of 

sightings each year. Under all alternatives, the staff would monitor the turkey population and could 

expand the hunting program to include wild turkey. For each alternative, the staff would consider a 

conservative hunting program by permit only as a population management strategy, if the data show 

that hunting is in the best interest of maintaining a healthy population. 

The bear population on the refuge is at a high level and bears interfere with management activities. 

Virginia Tech is currently concluding a study to estimate the bear population. When the researchers 

provide the data to the refuge staff, they will decide how to best manage the bear population. For 

each alternative, the staff would consider a conservative hunting program by permit only as a 

population management strategy, if the data show that hunting is in the best interest of maintaining a 

healthy population. 

The staff would develop an integrated pest management plan under all alternatives. Whenever 

possible, all alternatives would use techniques other than pesticides to control pest species. 

However, the staff would use some quantity of pesticides on an as-needed basis. 

All alternatives would provide additional protection to wetlands beyond the protection afforded by existing 

wetland regulations. The three alternatives would also protect landscape characteristics, such as habitat 

connectivity, and would provide sufficient proprietary interest in properties to restore habitats for wildlife. 

Under all public use alternatives, the plan would concentrate the level of recreation use and groundbased disturbance from pedestrians on boardwalks, trails, and the refuge’s office and maintenance 

areas. However, the generally open road system allows liberal public access by vehicle, and this 

type of public use could still have a negative effect on some wildlife populations. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

The most critical issue on the refuge is the water quality of the streams, bays, and sounds 

surrounding it. Non-point source pollution has decreased the water quality over the years. 

Submerged aquatic vegetation has also decreased. The submerged aquatic vegetation provides 

food for waterfowl and habitat for fisheries resources. 

None of the alternatives in this plan affect the water quality from sources off the refuge. All the 

alternatives mandate the management of the refuge to minimize water pollution. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 167

All alternatives would have a neutral effect on soil formation processes on lands the refuge acquires 

by maintaining perennial natural vegetation on most of the refuge’s area. Some disturbances to 

surface soils and topography would occur at those locations selected for administrative and public 

use facilities, maintenance operations, and habitat management. 

All alternatives would positively affect the water quality in individual streams and wetlands due to a 

relatively low level of soil disturbance and fertilizer and pesticide application. Other positive effects 

would result from the protection of groundwater recharge areas, runoff prevention, sediment 

retention, and minimizing non-point source pollution. 

Each alternative would protect the aesthetic characteristics associated with natural habitats. The 

staff would carry out habitat management activities designed to improve forest composition and 

structure in such a way to minimize any short-term aesthetic effects. 

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 

Alternative 1 provides recreation opportunities for the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation). The North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission sets statewide hunting seasons and bag limits. The refuge 

permits hunting on the refuge during the entire state hunting season. The refuge provides 

opportunities for the other priority public uses with programs and facilities. The staff conducts 

planned environmental education programs and special refuge outreach events, and participates in 

major local outreach events. It also maintains 2 half-mile-long trails, 12 miles of paddling trails, and 

10 miles of wildlife drives. The refuge allows a few nonpriority, traditional public uses through special 

use permits. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation would increase. Under each 

alternative, the Service would open most of the newly acquired lands for public hunting, resulting in a 

net gain of public hunting opportunities in the area. Alternatives 2 and 3 would also stimulate 

ecotourism and potentially increase tourism expenditures in the surrounding local communities. 

Alternative 3 would provide substantially more opportunities for all public uses. The refuge would 

continue to allow a few nonpriority, traditional public uses through special use permits. 

All alternatives would allow public access by vehicle, foot, canoe, kayak, or bicycle to facilitate 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. The Service would close some areas seasonally, such as 

waterfowl resting and feeding areas, to all public entry to minimize disturbance to wintering waterfowl. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the Service would construct and staff a visitor center. The refuge staff 

would develop more education programs and tours. Alternative 3 would provide programs for slightly 

more visitors and student groups than Alternative 2. 

Visitor use management on refuges concentrates on the experience, not the number, of people 

coming into a refuge. The type and intensity of visitor activities would vary from one habitat to 

another depending on its size, habitat type(s), and wildlife uses. As the Service acquires more land 

and places it in the public trust, more opportunities for public access would become available. 
168 Environmental Assessment 

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The wildlife-dependent recreational activities described under Alternatives 2 and 3 (e.g., hunting, 

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

would increase visitation to the refuge and generate greater purchases of local goods and services in 

the economy of the surrounding communities. An estimated 53,000 refuge visits were reported in 

2000. 

Refuge visitation to support priority public uses would generally build over time as visitor service 

programs and facilities are developed, operational funds are provided, and refuge lands are acquired. 

Initially, much of the public use on the refuge is expected to come from local, county, and state 

residents, and tourists visiting the area for another purpose. An increase in the number of spring and 

fall tourists is predicted for hiking and wildlife observation and photography. Programs developed for 

school children would bring the children to the refuge and increase their knowledge of the refuge’s 

wildlife and habitats. The number of visitors would depend on the season and would grow as the 

refuge’s land base increases and more public use programs are provided. 

Many of the wildlife-dependent recreational activities offered have yet to be discovered by local 

citizens. As a generator of economic benefits, each alternative identifies hunting and wildlife 

observation as important tourist attractions. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, development of wildlifedependent recreation programs and facilities and improved publicity would lead to greater economic 

benefits from increased tourism. Alternative 2 would provide programming for 66,000 visitors; 

Alternative 3 would provide programming for 78,000 visitors. 

The current 53,000 visitors spend an estimated $5,300,000 on the area economy, assuming an 

expenditure of $100 per visitor day (Vogelsang 2001). The 66,000 visitors in Alternative 2 represent 

an increase to $6,600,000; the 78,000 visitors in Alternative 3 represent an increase to $7,800,000. 

Land acquisition within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary would decrease the gross 

property tax revenues of Dare and Hyde counties. However, there would be an increase in refuge 

revenue-sharing payments. Because the Service is a federal agency, it is not subject to state and 

local taxes. Under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service would make 

annual payments to the counties to offset the loss of property tax revenues. These annual refuge 

revenue-sharing payments for owned and acquired lands are computed on whichever of the following 

formulas is greatest: (1) three-fourths of 1 percent of the fair market value of the lands acquired in fee 

title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands acquired 

in fee title within the counties. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act also requires that Service lands be 

appraised every five years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. 

In 2004, Dare County received a revenue-sharing payment of $119,201 for 135,589 acres with an 

appraised value of $34,108,000 at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Hyde County received a 

revenue-sharing payment of $9,607 for 16,672 acres with an appraised value of $2,749,000 at 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. These amounts represent was only 47 percent of the 

amount due to each county under the Revenue Sharing Act. Congress did not appropriate sufficient 

funding to pay the full amount. If fully funded, the revenue-sharing program would have paid 

$255,810 to Dare County and $20,618 to Hyde County. 

The State of North Carolina recommends that counties tax undeveloped land based on the present 

use of the land. The state publishes a use-value manual based on the area of the state (Major Land 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 169

Resource Area or MLRA) and the soil series of the land. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is in 

the Tidewater area (MLRA 153B). 

In Dare County, the refuge has 3,000 acres of Class I soils in cropland; 17,024 acres of Class I soils 

in natural vegetation; 108,096 acres of Class V soils in natural vegetation; and 9,323 acres of Class 

VI soils in natural vegetation (Table 30). The Dare County tax rate is $.54 per $100 of assessed 

value. Dare County would have taxed $17,949,240 of assessed value $96,925, if the 138,197 acres 

($.70 per acre) of land were privately owned. The revenue-sharing payment was $119,201. 

In Hyde County, the refuge has 74 acres of Class I soils in natural vegetation; 12,707 acres of Class 

V soils in natural vegetation; and 819 acres of Class VI soils in natural vegetation (Table 30). The 

Hyde County tax rate is $.95 per $100 of assessed value. Hyde County would have taxed $827,740 

of assessed value $7,863, if the 13,998 acres ($.56 per acre) of land were privately owned. The 

revenue-sharing payment was $9,607. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS 

None of the alternatives would have a significantly negative effect on public health and safety. The 

only potential safety problems involve the possibility of boating accidents of visitors gaining access to 

the refuge by water; hiking and vehicular accidents occurring on the refuge’s roads and trails; and 

accidents occurring during the hunting season. As indicated below in the Mitigation Measures 

section, national wildlife refuges have used time and space zoning successfully to minimize the 

possibility of potential accidents and conflicts between hunters and other refuge user groups. 

REGULATORY EFFECTS 

As indicated in Chapter I, Background, of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section 

A), the Service must comply with a number of federal laws, administrative orders, and policies in 

the development and implementation of its management actions and programs. Among these 

mandates are the Endangered Species Act of 1973; the Clean Water Act of 1977; and compliance 

with Executive Orders 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and 11988 (Floodplain Management). The 

implementation of any of the alternatives described in this environmental assessment would not 

lead to a violation of these or other mandates. 

CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCE EFFECTS 

All alternatives afford additional land protection and low levels of development, thereby producing 

little negative effect on the refuge’s cultural and historic resources. Potentially negative effects could 

include logging and construction of new trails. In most cases, these management actions would 

require review by the Service’s Regional Cultural Resources Officer in consultation with the State of 

North Carolina’s Historic Preservation Office, as mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Therefore, the determination of whether a particular action within an alternative has 

the potential to affect cultural resources is an ongoing process that would occur during the planning 

stages of every project. 
170 Environmental Assessment 

Table 30. North Carolina present use value calculation 

Dare County 

Soil Acreage Class Value/Acre Total Value 

Hyde 3,000 I (Cropland) $1,200 $3,600,000

Cape Fear 1,661 I (Forest) $440 $730,840

Hyde 10,132 I (Forest) $440 $4,458,080

Roper 5,231 I (Forest) $440 $2,301,640

Baymeade 8 V (Forest) $60 $480

Belhaven 48,097 V (Forest) $60 $2,885,820

Ousley 19 V (Forest) $60 $1,140

Ponzer 3,448 V (Forest) $60 $206,880

Pungo 56,524 V (Forest) $60 $3,391,440

Currituck 3,845 VI (Unproductive) $40 $153,800

Hobonny 5,473 VI (Unproductive) $40 $218,920

Udorthents 5 VI (Unproductive) $40 $200

Total Land 137,443 

Water 754 

Total 138,197 $17,949,240

Hyde County 

Soil Acreage Class Value/Acre Total Value 

Acerdale 16 I (Forest) $440 $7,040

Roper 58 I (Forest) $440 $25,520

Belhaven 38 V (Forest) $60 $2,280

Dorovan 559 V (Forest) $60 $33,540

Ponzer 3,617 V (Forest) $60 $217,020

Pungo 5,745 V (Forest) $60 $344,700

Scuppernong 2,748 V (Forest) $60 $164,880

Udorthents 53 VI (Unproductive) $40 $2,120

Longshoal 766 VI (Unproductive) $40 $30,640

Water 398 No Class $0 $0

Total 13,998 $827,740
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 171

Service acquisition of land with known or potential archaeological or historical sites provides two 

major types of protection for these resources: protection from damage by federal activity, and 

protection from vandalism or theft. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that the State 

Historic Preservation Office review any actions by a federal agency that may affect archaeological or 

historical resources, and that the agency must avoid or mitigate identified effects. The Service’s 

policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust, and 

avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. 

Land acquisition by the Service would provide some degree of protection to important cultural and 

historic resources. If acquisition of private lands does not occur and these lands remain under private 

ownership, the landowner would be responsible for protecting and preserving cultural resources. 

Development of off-refuge lands has the potential to destroy archaeological artifacts and other 

historical resources, thereby decreasing opportunities for cultural resource interpretation and 

research. 

UNCERTAINTY OF FUTURE ACTION EFFECTS 

In general, one of the components of each alternative is the inventory and monitoring of the refuge’s 

fish and wildlife populations. Once this information is known, the Service would develop detailed 

step-down management plans to manage the fish and wildlife populations on the refuge, based on 

the application of sound fish and wildlife management principles and concepts. The specific content 

of the step-down management plans would provide the basis for further analysis of environmental 

effects. The alternatives described in this plan present sufficient information to assess the full 

potential of the environmental effects of plans to be developed in the future. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects on the environment result from incremental effects of a proposed action when these 

are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. While cumulative effects 

may result from individually minor actions, they may, when viewed as a whole, become significant over 

time. 

The implementation of any of the three alternatives described in this document includes actions 

relating to site development; fish and wildlife habitat and population management; land acquisition; 

and recreational use programs. These actions would have both direct and indirect affects (e.g., site 

development would result in increased public use, thus increasing littering, noise, and vehicular 

traffic); however, the cumulative effects of these actions over the 15-year planning period are not 

expected to be significant. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

Described below are the measures used to mitigate and minimize the potential adverse effects. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCES 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The refuge staff has carefully planned all of the proposed alternative’s public 

use activities to avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 
172 Environmental Assessment 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated level of disturbance of the proposed alternative 

(Alternative 2) is not considered significant and is well within the tolerance level of known wildlife 

species and populations present in the area. Implementation of the proposed public use program 

would take place through carefully controlled time and space zoning, including the management of 

waterfowl rest areas; establishment of protection zones around key sites such as rookeries and eagle 

nests; and the routing of roads and trails to avoid contact with sensitive areas such as rookery 

habitats, etc. In addition, the refuge would conduct all public hunting activities (e.g., season lengths, 

bag limits, number of hunters) within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific 

regulations established to restrict illegal or nonconforming activities. Providing fishing opportunities 

would allow the use of a renewable natural resource without adversely impacting other resources. 

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission sets the inland fishing seasons and bag and 

creel limits enforced on the refuge. Refuge hunts are held within the seasons set by the North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 

General wildlife observation/photography activities may result in minimal disturbances to wildlife. If 

visitors venture too close to foraging land birds, waterfowl, wading birds, or other wildlife, disruption of 

foraging or resting activities could result in more severe disturbances. To mitigate these potential 

disturbances, the Service would design and construct all visitor trails and observation points with a 

buffer around key wildlife forage and resting areas. The staff would educate the visitors through signs 

and brochures to avoid disturbing wildlife. Also, the Service may close any area on the refuge to the 

public if disturbance becomes excessive. 

Temporary initial disturbances to wildlife and habitat would occur during the construction of new 

facilities such as trails, wildlife observation platforms, photo blinds, and interpretive sites. 

However, once the construction of such facilities is completed, the experience gained by the 

public would offset these disturbances. Allowing these non-consumptive recreational 

opportunities on the refuge will help to maintain and build public support for the refuge and the 

Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear ecosystem. 

The Service would monitor the impacts of activities through wildlife inventories and assessments of 

public use levels and activities. The staff would adjust public use programs as needed to limit 

disturbance to acceptable levels. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use levels expand across time, unanticipated conflicts between user groups may occur. 

The staff would adjust the refuge’s public use programs as needed to eliminate or minimize each 

problem and provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven 

that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions 

on the number of users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed action would not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. This plan 

allows essential access to private property through the issuance of special use permits. Future land 

acquisitions would occur on a willing-seller basis only and at fair market values. In addition, under 

the proposed alternative in the draft plan, the staff would conduct water quality sampling and 

monitoring activities to document current conditions and seek to improve the water quality, if 

necessary. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 173

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 

Land acquisition within the approved acquisition boundary would result in changes in land and 

recreational use patterns, since all uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility 

standards. Land ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the 

private sector on these lands. The land within the approved acquisition boundary is subject to 

regulation under the Clean Water Act that would limit development of the land for residential, 

commercial, industrial, or agricultural use. 

Potential development of access roads, buildings, trails, water control structures, visitor parking areas 

and other improvements could lead to minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soils, and some 

wildlife species. When the refuge proposes site development activities, each activity would receive the 

appropriate National Environmental Policy Act consideration during pre-construction planning. At that 

time, the staff would incorporate any required mitigation activities, if necessary, into the specific project to 

reduce the level of impacts to the human environment and to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to additional littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. The Service would minimize 

these indirect effects of increased activity in public use programs. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Table 31 compares the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1, the existing condition. 
174 Environmental Assessment 

Table 31. Comparison of the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1 

Area of Concern Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3 

EFFECT ON BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Wildlife

Fish Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Invertebrate Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Land Bird Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Mammal Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Reptile and Amphibian Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Shorebird Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Wading Bird Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Waterfowl Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Wildlife Habitat

Freshwater Pool, Pond, and Lake 

Condition 

No Difference No Difference 

Brackish Marsh No Difference No Difference 

Managed Wetlands No Difference No Difference 

High Pocosin Condition No Difference Slight Improvement 

Low Pocosin Condition No Difference Slight Improvement 

Pond Pine Shrub Pocosin 

Condition 

Slight Improvement Slight Improvement 

Pond Pine Cane Pocosin Condition Slight Improvement Slight Improvement 

Cypress-Gum Swamp Condition No Difference Slight Improvement 

Non-alluvial Hardwood Forest 

Condition 

No Difference Slight Improvement 

Peatland Atlantic White Cedar 

Forest Condition 

Slight Improvement Slight Improvement 

Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 

Condition 

Slight Improvement Slight Improvement 

Cropland Condition No Difference No Difference 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Condition 

No Difference No Difference 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 175

Area of Concern Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3 

Resource Protection 

Refuge Regulation Compliance Slight Improvement Slight Improvement 

Permit Condition Compliance Slight Improvement Slight Improvement 

Pest Animal Populations Slight Improvement Slight Improvement 

Pest Plant Populations Moderate Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Water Quality No Difference No Difference 

Natural Heritage Area Condition No Difference No Difference 

Wilderness Study Areas No Difference Recommend for Wilderness 

Designation 

Wildlife Disease Level No Difference No Difference 

EFFECT ON SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Public Use

Hunting Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Fishing Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Environmental Education Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Interpretation Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Wildlife Observation Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Wildlife Photography Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Outreach Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Resource Protection

Cultural Resources No Difference No Difference 

EFFECT ON ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Local Expenditures Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Local Property Taxes Slight Decrease Slight Decrease 
176 Environmental Assessment 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 177

V. Consultation and Coordination 

The Service formed a planning core team composed of representatives from various Service 

divisions to prepare the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The members of this planning core team are identified in 

Table 32. Initially, the team focused on identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to refuge 

management. The team met on several occasions from December 2000 to June 2002. 

In addition, a biological review team met on the refuges in the ecosystem four times between 

December 1999 and December 2000 to assess the habitats on the refuges and the needs of wildlife 

species in the ecosystem, and make recommendations on land management and acquisition needs. 

Table 33 lists the members of this biological review team. 

Throughout the planning process, the core team also sought the contributions of experts from various 

fields (Table 34). 

To expand the range of issues and to generate potential alternatives, the planning core team met in 

January 2001. Shortly thereafter, the team held a series of public scoping meetings on February 15, 

16, 20, 22, and 23 in Washington, Swan Quarter, Plymouth, Columbia, and Manns Harbor, North 

Carolina, to gain the insights of local citizens and their perceptions of the issues and concerns facing 

the refuge. 

The issues and alternatives generated from these public scoping meetings, coupled with the input of the 

planning team, are summarized in Chapters I and III of this environmental assessment. After the team 

developed the alternatives, it held a second-round public meeting on April 26, 2005, to solicit public 

reaction to the alternatives. The team then selected Alternative 2 as the proposed alternative. 

Table 32: Core planning team members 

Member Affiliation 

Mike Bryant, Refuge Manager 

Kathy Whaley, Former Deputy Manager 

Jim Wigginton, Assistant Manager 

Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Biologist 

Tom Crews, Fire Management Officer 

Bonnie Strawser, Park Ranger 

Ann Marie Salewski, Park Ranger

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Robert Glennon, Natural Resource Planner 

David Brown, Former Habitat Protection Biologist 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 
178 Environmental Assessment 

Table 33. Biological review team members 

Member Affiliation 

Bob Noffsinger, Former Supervisory Wildlife 

Management Biologist 

Migratory Bird Field Office 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Frank Bowers, Former Migratory Bird Coordinator Southeast Regional Office 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Chuck Hunter, Former Nongame Migratory Bird 

Coordinator 

Southeast Regional Office 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Ronnie Smith, Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Assistance Office 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

John Stanton, Former Wildlife Biologist Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Swan Quarter, North Carolina 

Wendy Stanton, Wildlife Biologist Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Columbia, North Carolina 

Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Biologist Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Ralph Keel, Former Wildlife Biologist Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Suffolk, Virginia 

John Gallegos, Wildlife Biologist Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

David Allen, Nongame Wildlife Biologist North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission 

New Bern, North Carolina 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 179

Table 34. Expert contributors to the draft comprehensive conservation plan and their area(s) 

of expertise 

Name Field of Expertise 

Bill Grabill, Former Refuge Supervisor 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Refuge Management 

Rufus Croom, District Conservationist 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Plymouth, North Carolina 

Soil and Water Conservation 

Federal Land Conservation Programs 

John Gagnon, Soil Scientist 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

Soil Science 

Kevin Moody, NEPA Specialist 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

National Environmental Policy Act 

John Ann Shearer, Private Lands Biologist 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

Wetland Management, 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

Richard Kanaski, Regional Archeologist 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Savannah, Georgia 

Cultural Resources 
180 Environmental Assessment 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 181

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

Appendix I. Glossary 

Adaptive Management A process in which projects are implemented within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions outlined within the comprehensive conservation 

plan. The analysis of the outcome of project implementation 

helps managers determine whether current management should 

continue as is or whether it should be modified to achieve 

desired conditions. 

Alternative Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge 

purposes, goals, and objectives and contributing to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. A reasonable way to fix the identified 

problem or satisfy the stated need. 

Approved Acquisition Boundary A project boundary that the Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service approves upon completion of the detailed planning and 

environmental compliance process. 

Biological Diversity The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of

living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the 

communities and ecosystems in which they occur. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes.

Biological Integrity The biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, 

organism, and community levels comparable with historic 

conditions including the natural biological processes that shape 

genomes, organisms, and communities. 

Canopy A layer of foliage; generally the upper-most layer, in a forest 

stand. It can be used to refer to mid- or under-story vegetation 

in multi-layered stands. Canopy closure is an estimate of the 

amount of overhead tree cover (also canopy cover). 

Categorical Exclusion A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human environment and have 

been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a 

federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 
182 Appendices 

Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge 

Manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the 

fulfillment of the mission or the purposes of the refuge. A 

compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible 

uses and identifies stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan A document that describes the desired future conditions of the 

refuge; provides long-range guidance and management 

direction for the Refuge Manager to accomplish the purposes, 

goals, and objectives of the refuge; and contributes to the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and meets 

relevant mandates. 

Conservation Easement A legal document that provides specific land-use rights to a 

secondary party. A perpetual conservation easement usually 

grants conservation and management rights to a party in 

perpetuity. 

Cooperative Agreement A simple habitat protection agreement in which no property 

rights are acquired. An agreement is usually long term and can 

be modified by either party. Lands under a cooperative 

agreement do not necessarily become part of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Corridor A route that allows movement of individuals from one region or 

place to another. 

Cover Type The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resources The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people of 

the past. 

Cypress and Tupelo Swamp Found in low-lying areas, swales and open ponds that hold 

water several months, if not all of the year. Large hollow trees 

are used as bear den sites. 

Deciduous Pertaining to perennial plants that are leafless for sometime 

during the year. 

Ecological Succession The orderly progression of an area through time in the absence 

of disturbance from one vegetative community to another. 

Ecosystem A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal 

communities and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem Management Management of natural resources using systemwide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained 

at viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem 

processes are perpetuated indefinitely. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 183

Environmental Health The composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, 

and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, 

including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment. 

Even-aged Forests Forests that are composed of trees with a time span of less than 

20 years between oldest and youngest individuals. 

Endangered Species A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Endemic Species Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and 

whose distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environmental Assessment A concise document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and 

need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether 

to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no 

significant impact. 

Fauna All the vertebrate or invertebrate animals of an area. 

Federal Trust Species All species where the federal government has primary 

jurisdiction including federally threatened or endangered 

species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine 

mammals. 

Fee-title The acquisition of most or all of the rights to a tract of land. 

There is a total transfer of property rights with the formal 

conveyance of a title. While a fee title acquisition involves most 

rights to a property, certain rights may be reserved or not 

purchased, including water rights, mineral rights, or use 

reservation (the ability to continue using the land for a specified 

time period, or the reminder of the owner’s life). 

Finding of No Significant Impact A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental 

assessment, which briefly presents why a federal action will 

have no significant effect on the human environment and for 

which an environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be 

prepared. 
184 Appendices 

Floodplain Woods Bottomland hardwood forests. Consists of hardwoods (oldgrowth and midsuccession-aged timber) and cypress tupelo 

stands found on low ridges that drain slowly and subject to 

flooding. Species include overcup, willow, and water oaks, 

sweetgum, and green ash. Old-growth typically exceeds 120 

years of age. Red oaks were removed in the 1940s. 

Midsuccession-aged timber is logged timber that may need 

restoration to improve wildlife habitat; missing several key oak 

species. 

Fragmentation The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat 

patches. The disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and 

small patches. 

Goal Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired 

future conditions that convey a purpose but does not define 

measurable units. 

Geographic Information System A computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data. 

Ground Story (flora) Vascular plants less than one meter in height, excluding tree 

seedlings. 

Herbaceous Wetland Annually or seasonally inundated with vegetation consisting 

primarily of grasses, sedges, rushes, and cattail. 

Historic Conditions The composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems 

resulting from natural processes that we believe, based on 

sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial 

human-related changes to the landscape. 

Habitat The place where an organism lives. The existing environmental 

conditions required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. 

Indicator Species A species of plant or animal that is assumed to be sensitive to 

habitat changes and represents the needs of a larger group of 

species. 

Inholding Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national wildlife 

refuge. 

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. 

Migratory The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Monitoring The process of collecting information to track changes of 

selected parameters over time. 

National Environmental Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 185

Policy Act environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the 

planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate this Act with other planning requirements, and 

prepare appropriate policy documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision-making.

National Wildlife Refuge A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction, all lands, waters, and interests 

therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl 

production areas. 

Native Species Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird A bird species that breeds north of the United States/Mexican 

border and winters primarily south of that border. 

Objective A concise quantitative (where possible) target statement of what 

will be achieved. Objectives are derived from goals and provide 

the basis for determining management strategies. Objectives 

should be attainable and time-specific. 

Planning Area A planning area may include lands outside existing planning unit 

boundaries that are being studied for inclusion in the unit and/or 

partnership planning efforts. It may also include watersheds or 

ecosystems that affect the planning area. 

Planning Team A planning team prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and 

function. A team generally consists of the a planning team 

leader; refuge manager and staff biologists; staff specialists or 

other representatives of Service programs, ecosystems or 

regional offices; and state partnering wildlife agencies as 

appropriate. 

Preferred Alternative The alternative determined by the decision-maker to best 

achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

Refuge System mission; addresses the significant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. 

Refuge Operating Needs System A national database that contains the unfunded operational 

needs of each refuge. Projects included are those required to 

implement approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal 

mandates. 
186 Appendices 

Refuge Purposes The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation 

document, or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge 

subunit. 

Seral Forest A forest in the mature stage of development, usually dominated 

by large, old trees. 

Sink A habitat in which local mortality exceeds local reproductive 

success for a given species. 

Sink Population A population in a low-quality habitat in which the birth rate is 

generally less than the death rate and the population density is 

maintained by immigrants from source populations. 

Source A habitat in which local reproductive success exceeds local 

mortality for a given species. 

Source Population A population in a high-quality habitat in which birth rate greatly 

exceeds death rate and the excess individuals leave as 

migrants. 

Step-down Management Plans Step-down management plans provide the details necessary to 

implement management strategies and projects identified in the 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Strategy A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, 

tools, and techniques used to meet unit objectives. 

Threatened Species Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely 

to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of their range. 

Trust Species Species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has primary 

responsibility, including most federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, anadromous fish once they enter the 

inland coastal waterways, and migratory birds. 

Understory Any vegetation with canopy below or closer to the ground than 

canopies of other plants. 

Wildlife Corridor A landscape feature that facilitates the biologically effective 

transport of animals between larger patches of habitat dedicated 

to conservation functions. Such corridors may facilitate several 

kinds of traffic, including frequent foraging movement, seasonal 

migration, or the once-in-a-lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. 

These are transition habitats and need not contain all habitat 

elements required by migrants for long-term survival or 

reproduction. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 187

Wildlife-dependent Recreation A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are the six priority 

general public uses of the System. 
188 Appendices 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 189

Appendix II. References and Literature Cited 

Allen, C., M. Corcoran, L. McDade, J. Travis and D. Wheeler. 1979. An ecological survey of 

selected inland Dare County sites, with evaluation for conservation potential. Unpublished 

report. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 

Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 53 pp. 

Allen, T. G. 1998. Black Bear Population Dynamics and Habitat Use in Coastal North Carolina. MS 

Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 131 pp. 

Ash, A., C. McDonald, E. Kane and C. Pories. 1983. Natural and Modified Pocosins: Literature 

Synthesis and Management Options. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Biological Services. FWS/OBS/04. 165 pp. 

Baker, W. and W. Smith. 1965. Survey and Classification of the Scuppernong-Alligator Rivers and 

Tributaries, North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland 

Fisheries. 15 pp + tables and appendices. 

Barick, F. B. and T. S. Critcher. 1975. Wildlife and Land Use Planning with Particular Reference to 

Coastal Counties. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, North Carolina. 168 

pp. 

Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Stackhole Books, Harrisburg, 

Pensylvania. 544 pp. 

Braswell, A. L. and J. E. Wiley. 1982. Preliminary survey of the amphibians and reptiles of First 

Colony Firm's land on mainland Dare County. Pages 62–95 in E. Potter, ed., A Survey of the 

Vertebrate Fauna of Mainland Dare County, North Carolina. North Carolina Biological Survey, 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 190 pp. 

Clark, M. K., D. S. Lee, and J. B. Funderburg, Jr. 1985. The mammal fauna of Carolina bays, 

pocosins, and associated communities in North Carolina. Brimleyana No. 11:1-38. 

Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services 

FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. 

Davidson, W. R. 1992. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Deer Herd Health Check. 

Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Athens, Georgia. 

Davidson, W. R. 1998. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Deer Herd Health Check. 

Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Athens, Georgia. 

Eubanks, T., P. Kerlinger and R. H. Payne. 1993. High Island, Texas: A case study in avitourism. 

Birding 25(6):415-420). 

Eubanks, Ted and John Stoll. 1999. Avitourism in Texas: Two Studies of Birders in Texas and their 

Potential Support for the Proposed World Birding Center. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Contract 

No. 44467. 
190 Appendices 

Folta, J. E. 1998. Reproduction, Survival, and Denning Ecology of Black Bears on the Dare County 

Peninsula, North Carolina. MS Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 120 pp. 

Frayer, W. E., T. J. Monahan, D. C. Bowen and F. A. Graybill. 1983. Status and Trends of Wetlands 

and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States: 1950s to 1970s. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 32 pp. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1988. Waterfowl Use of Forested Wetlands of the Southern 

United States: An Overview. Pages 307-323 in M.W. Weller, editor. Waterfowl in Winter. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Halls, L. K. 1984. White-tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. 870 pp. 

Halls, L. K. and T. H. Ripley. 1961. Deer Browse Plants of Southern Forests. U.S. Forest Service, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 78 pp. 

Hamel, P. B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Hamilton, R. J. 1978. Ecology of the Black Bear in Southeastern North Carolina. MS Thesis, 

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 

Hamilton, R. J. and L. Marchinton. 1977. Denning and related activities of black bears in the coastal 

plain of North Carolina. Pages 121–126 in Bears: Their Biology and Management. Bear 

Biology Association Conference Series No. 3, Kalispell, Montana. 

Hardy, D. M. 1974. Habitat Requirements of the Black Bear in Dare County, North Carolina. MS 

Thesis, Virginia Technical Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 121 pp. 

Hefner, J. H. and J. D. Brown. 1984. Wetland trends in the southeastern United States. Wetlands 4:1-

11. 

Hester, J., Jr. and B. Copeland. 1975. Nekton Population Dynamics in the Albemarle Sound and Neuse 

River Estuaries. University of North Carolina Sea Grant College, Raleigh, North Carolina. UNCSG-5-02. 129 pp. 

Hunter, W. C., D. N. Pashley and R. E. F. Escano. 1992. Neotropical migratory land bird species 

and their habitats of special concern within the Southeast region. Pages 159–169 in D. M. 

Finch and P. W. Stangel, eds., Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. 

Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-229, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Hunter, W. C., L. H. Peoples and J. A. Collazo. 2001. South Atlantic Coastal Plain Partners in Flight 

Bird Conservation Plan. Partners in Flight, www.partnersinflight.org. 

Johnson, H., S. Winslow, D. Crocker, B. Holland, Jr., J. Gillikin and D. Taylor. 1980. Biology and 

Management of Mid-Atlantic Anadromous Fishes under Extended Jurisdiction. Special 

Science Report 36. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community 

Development, Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City. 204 pp. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 191

Kerlinger, P. 1994. The Economic Impact of Birding Ecotourism on Communities Surrounding Eight 

National Wildlife Refuges. Washington, DC: National Fish and Wildlife Association. 

Kerlinger, P. 1999. Birding Tourism and Dauphin Island. 

Landers, J. L., R. J. Hamilton, A. S. Johnson, and R. L. Marchinton. 1979. Foods and habitat of 

black bears in southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(l): 143-153. 

Lee, D. S., M. K. Clark, and J. B. Funderburg Jr. 1982. A preliminary survey of the mammals of 

mainland Dare County, North Carolina. Pages 20-61 In E. F. Potter, ed., A Survey of the 

Vertebrate Fauna of Mainland Dare County, North Carolina. North Carolina Biological Survey, 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Mathis, M. A. and J. J. Crow. 2000. The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological 

Symposium. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Division of Archives and History. 

McDonald, C. B., A. N. Ash and E. S. Kane. 1983. Pocosins: A Changing Wetland Resource. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Survey 

FWS/OBS-83/32. 22 pp. 

Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New 

York, New York. 722 pp. 

Monschein, T. 1981. Values of pocosins to game and fish species in North Carolina. Pages 155–

170 in C. Richardson, ed., Pocosin Wetlands. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, 

Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. 

National Audubon Society. 1998. Campaign on HR 3267. National Audubon Society, New York, 

New York. 

Nettles, V. V. 1985. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Deer Herd Health Check. Southeastern 

Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Athens, Georgia. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Wildlife-associated Recreation on the 

New Jersey Delaware Bayshore. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, New 

Jersey. 

Noffsinger, R. E., R. W. Laney, A. M. Nichols, D. L. Stewart and D. W. Steffeck. 1984. Prulean 

Farms, Inc.: A Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 200 

pp. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2002. Largest Employers by County. 

www.ncesc.com. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2004. Unemployment Rates by County. 

www.ncesc.com. 

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 2001. North Carolina Coastal Plain Paddle Trails 

Guide. North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Seven Springs, North Carolina. 
192 Appendices 

North Carolina State University. 1974. Status of Black Bear in North Carolina (Research) Habitat 

Suitability for Black Bear, Annual Job Progress Report. Project W-56-2-VI-C. 

Peacock, S. L. and J. M. Lynch. 1982. Natural Areas Inventory of Mainland Dare County, North 

Carolina. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Office of 

Coastal Management CEIP Report No. 27. 

Potter, E. F. 1982a. Wintering and breeding birds of pocosins and adjacent agricultural fields in Dare 

County, North Carolina. Pages 96–190 in E. Potter, ed., A Survey of the Vertebrate Fauna of 

Mainland Dare County, North Carolina. North Carolina Biological Survey, Raleigh, North 

Carolina. 190 pp. 

Potter, E. F., ed. 1982b. A Survey of the Vertebrate Fauna of Mainland Dare County, North 

Carolina. North Carolina Biological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina. 190 pp. 

Riggs, S. R. and D. K. Belknap. 1988. Upper Cenozoic processes and environments of continental 

margin sedimentation: eastern United States. Pages 131–176 in R. E. Sheridan and J. A. 

Graw, eds., The Geology of North America, Volumes 1-2, the Atlantic Continental Margin. 

U.S. Geological Society of America. 

Robison, T. M. 1977. Public Water Supplies of North Carolina, Northern Coastal Plain. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. pp. 49-50. 

Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakely. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: 

Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp. 

Sharitz, R. and J. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosins) and Carolina 

Bays: A Community Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/ OBS-82/04. 93 pp. 

Tetterton, B. and G. Tetterton. 1998. North Carolina County Fact Book. Vols. I and II. Broadfoot’s 

of Wendell, Wendell, North Carolina. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Prulean Farms, Inc., 

Dare County. September 1982. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, 

Regulatory Functions Branch, Wilmington, North Carolina. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 1997. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Forest Statistics for the Northern Coastal 

Plain of North Carolina, 2000. Resource Bulletin SRS-83. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Soil Survey of Hyde 

County, North Carolina. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric Soils of the State of North 

Carolina, 1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with 

the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington, DC. Unpaginated. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 193

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Soil Survey of Dare County, North 

Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000a. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General 

Profile: Dare County, North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000b. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General 

Profile, Hyde County, North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997a. Economic Census, Dare County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997b. Economic Census, Hyde County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000a. Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program, 2000: Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimates for Dare County, 

North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000b. Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program, 2000: Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimates for Hyde County, 

North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Nature-based Tourism. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Significant Wildlife Resource Areas of North Carolina. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Area Office, Asheville, North Carolina. 139 pp. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-associated 

Recreation. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation - North Carolina. Washington, DC. 

Vogelsang, Hans. 2001. Assessing the Economic Impact of Ecotourism Developments on the 

Albemarle/Pamlico Region. Greenville, North Carolina: East Carolina University, Department 

of Recreation and Leisure Studies. 

Watts, B. D. and B. J. Paxton. 2002. Investigating the Distribution, Population Status, and Habitat 

Requirements of the Wayne’s Black-throated Green Warbler in the Northern South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-02-08. 

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 21 pp. 
194 Appendices 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 195

Appendix III. Relevant Legal Mandates 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM AUTHORITIES 

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation’s fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the 

primary federal agency responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain 

marine mammals, and anadromous fish. This responsibility to conserve our Nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources is shared with other federal agencies and state and tribal governments. 

As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System. This system 

is the only nationwide system of federal land managed and protected for wildlife and their habitats. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

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

generations of Americans. 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is managed as part of this system in accordance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Executive Order 12996 

(Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and other relevant 

legislation, Executive Orders, regulations, and policies. 

KEY LEGISLATION/POLICIES FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

The Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes and 

illustrates management area projects with standards and guidelines for future decision-making and 

the staff may adjust them through monitoring and evaluation, as well as amendment and revision. 

The plan approval establishes conservation and land protection goals, objectives, and specific 

strategies for the refuge and its expansion. The Refuge Manager has identified and approved 

compatible recreation uses specific to the refuge. This plan provides for systematic stepping down 

from the overall direction as outlined when making project or activity level decisions. This level 

involves site-specific analysis (e.g., Forest Habitat Management Plan) to meet National 

Environmental Policy Act requirements for decision-making. 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, federal or non-federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, 

rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting. 
196 Appendices 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are 

compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the 

uses. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal 

land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several 

authorities. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee. (Refuge 

Administration Act): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to permit any use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for 

which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission 

for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography and environmental education and 

interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; established the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires 

a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of 

the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and 

facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of 

any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires that programmatic and physical accessibility be made available 

in any facility funded by the Federal Government, ensuring that anyone can participate in any 

program. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major 

wetland modifications. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by the flood plain. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): The purpose of the Act is to promote the 

conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the 

acquisition of wetlands and other essential habitat, and for other purposes. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 197

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control 

or contain undesirable plant species; and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other 

federal and state agencies. 

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and 

services. 

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. It also presents four principles to guide management of the system. 

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986: This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from 

Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. The 

Act also requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation 

Plan, requires the states to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund an amount equal to import duties on arms and 

ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended: Public Law 

93-205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

December 5,1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 act amended the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). The 1973 Endangered Species Act 

provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, 

wildlife, and plants depend, both through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of 

state programs. The Act authorizes the determination and listing of species as threatened and 

endangered; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; 

provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for threatened and endangered wildlife 

and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or 

regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest 

and conviction of anyone violating the Act and any regulation issued there under. 

 

Environmental Education Act of 1990(20 USC 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law 101-619, 

signed November 16,1990, established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a federal environmental education 

program. Responsibilities of the Office include developing and supporting programs to improve 

understanding of the natural and developed environment, and the relationships between humans and 

their environment; supporting the dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education seminars; managing a federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. The Office is required to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
198 Appendices 

Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management: The purpose of this Executive Order, signed 

May 24, 1977, is to prevent federal agencies from contributing to the adverse impacts associated with 

occupancy and modification of floodplains and the direct or indirect support of flood plain 

development. In the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies shall take action 

to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, 

and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978: This act was passed to improve the administration of 

fish and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on 

behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and 

appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

Antiquities Act (16 USC 431 - 433)--The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225): This act authorizes 

the President of the United States to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interests on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act required that a permit 

be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering of objects 

of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and 

provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 47011)-- Public Law 96-95, 

approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721): This act largely supplanted the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological items. It established detailed requirements for 

issuance of permits for any excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from Federal and 

Indian lands. It also established civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, 

or damage of any such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal and 

Indian lands in violation of any provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in 

such resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold value of 

artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act from $5,000 to $500, made attempting to commit 

an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the land managing agencies to establish 

public awareness programs regarding the value of archaeological resources to the nation. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c)--Public Law 86-523, 

approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220), and amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 24, 

1974, (88 Stat. 174): This act directed federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior 

whenever a federal, federally assisted, or licensed or permitted project may cause loss or destruction 

of significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeologic data. The Act authorized use of appropriated, 

donated and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection and preservation of such data. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467)--The Act of August 

21,1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 

89-249, approved October 9,1965, (79 Stat. 971): This act declared it a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection of such sites. Among other 

things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of this Act. As of 

January, 1989, thirty-one national wildlife refuges contained such sites. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 199

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n)--Public Law 89-665, 

approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended: This act provided for 

preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid 

program to the states. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of 

matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent 

independent agency in Public Law 94-422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). That Act also 

created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places. As 

of January 1989, ninety-one such sites on national wildlife refuges are listed in this Register. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1948: This act provides funding through receipts from 

the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer continental 

shelf, and other sources of land acquisition under several authorities. Appropriations from the fund 

may be used for matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by 

various federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), as 

amended: The Duck Stamp Act, of March 16, 1934, requires each waterfowl hunter, 16 years of age 

or older, to possess a valid federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited 

in a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to 

appropriations. 

National and Community Service Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 12401:104 Stat. 3127), Public Law 101-

610, signed November 16,1990: This act authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the 

United States in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job 

skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. Several provisions are of particular 

interest to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps: A federal grant program established under 

Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults between the ages of 16-25, or 

in the case of summer programs, 15-21, to engage in approved human and natural resources 

projects which benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. To be eligible for 

assistance, natural resource programs must focus on improvement of wildlife habitat and recreational 

areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands protection, pollution control and similar 

projects. A stipend of not more than 100 percent of the poverty level will be paid to participants. A 

Commission established to administer the Youth Service Corps will make grants to States, the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 

83 Stat. 852) as amended by Public Law 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and Public Law 94-83, 

August 9,1975, 89 Stat. 424): Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act requires that 

all federal agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for every recommendation 

or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in 

environmental impact statements, and required that federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary 

approach in related decision-making and develop means to ensure that unquantified 

environmental values are given appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical 
200 Appendices 

considerations. Title II of this statute requires annual reports on environmental quality from the 

President to the Congress, and established a Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive 

Office of the President with specific duties and functions. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Public Law 105-57, amended the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), and provided guidance for 

management and public use of the Refuge System. The Act mandates that the Refuge System be 

consistently directed and managed as a national system of lands and waters devoted to wildlife 

conservation and management. The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses of the Refuge 

System. Six wildlife-dependent uses are specifically named in the Act: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These activities 

are to be promoted on the Refuge System, while all non-wildlife-dependent uses are subject to 

compatibility determinations. A compatible use is one that, in the sound professional judgment of the 

Refuge Manger, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, fulfillment of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Mission or refuge purpose(s). As stated in the Act, The mission of the system is to 

administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. The Act also requires 

development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge and that management be 

consistent with the plan. When writing a plan for expanded or new refuges, and when making 

management decisions, the Act requires effective coordination with other federal agencies, state fish 

and wildlife or conservation agencies, and refuge neighbors. A refuge must also provide 

opportunities for public involvement when making a compatibility determination. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 44O1~4412) Public Law 

101-233, enacted December 13, 1989: This act provides funding and administrative direction for 

implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on 

Wetlands between Canada, the United States and Mexico. The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson 

account into a trust fund, with the interest available without appropriation through the year 2006, to 

carry out the programs authorized by the Act, along with an authorization for annual appropriation of 

$15 million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States’ share of the cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of 

projects on federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds received are 

to go to Canada and Mexico each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1952: This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not 

interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development 

or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s): Section 401 of the Act of June 15,1935, (49 Stat. 

383) provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. Public Law 88-523, approved August 30,1964, (78 Stat. 701) made major 

revisions by requiring that all revenues received from refuge products, such as animals, timber 

and minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be deposited in a special Treasury account and 

net receipts distributed to counties for public schools and roads. Public Law 93-509, approved 

December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys remaining in the fund after payments be 

transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition under provisions of the 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 201

Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) 

expanded the revenue sharing system to include National Fish Hatcheries and Service research 

stations. It also included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid 

carcasses. Payments to counties were established as follows: on acquired land, the greatest 

amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the appraised 

value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced from the land; and on land withdrawn from the 

public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 

U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662). This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up 

any difference between the amount in the fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any 

year. The stipulation that payments be used for schools and roads was removed, but counties 

were required to pass payments along to other units of local government within the county that 

suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of Service areas. 

Wilderness Act of 1954: Public Law 88-577, approved September 3,1964, directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. 
202 Appendices 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 203

Appendix IV. Public Involvement 

The Service invited agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in a series of 

public scoping meetings held on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001, in Washington, Swan 

Quarter, Plymouth, Columbia, and Manns Harbor, North Carolina. The staff introduced the audience 

of 176 citizens to the refuge and its planning process and asked them to identify their issues and 

concerns. The Service published announcements giving the locations, dates, and times for these 

public meetings in the Federal Register and legal notices in local newspapers. The Service also sent 

press releases to local newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio 

stations. Service personnel placed 50 posters announcing the meeting in local post offices, local 

government buildings, and stores. 

The planning team expanded the issues and concerns to include those generated by the agencies, 

organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. These issues and concerns 

formed the basis for the development and comparison of the objectives in the different alternatives 

described in this environmental assessment. 

The objectives were subjects of discussion at a second-round public meeting held on April 26, 

2005, in Manns Harbor, North Carolina. The Service published announcements giving the 

location, date, and time for the public meeting as legal notices in local newspapers. In addition, 

press releases were sent to local newspapers and public service announcements to television 

and radio stations. Service personnel placed 75 posters announcing the meeting in local post 

offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The issues raised at the meetings are summarized in the next few pages, followed by worksheets 

that were completed by the participants at each workshop. 
204 Appendices 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Scoping Meetings 

February 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 2001 

Area of 

Concern 

Issue Disposition 

Wildlife-General Continue surveys. In plan. 

Conduct surveys. In plan. 

Consider wildlife first. In plan. 

Consider non-game species in 

management. 

In plan. 

Share data with other agencies. In plan. 

Discuss plant and wildlife species 

occurring on the refuge and focus on 

federally listed species and statelisted and sensitive species that may 

be of management concern 

In plan. 

Increase study and protection of 

reptiles, amphibians, and 

invertebrates (inventory). 

In alternative 3. 

Describe life histories of species 

occurring on the refuge. 

Not practical to include in plan. 

Wildlife-Fish Evaluate water management impacts 

to fish and wildlife on each refuge. 

Dependent on willingness of partners to 

conduct research. 

WildlifeInvertebrates Evaluate food chain impacts of fire 

ants on other species. 

Dependent on willingness of partners to 

conduct research. 

Control bear populations. Currently conducting population survey. 

Results may justify hunting for bear. 

Develop beaver management 

guidance. 

Specific guidance will be in the 

nuisance animal step-down plan. 

WildlifeMammals 

Study deer population carrying 

capacities and determine whether 

hunting needs to be increased. 

In alternative 3. 

Increase study and protection of 

plants (inventory). 

Protection in all alternatives, inventory 

in alternatives 2 and 3. 

Habitat-General 

Make sure the management practices 

fit the wildlife requirements. 

In all alternatives. 

Habitat-Canals Develop erosion and sediment control 

plans and best management practices 

for canal and road maintenance 

activities. 

All alternatives propose to maintain 

vegetated road shoulders and canal 

banks. 

HabitatNonriverine 

Wet Hardwood 

Forest 

Evaluate the status of American elm 

on refuge between Milltail and Navy 

Shell Road. 

Dependent on willingness of partners to 

conduct research. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 205

Area of 

Concern 

Issue Disposition 

Develop erosion and sediment control 

plans and best management practices 

for canal and road maintenance 

activities. 

All alternatives propose to maintain 

vegetated road shoulders and canal 

banks. 

Habitat-Roads 

Evaluate impacts of the practice of 

daylighting roads on adjacent canal 

hydrology. 

Dependent on willingness of partners to 

conduct research. 

Public UseGeneral Coordinate public uses to avoid user 

conflicts 

In plan. 

 Coordinate public uses with the 

Bombing Range (especially roads) 

Uses are coordinated as much as 

possible. Many bombing range 

operations are not scheduled well in 

advance. 

Develop a program for dog hunting. The refuge has areas designated for 

hunting with pursuit hounds and 

retrievers. 

Public UseHunting 

Discuss any future limitations on dog 

hunting thoroughly with the public. 

Any changes will be subject to the 

National Environmental Policy Act that 

requires public notification. 

Expand areas available for dog 

hunting (Milltail Creek to Poplar 

Ridge). 

Evaluation of expansion in alternatives 

2 and 3. 

Initiate working group meetings for 

dog hunters. 

Annual meetings in alternatives 2 and 

3. 

Public UseHunting 

Work with dog hunters to maintain or 

improve relationships 

Annual meetings in alternatives 2 and 

3. Comments are welcome any time. 

Public UseHunting Make open areas practical for 

hunting. 

The open areas are accessible for more 

months currently than they were in 

2001. Most areas with resting 

waterfowl are still closed during the 

months when waterfowl are present. 

Make sure hunting areas correspond 

to road closures, for accessibility. 

Road closures often correspond to poor 

road conditions despite the hunting 

season. 

Rotate hunting areas or distribute 

more evenly across landscape. 

Areas for retrieving dogs set where 

waterfowl are located. Areas for pursuit 

hounds avoid waterfowl and bears. 

Additional areas for hunting without 

dogs could be considered. 

Public UseHunting 

Continue to allow dog hunting on the 

refuge 

In plan. 

Public UseEnvironmental 

Education 

Develop a facility on mainland Dare 

County that is part of a cooperative 

multi-agency effort to educate the 

In alternatives 2 and 3. 
206 Appendices 

Area of 

Concern 

Issue Disposition 

public and conduct research on the 

value and function of the types of 

wetlands 

Public UseAccess Allow off road vehicles on selected 

refuge areas. 

Only vehicles that can be licensed by 

the state are allowed on the refuge 

roads. Off road use in wildlife habitat is 

prohibited. 

Consider providing more refuge 

access. 

The refuge has adequate access with 100 

miles of roads and 9 boat ramps on and 1 

boat ramp off the refuge. 

Public UseAccess 

Conduct comprehensive review of the 

road system across the refuge to 

balance the public use with ecological 

requirements. 

Dependent on willingness of partners or 

availability of grants to conduct review. 

Continue to allow horseback riding on 

the refuge. 

Horseback riding still allowed by special 

use permit. 

Public UseNon-Wildlife 

Dependent 

Public Use Add horseback riding as a priority 

public use. 

Priority public uses designated by 

Congress. 

Public UseNon-Wildlife 

Dependent 

Public Use 

Increase programs for horseback 

riders. 

Horseback riding still allowed by special 

use permit. 

Consider and evaluate the long-term 

costs and methods for acquiring land 

to create corridors. 

Will be in land protection step-down 

plan. 

Determine whether easements could 

include transfer of rights (i.e. dog 

hunting) between refuge and 

landowner property. 

Will be in land protection step-down 

plan. 

Resource 

Protection-Land 

Protection 

Determine whether fee-simple is more 

advantageous than easement 

purchase 

Will be in land protection step-down 

plan. 

Discuss what law enforcement means 

for the refuge in the plans. 

In plan. 

Increase funding for law enforcement In plan. 

Resource 

Protection-Law 

Enforcement 

Increase law enforcement staff One full time officer hired since 2001. 

Second full time officer in alternative 3. 

Evaluate distribution of noxious weeds 

and exotic species. 

Resource In all alternatives. 

Protection-Pest 

Plants Control invasive species. In all alternatives. 

Resource 

ProtectionWilderness 

Avoid putting wilderness where 

popular commercial fish landings and 

deer hunting occur. 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are not close to commercial fish 

landings. Deer hunting would be 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 207

Area of 

Concern 

Issue Disposition 

Review drainage easements for 

wilderness. 

allowed if wilderness is considered in 

the future. 

Avoid putting wilderness areas too 

close to populated areas 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are not fire dependent habitats. Fire 

would be a minimum tool if wilderness 

is considered in the future. 

Discuss fire management in 

wilderness. 

Wilderness not nominated. Fire would 

be a minimum tool if wilderness is 

considered in the future. 

Consider areas with ditches that could 

be restored. 

Wilderness inventory discounted areas 

with drainage ditches because they 

serve as firebreaks and drain areas that 

are not on the refuge. 

Consider eastern wilderness act. Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are all more than 5,000 acres. 

Smaller areas are dissected by 

drainage ditches and firebreaks 

necessary for fire management. 

Consider smaller areas than 5,000 

acres. 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are all more than 5,000 acres; 

smaller areas are dissected by drainage 

ditches and firebreaks necessary for fire 

management. 

Evaluate the impacts of wilderness 

designation on adjacent refuge uses. 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are not currently actively managed 

for wildlife and are not fire dependent 

habitats. 

Evaluate and discuss the impacts to 

wildlife in general. 

Wilderness inventory suggested areas 

that are not currently actively managed 

for wildlife. 

Evaluate the impacts of jet noise on 

wilderness. 

National guidance directs the refuge to 

ignore jet noise. 

Resource 

ProtectionWilderness 

Review drainage easements for 

wilderness. 

Wilderness inventory discounted areas 

with drainage ditches. 
208 Appendices 

ALLIGATOR RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PLANNING ISSUES WORKSHEET 

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

ACTIVITY Keep the 

Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

WILDLIFE SURVEYS AND MANAGEMENT

Waterfowl Survey and Management 46% 7% 43% 4%

Shorebird Survey and Management 48% 4% 41% 7%

Land Bird Survey and Management 46% 4% 39% 11%

Reptile/Amphibian Survey and 

Management 

36% 4% 46% 14%

Fish Survey and Management 43% 7% 47% 3%

Endangered Species Survey and 

Management 

34% 14% 41% 11%

Black Bear Management 21% 10% 55% 14%

White-tailed Deer Management 33% 13% 50% 4%

WILDLIFE HABITAT ACTIVITIES 

Water Management 

(Farming, Moist Soil Management) 

48% 4% 30% 18%

Prescribed Burning 42% 6% 35% 17%

Forest Thinning 33% 11% 37% 19%

Mechanical Vegetation Management 

(Mowing, Disking) 

48% 0% 37% 15%

Chemical Vegetation Management 49% 17% 17% 17%

Shoreline Maintenance 55% 11% 26% 8%

Planting, Seeding, Clearing for Habitat 

Improvement 

42% 6% 45% 7%

Habitat Restoration 

(Hydrology, Reforestation) 

34% 3% 52% 11%

Wildlife Management 35% 4% 54% 7%

Insect and Disease Management 44% 6% 44% 6%

Exotic and Invasive Species Eradication 40% 3% 50% 7%

Special Protection Status (Wilderness) 40% 20% 32% 8%

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES

Fishing 38% 7% 45% 10%

Hunting 35% 9% 26% 30%
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 209

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

ACTIVITY Keep the 

Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

Environmental Education 

(School Students) 

30% 0% 60% 10%

Environmental Education 

(School Teachers) 

34% 0% 55% 11%

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES 

Wildlife Interpretation 

(Formal Programs) 

32% 4% 43% 21%

Wildlife Interpretation 

(Printed Material) 

37% 4% 37% 22%

Wildlife Interpretation (Walking Trails) 40% 3% 41% 16%

Wildlife Interpretation 

(Canoeing Trails) 

43% 3% 36% 18%

Wildlife Interpretation 

(Buildings, Kiosks) 

46% 3% 29% 22%

Wildlife Interpretation 

(Interpretative Signs) 

41% 4% 33% 22%

Wildlife Photography Opportunities 38% 4% 46% 12%

Wildlife Observation Opportunities 38% 4% 42% 16%

Vehicle Parking Lots 51% 9% 32% 8%

Access for Fishing, Boating, Canoeing 46% 4% 46% 4%

LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Visitor Protection 73% 0% 21% 6%

Wildlife Protection 41% 0% 50% 9%

Trespass Violations 48% 0% 48% 4%

Littering/Dumping Violations 41% 0% 59% 0%

Hunting and Fishing Compliance 

Checks 

50% 4% 46% 0%

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Canal Maintenance 43% 0% 52% 5%

Road and Firebreak Maintenance 52% 0% 43% 5%

Facilities Maintenance (Signs, 

Buildings) 

50% 5% 33% 12%

Dike and Trail Maintenance 59% 0% 35% 6%

Water Control Structures, Pump 57% 0% 31% 12%
210 Appendices 

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

ACTIVITY Keep the 

Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

Stations 

Boundary Posting 40% 7% 46% 7%
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 211

Appendix V. Decisions and Approvals 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

Originating Person: Mike Bryant

Telephone Number: 252-473-1131

E-Mail: mike_bryant@fws.gov

Date: 

Project Name: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife 

II. State/Agency: North Carolina/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): Implementation of 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge by adopting 

the proposed alternative that provides guidance, management direction, and operation plans 

for the next 15 years.

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

B. Complete the following table:

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS 

Bald Eagle Threatened 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered 

Red Wolf Endangered 

American Alligator Threatened 

VI. Location (attach map):

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear No. 34 

B. County and State: Dare and Hyde, North Carolina 
212 Appendices 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 5 miles west of Manteo, North 

Carolina across the Croatan Sound 

E. Species/habitat occurrence:

Bald Eagle - Record of occurrence in counties within 20 years. Occasionally observed 

on refuge; nesting has occurred on the refuge. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker - Record of occurrence in counties within 20 years. 

Observed on the refuge and property adjacent to the refuge; there are approximately 

1-3 clusters on the refuge. 

Red Wolf - Record of in counties occurrence within 20 years. 

Experimental population established and monitored on the refuge. 

American Alligator - Record of occurrence in counties within 20 years. 

Observed on the refuge and property adjacent to the refuge; nesting occurs on the 

refuge. 

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B 

(attach additional pages as needed). 

SPECiES/CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

Bald Eagle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Lack of understory management. 

Red Wolf Disturbance by staff and visitors. Saturation of habitat by 

hydrology restoration. 

American Alligator Disturbance by boaters and anglers. Water quality 

degradation and lack of marsh habitat. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects. 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

Bald Eagle Restrict access to nesting area. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Restrict access to nesting area. Allow pines to grow old 

enough to develop cavities. Manage understory to maintain 

height below cavities. 

Red Wolf Restrict access to den sites when wolves are in the area. 

Monitor the effect of hydrology restoration. 

American Alligator Restrict access when alligators are in the area. Cooperate 

with state agencies to monitor and improve water quality. 

Monitor the status of marsh habitat. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 213

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested:

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT DETERMINATION RESPONSE 

REQUESTED1

NE NA AA 

Bald Eagle X 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker X 

Red Wolf X 

American Alligator X 

1

DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, 

indirectly, or cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, 

candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response requested is optional 

but a concurrence is recommended for a complete administrative record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed 

action is not likely to adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be beneficial effects to these resources. 

Response requested is a concurrence. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is 

likely to adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed 

critical habitat. Response requested for listed species is formal consultation. Response 

requested for proposed or candidate species is conference. 

____________________________ ________ 

Signature (originating station) Date

____________________________ 

Title
214 Appendices 

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 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 215

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determination 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, interpretation, and trapping of selected 

furbearers for population management. A description and anticipated biological impacts for each use 

are addressed separately in this Compatibility Determination. Additional compatibility determinations 

for non-priority uses and refuge management economic activities are on file at the refuge office. 

Refuge Name: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: 1984 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956), 16 U.S.C., Sec. 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1952), 16 U.S.C., Sec. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966), and 16 U.S.C., 

Sec. 3901 (b) 100 Stat. 1583 (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986). 

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, as reflected in the 

refuge’s authorizing legislation, is to protect and conserve migratory birds, and other wildlife 

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

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

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

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

services... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f(b)1 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of 1966). 

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

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

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

Resources Act of 1986). 
216 Appendices 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

Act of 1997, is: 

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

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

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

future generations of Americans.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 

10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year (50 CFR Subchapter C; 43 

CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed were considered separately. Although for 

brevity, the preceding sections from Uses through Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

are only written once within the plan, they are part of each descriptive use and become part of that 

compatibility determination if considered outside of the comprehensive conservation plan. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 217

Description of Use: Hunting 

The refuge is a mixture of pocosins (shrub wetlands), forest blocks of pine and hardwoods, marshes, 

managed wetlands (moist-soil areas), agricultural areas, and interconnected streams, ditches. The 

pocosins have bay species (red bay, sweetbay, loblolly bay), gallberry, sweet gallberry, sweet 

pepperbush, fetterbush, river cane, and pond pine. Other forest types have a great variety of tree 

species that includes bald cypress, oaks, black gum, hickory, elm, green ash, red maple, and 

sweetgum. This rich forested wetland provides habitat for a number of wildlife species including 

white-tailed deer, black bear, squirrel, raccoon, land birds, marsh birds, and waterfowl. 

Many of the local residents enjoy an informal, rural lifestyle that includes frequent recreational use of 

the area’s natural resources. Hunting and fishing have been, and continue to be, popular uses of 

refuge lands. It is estimated that 3,500 visits per year are attributed to hunting activities. The refuge 

has permitted hunting since 1984. The administration, as well as special regulations for hunting, has 

changed over time but the majority of the program has remained unchanged. 

The draft comprehensive conservation plan calls for the continued hunting of deer and other wildlife 

as allowed by state and federal laws and regulations. All hunts fall within the framework of the state’s 

open seasons and follow state regulations. There are additional refuge-specific regulations to 

supplement state regulations. The staff reviews refuge-specific regulations annually and incorporates 

them into the refuge hunting brochure. The draft comprehensive conservation plan would increase 

law enforcement presence during hunting seasons; would evaluate the hunt program annually; and 

modify seasons, hunt areas, or regulations if necessary. The refuge could add hunting areas as the 

refuge expands through an active land acquisition program. Implementation of the proposed 

alternative, as described in the draft comprehensive conservation plan, would ensure that 

opportunities for various types of wildlife-dependent recreation would continue for future generations. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer this use at its current level. Additional 

fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use as proposed. The existing permanent, full-time law 

enforcement officer and public use specialist are needed to assist with hunting program 

administration and visitor services.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Current literature suggests that hunting mortality is compensatory. 

Factors, such as reproduction, emigration, immigration, and habitat quality and quality, influence 

population size more than regulated hunting. The Service does not anticipate adverse impacts to 

huntable wildlife populations as a result of regulated hunting. 

Disturbance to non-game migratory birds would be minimal. It is anticipated that the current levels 

and expected future levels of hunting would not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact any listed, 

proposed, or candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. The incidental take of other 

wildlife species, either illegally or unintentionally, may occur. 

At current and anticipated public use levels, incidental take will be very small and would not directly or 

cumulatively impact current or future populations of wildlife, either on this refuge or in the surrounding areas. 

Implementation of an effective law enforcement program and development of site-specific refuge 

regulations and special conditions will eliminate most incidental take problems. 
218 Appendices 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The refuge permits hunting in accordance with 

refuge regulations as well as State of North Carolina regulations and licensing requirements. An 

Environmental Assessment is on file at the refuge headquarters as part of the Hunting Plan. Following 

completion of the comprehensive conservation plan, the staff will revise the Hunting Plan. The following 

stipulations will help ensure the refuge hunting program is compatible with refuge purposes. 

Refuge hunting permits are required. 

Vehicles are restricted to designated refuge roads and parking lots. 

Use of firearms, bows, and other weapons are prohibited except during designated hunting 

seasons. 

Hunting deer with dogs is allowed on the refuge in designated areas only. 

All hunts are designed to provide quality user opportunities based upon wildlife population 

demographics and biological parameters. Hunt season dates and bag limits will be adjusted as 

needed to achieve balanced wildlife population levels within carrying capacities, regardless of 

impacts to user opportunities. 

As the staff collects and analyzes data, it could implement additional refuge-specific regulations. 

These regulations could include, but may not be limited to, season dates that differ from those in 

surrounding state zones, refuge permit requirements, and closed areas on a permanent or seasonal 

basis. The objectives of the regulations may be to reduce disturbance to specific wildlife species or 

habitats, such as bird rookeries, wintering waterfowl or threatened and endangered species, to allow 

hunting when staff is available to administer it, or to provide for public safety). 

An effective law enforcement program is implemented and site-specific refuge regulations and 

special conditions are developed. 

Justification: Hunting is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It is one of the public use recreational activities that 

the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act specifically identifies as a use to be 

allowed where possible on refuges. The refuge uses deer hunts as management tools to protect the 

diverse ecosystem. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: __________
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 219

Description of Use: Fishing 

Sport fishing is a common public use on the state waters of the creeks, rivers, bays, and sounds from 

the shorelines located on the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and the banks of ditches and 

moist-soil units on the refuge. It is estimated that 3,400 visits per year are attributed to fishing and 

related activities. Fish creel limits, boating safety and license requirements are in accordance with 

State of North Carolina regulations. The Service maintains a canoe and kayak launch area on Milltail 

Creek. The state maintains public boat ramps for small boats on waters adjacent to the refuge. 

Development of more public access to the water on the refuge would allow the public to utilize these 

fishery resources. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Recreational fishing should not adversely affect the fisheries 

resource, wildlife resource, endangered species, or any other natural resource of the refuge. There 

may be some limited disturbance to certain species of wildlife and some trampling of vegetation; 

however, this should be short-lived and relatively minor and would not negatively impact wetland 

values of the refuge. 

Improvement of access would create some disturbance to the natural environment during 

construction and lead to increased public use on the state and refuge waters. If the refuge staff 

identifies wildlife disturbance at these sites as a problem in future years, they will close the areas 

during sensitive seasons to eliminate this concern. The staff will carry out all construction activities in 

compliance will all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. 

Public use of the waters will increase as a result of improved access, but the level of use is not 

expected to cause detrimental wildlife disturbance. 

Law enforcement activities will control the problems associated with littering and illegal take of fish. 

Providing information to refuge visitors about rules and regulations, along with increased law 

enforcement patrol, will keep these negative impacts to a minimum. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Conflicts between fishermen and others using 

the refuge have not been a problem in the past and are not expected to be a problem in the future. A 

continued law enforcement presence can minimize associated violations, such as taking under size 

fish, open fires, and littering. The following stipulations will help ensure the refuge fishing program is 

compatible with refuge purposes. 

• All fishing tackle must be attended at all times. 

• Leaving boats on the refuge overnight is prohibited. 

• Fishing allowed during daylight hours only. 
220 Appendices 

• An effective law enforcement program is implemented and site-specific refuge regulations and 

special conditions are developed. 

• Information is provided to refuge visitors about rules and regulations. 

Justification: Refuge regulations permit fishing of state and refuge waters under state regulations. 

The goal of recreational fishing is to provide a quality fishing experience on a sustainable basis. The 

1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act lists fishing as a priority public use activity 

that the Service should provide and expand where possible. Improved access facilities will reduce 

bank erosion and habitat disturbance, while providing additional quality fishing opportunities. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:________________ 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation uses such as bird watching, hiking, and nature photography are popular. It is 

estimated that 60,000 visits per year are attributed to wildlife observation and related activities. 

The refuge staff anticipates that an increase in wildlife-dependent uses will occur over the next few 

years as facilities and access are improved and especially as the public and conservation groups 

become more aware of the excellent birding and wildlife viewing opportunities on the refuge. 

There are 100 miles of refuge roads maintained for public vehicle travel. The refuge maintains the 

paved Creef Cut Trail accessible to disabled visitors along U.S. Highway 64. An observation platform 

and the Sandy Ridge Trail are at the southern end of Buffalo City Road. Proposed road and trail 

upgrades are shown in draft comprehensive conservation plan (Figure 7). 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography activities will result in some 

disturbance to wildlife. Some minimal trampling of vegetation also may occur. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and upgrading refuge roads will alter 

small portions of the natural environment. Visitors cause other potential negative impacts violating 

refuge regulations, such as littering or illegally taking plants or wildlife. Use of refuge roads by the 

public does incur added maintenance costs. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 221

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Prior to construction, the refuge staff will obtain 

permits from local, state, and federal regulatory agencies to reduce the possibility of negatively 

impacting wetlands, cultural resources, or protected species. Law enforcement patrol of public use 

areas will continue to minimize violations of refuge regulations. The staff will close refuge roads to 

the public during nesting seasons and migratory waterfowl seasons to minimize wildlife disturbance. 

The staff will monitor public use for wildlife observation and photography to document any negative 

impacts. If any negative impacts become noticeable, the Service will take corrective action to reduce 

or eliminate the effects on wildlife. 

The staff will prohibit visitors from traveling in areas around nests, rookeries, and managed wetlands. 

The refuge will locate refuge road systems, foot trails, boardwalks, and wildlife observation platforms 

opened to pedestrian use by the public to minimize disturbance that could occur in these sensitive 

areas. If the staff identifies unacceptable levels of disturbance at any time, they will close sensitive 

sites to public entry. 

Proper planning prior to construction, sediment retention, and grade stabilization features will reduce 

negative impacts to wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern. 

Impacts, such as trampling vegetation and wildlife disturbance by refuge visitors, do occur, but are 

presently not significant. Upgrading refuge roads will reduce soil erosion associated with the current 

dirt roads and trails. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are important public uses on Alligator River 

National Wildlife Refuge and are allowed under refuge regulations. The 1997 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act identified wildlife observation as a priority pubic recreational use. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:________________

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Environmental education and interpretation are those activities that seek to increase the public’s 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife, national wildlife refuges, ecology, and land management, as 

well as contribute to the conservation of natural resources. The refuge environmental education and 

interpretation activities conducted by refuge staff or trained volunteers have served 40,000 users 

annually. Refuge staff will develop and provide curriculum and support materials to area teachers for 

use both on and off the refuge. They will also maintain informational kiosks and interpretive panels at 
222 Appendices 

key refuge entrance points, and wildlife observation platforms as part of the environmental education 

and interpretation program. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for these activities, 

funding is adequate to ensure compatibility and to administer these uses at current levels. The 

current programs are dependent on volunteers. The management of the volunteer program will be 

essential to successfully implement the education and visitor use program. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Construction of facilities, such as boardwalks, kiosks and 

observation platforms, will alter small portions of the natural environment on the refuge. The refuge 

staff will obtain proper permits through the county, state, and federal regulatory agencies prior to 

construction to ensure resource protection. The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities to 

accomplish environmental education and interpretive tours may impose a low-level impact on the 

sites used for these activities. These low-level impacts may include trampling of vegetation and 

temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the immediate area. Educational activities held off of the 

refuge will not create any biological impacts on the resource. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Zoning of visitor activities by time and space, 

clustering public use facilities, proper monitoring, educating visitors, and enforcement will ensure 

compatibility with the purposes of the refuge and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Through periodic evaluation of trails and visitor contact points, the visitor services program will 

assess resource impacts. If the refuge staff determines that human impacts are detrimental to 

important natural resources, the staff will take actions to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Major 

portions of the refuge will remain undeveloped, without public interpretive facilities. 

Proper planning and placement of facilities will ensure that wetlands, threatened or endangered 

species, or species of special concern are not negatively impacted. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified environmental 

education and interpretation as activities that refuges should provide and expand. Educating and 

informing the public through structured environmental education courses, interpretive materials, and 

guided tours about migratory birds, endangered species, wildlife management, and ecosystems will 

lead to improved support of the Service’s mission to protect our natural resources. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:________________ 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 223

Description of Use: Trapping of Furbearers

The staff may direct management of furbearer populations through trapping. Some species are at a 

sufficiently high level on the refuge to adversely affect ecosystem functions and values. For example, 

beavers can flood and convert large acreages of forested habitat to marsh. Nutria are exotic animals 

that consume great quantities of marsh grass and burrow into dikes of managed wetlands (moist-soil 

units) and raccoons can have negative effects on the reproduction of forest breeding birds and wood 

ducks. Protection and management of habitat are central components of the plan. To this end, 

trapping and/or hunting remain the only viable methods to manage furbearer population levels. 

Trapping a harvestable surplus for population restoration purposes would be administered through a 

special use permit issued by the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: The refuge needs additional resources to conduct this use. The existing 

staff cannot administer permits and monitor this use as part of routine management duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Targeted removal of raccoon and nutria from portions of the refuge 

will reduce the negative impacts these species are having on ecosystem functions. Regulated trapping of 

raccoon populations will reduce the nest predation this species causes to neotropical birds and wood 

ducks. Nutria management will protect marsh grass and dikes of managed wetlands (moist-soil units). 

However, no trapping program, regardless of how well it is designed, can prevent the possible take of 

other species. The refuge staff will require trappers to report the incidental take of other species. There 

will be a negligible impact on other wildlife species in both the short and long term. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: As the refuge staff implements a trapping 

program on the refuge, it will monitor the program closely to assess the potential adverse effects on 

other wildlife as well as the benefits to game and nongame species and their habitats. The staff will 

modify the program as needed to ensure healthy populations. Trappers will carry out all trapping 

activities under a refuge special use permit. The staff will limit trappers by number, area, and season 

in order to target problem areas and minimize any impacts. The Service will require speial conditions 

for all trapping activities to minimize incidental take of the red wolf. The staff will require each trapper 

to report the number and location of trapping activity and all wildlife taken. 

Justification: Trapping is a wildlife population management tool used to regulate the population of 

certain wildlife species. Wildlife managers may need a regulated trapping program to maintain furbearer 

populations at acceptable levels, conduct research, or relocate animals for population restoration. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date:________________ 
224 Appendices 

Approval of Compatibility Determination 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the comprehensive 

conservation plan. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the 

comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature becomes part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 225

Appendix VI. Refuge Biota 

ANIMALS

BIRDS 

Total Species - 265, Breeding Species - 89 

A = Abundant, C = Common, F = Fairly Common, U = Uncommon, O = Occasional, 

R = Rare 

*species with confirmed breeding records 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS 

Anhinga O O O 

Bittern, American U R U U 

Blackbird, Brewer’s A A 

Blackbird, Red-winged* C C C C 

Blackbird, Rusty O O 

Blackbird, Yellow-headed A A 

Bluebird, Eastern* U U U U 

Bobolink O C 

Bobwhite, Northern* F F F F 

Brant R 

Bufflehead F F F 

Bunting, Indigo* C C C 

Bunting, Painted R R R 

Bunting, Snow R R 

Canvasback O U 

Catbird, Gray* C C C C 

Cardinal, Northern* C C C C 

Chat, Yellow-breasted* U U U R 

Chickadee, Carolina* C C C C 

Chuck’s-will-widow* C C U 

Cormorant, Double-crested C U C C 

Coot, American O U U 

Cowbird, Brown-headed* C C F U 

Cowbird, Shiny A 

Creeper, Brown U O 

Crow, American* C C C C 

Crow, Fish* C C C C 

Cuckoo, Black-billed* O O R 
226 Appendices 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed* F F U 

Dickcissel O 

Dove, Mourning* C C C C 

Dove, Rock* O O O O 

Dowitcher, Long-billed R O O 

Dowitcher, Short-billed R R R R 

Duck, American Black* U O U U 

Duck, Ring-necked O U F 

Duck, Ruddy O U F 

Duck, Wood* F F F F 

Eagle, Bald (Threatened)* U U U U 

Eagle, Golden A 

Egret, Cattle U U O 

Egret, Great U F F U 

Egret, Snowy U U U O 

Falcon, Peregrine O U O 

Finch, House* F F F F 

Finch, Purple R R R 

Flicker, Northern* C C C C 

Flycatcher, Acadian* F F F 

Flycatcher, Ash-throated A 

Flycatcher, Great Crested* C C C 

Flycatcher, Scissor-tailed A 

Gadwall U U U 

Gallinule, Purple A A 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray* C C C R 

Goldeneye, Common O 

Goldfinch, American* U O U U 

Goose, Canada U O U F 

Goose, Snow U U U 

Goshawk, Northern A 

Grackle, Boat-tailed F F F F 

Grackle, Common* C C C F 

Grebe, Horned O U 

Grebe, Pied-billed U R U F 

Grosbeak, Blue* F F F 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 227

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS 

Grosbeak, Evening R R R 

Grosbeak, Rose-breasted O U 

Gull, Bonaparte’s U U 

Gull, Great Black-backed F U F F 

Gull, Herring F F F F 

Gull, Laughing C C C O 

Gull, Ring-billed F O F C 

Harrier, Northern C R C C 

Hawk, Broad-winged R 

Hawk, Cooper’s U R U U 

Hawk, Red-shouldered* F F U U 

Hawk, Red-tailed* C O F C 

Hawk, Rough-legged R 

Hawk, Sharp-shinned U F F 

Heron, Great Blue* C F C C 

Heron, Green* F C U 

Heron, Little Blue O U U O 

Heron, Black-crowned Night- O O O O 

Heron, Tri-colored U U U O 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night- R R R 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated* C C C O 

Ibis, Glossy O O O 

Ibis, White F F F U 

Jaeger, Long-tailed A 

Jay, Blue* C C C C 

Junco, Dark-eyed O U U 

Kestrel, American F C C 

Killdeer* C C C C 

Kingbird, Eastern* C C C 

Kingbird, Western R R 

Kingfisher, Belted* F U F F 

Kinglet, Golden-crowned U C C 

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned C C C 

Kite, Mississippi O R R 

Kite, Swallow-tailed R 

Lark, Horned R R 
228 Appendices 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS 

Longspur, Lapland R R 

Loon, Common F R U F 

Loon, Red-throated O O U 

Mallard* U O F C 

Martin, Purple* C C U 

Meadowlark, Eastern* C C C C 

Merganser, Hooded O U 

Merganser, Red-breasted F O F 

Merlin O U O 

Mockingbird, Northern* U U U U 

Moorhen, Common R R R R 

Nighthawk, Common R R O 

Nuthatch, Brown-headed* C C C C 

Nuthatch, Red-breasted O U O 

Nuthatch, White-breasted* O O O O 

Oriole, Baltimore O F O 

Oriole, Orchard* U U R 

Osprey* F F U R 

Ovenbird* C C U R 

Owl, Barn R R 

Owl, Barred* C C C C 

Owl, Eastern Screech-* C C C C 

Owl, Great Horned* C C C C 

Owl, Long-eared A 

Owl, Northern Saw Whet O O 

Owl, Short-eared O R O U 

Parula, Northern* F F F 

Pelican, Brown C C C C 

Phoebe, Eastern F C F 

Pintail, Northern U C C 

Pipit, American U U 

Plover, Black-bellied R R R R 

Plover, Semipalmated O O O R 

Rail, Black* O O O R 

Rail, Clapper* F F F F 

Rail, King* U U U U 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 229

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS 

Rail, Virginia* U U U U 

Rail, Yellow R R 

Redpoll, Common A A 

Redhead O O 

Redstart, American O R F 

Robin, American* C F C C 

Sandpiper, Least O O O R 

Sandpiper, Semipalmated R R R 

Sandpiper, Solitary O O 

Sandpiper, Spotted U U O 

Sandpiper, Western R R O O 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied O U U 

Scaup, Greater O O O 

Scaup, Lesser U U U 

Scoter, Black O O U 

Scoter, Surf O O U 

Shoveler, Northern F F F 

Shrike, Loggerhead O O O O 

Siskin, Pine O O O 

Skimmer, Black O O O 

Sora O U O 

Snipe, Common F F F 

Sparrow, American Tree A 

Sparrow, Chipping U O U U 

Sparrow, Clay-colored R 

Sparrow, Field* O O U O 

Sparrow, Fox U U 

Sparrow, Grasshopper O O O 

Sparrow, Henslow’s R R R 

Sparrow, House* U U U U 

Sparrow, Lark R 

Sparrow, Le Conte’s R R 

Sparrow, Lincoln’s R R R 

Sparrow, Nelson’s Sharp-tailed O U R 

Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed O U R 

Sparrow, Savannah C C C 
230 Appendices 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS 

Sparrow, Seaside* O O O R 

Sparrow, Song C C C 

Sparrow, Swamp C C C 

Sparrow, Vesper R R 

Sparrow, White-crowned O O 

Sparrow, White-throated C C C 

Starling, European* F F F F 

Storm-Petrel, Wilson’s A A 

Swallow, Bank R R 

Swallow, Barn* C C C 

Swallow, Northern Rough-winged O O 

Swallow, Tree U O F F 

Swan, Tundra O U C 

Swift, Chimney* U U U 

Tanager, Scarlet U U 

Tanager, Summer U O U 

Teal, American Green-winged U F F 

Teal, Blue-winged U F O 

Tern, Bridled A 

Tern, Caspian O O U 

Tern, Common U U O 

Tern, Forster’s F F F F 

Tern, Gull-billed R O R 

Tern, Least O O O 

Tern, Royal F F F U 

Tern, Sandwich O U U 

Tern, Sooty A 

Thrasher, Brown* U U U U 

Thrush, Gray-cheeked R R 

Thrush, Hermit F F F 

Thrush, Swainson’s R R 

Thrush, Wood* U U U 

Titmouse, Tufted* F F F F 

Towhee, Eastern* C C C C 

Turkey, Wild* O O O O 

Veery R R 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 231

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS 

Vireo, Blue-headed F F F 

Vireo, Philadelphia R 

Vireo, Red-eyed* F U F 

Vireo, Warbling R 

Vireo, White-eyed* C C F R 

Vireo, Yellow-throated O R 

Vulture, Black O O O O 

Vulture, Turkey* C C C C 

Warbler, Bay-breasted R 

Warbler, Black-and-white* F F F R 

Warbler, Blackpoll U U 

Warbler, Blackburnian R R 

Warbler, Black-throated Blue* O U 

Warbler, Black-throated Green* C C U 

Warbler, Blue-winged R 

Warbler, Canada R 

Warbler, Cape May O 

Warbler, Chestnut-sided R 

Warbler, Connecticut R 

Warbler, Golden-winged R 

Warbler, Hooded* F F U 

Warbler, Kentucky R R 

Warbler, Magnolia R O 

Warbler, Mourning A 

Warbler, Nashville R 

Warbler, Orange-crowned U U U 

Warbler, Palm AR U C U 

Warbler, Pine* C C C C 

Warbler, Prairie* C C C R 

Warbler, Prothonotary* C C F 

Warbler, Swainson’s* U U O 

Warbler, Tennessee R 

Warbler, Wilson’s R 

Warbler, Worm-eating* C C F 

Warbler, Yellow U U U 

Warbler, Yellow-rumped C C C 
232 Appendices 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS 

Warbler, Yellow-throated* F F U 

Waterthrush, Northern R O 

Waxwing, Cedar* C O F F 

Wigeon, American O U U 

Whip-poor-will* U U U 

Woodcock, American U R U U 

Woodpecker, Downy* C C C C 

Woodpecker, Hairy* F F F F 

Woodpecker, Pileated* C C C C 

Woodpecker, Red-bellied* C C C C 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded* U U U U 

Woodpecker, Red-headed O O O 

Wood-Pewee, Eastern* F F F 

Wren, Carolina* C C C C 

Wren, House* U O C C 

Wren, Marsh* F F F F 

Wren, Sedge F F F 

Wren, Winter U U U 

Yellowthroat, Common* C C C F 

Yellowlegs, Greater U U U U 

Yellowlegs, Lesser O O O O 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 233

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 

Bittern, American Botaurus lentiginosus 

Blackbird, Brewer’s Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Blackbird, Red-winged* Agelaius phoeniceus 

Blackbird, Rusty Euphagus carolinus 

Blackbird, Yellow-headed Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Bluebird, Eastern* Sialia sailis 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Bobwhite, Northern* Colinus virginianus 

Brant Branta bernicla 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Bunting, Indigo* Passerina cyanea 

Bunting, Painted Passerina ciris 

Bunting, Snow Plectrophenax nivalis 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Catbird, Gray* Dumetella carolinensis 

Cardinal, Northern* Cardinalis cardinalis 

Chat, Yellow-breasted* Icteria virens 

Chickadee, Carolina* Poecile carolinensis 

Chuck-will’s Widow* Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Cormorant, Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus 

Coot, American Fulica americana 

Cowbird, Brown-headed* Molothrus ater 

Cowbird, Shiny Molothrus bonariensis 

Creeper, Brown Certhia americana 

Crow, American* Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Crow, Fish* Corvus ossifragus 

Cuckoo, Black-billed* Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed* Coccyzus americanus 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Dove, Mourning* Zenaida macroura 

Dove, Rock* Columba livia 

Dowitcher, Long-billed Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Dowitcher, Short-billed Limnodromus griseus 

Duck, American Black* Anas rubripes 
234 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Duck, Ring-necked Aythya ferina 

Duck, Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis 

Duck, Wood* Aix sponsa 

Eagle, Bald (Threatened)* Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Eagle, Golden Aquila chrysaetos 

Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis 

Egret, Great Ardea alba 

Egret, Snowy Egretta thula 

 Falcon, Peregrine Falco peregrinus 

Finch, House* Carpodacus mexicanus 

Finch, Purple Carpodacus purpureus 

Flicker, Northern* Colaptes auratus 

Flycatcher, Acadian* Empidonax virescens 

Flycatcher, Ash-throated Myiarchus cinerascens 

Flycatcher, Great Crested* Myiarchus crinitus 

Flycatcher, Scissor-tailed Tyrannus forficatus 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Gallinule, Purple Porphyrio martinica 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-Gray* Polioptila caerulea 

Goldeneye, Common Bucephala clangula 

Goldfinch, American* Carduelis tristis 

Goose, Canada Branta canadensis 

Goose, Snow Chen caerulescens 

Goshawk, Northern Accipiter gentilis 

Grackle, Boat-tailed Quiscalus major 

Grackle, Common* Quiscalus quiscula 

Grebe, Horned Podiceps auritus 

Grebe, Pied-billed Podilymbus podiceps 

Grosbeak, Blue* Passerina caerulea 

Grosbeak, Evening Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Grosbeak, Rose-breasted Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Gull, Bonaparte’s Larus philadelphia 

Gull, Great Black-backed Larus marinus 

Gull, Herring Larus argentatus 

Gull, Laughing Larus atricilla 

Gull, Ring-billed Larus delawarensis 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 235

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Harrier, Northern Circus cyaneus 

Hawk, Broad-winged Buteo platypterus 

Hawk, Cooper’s Accipiter cooperii 

Hawk, Red-shouldered* Buteo lineatus 

Hawk, Red-tailed* Buteo jamaicensis 

Hawk, Rough-legged Buteo lagopus 

Hawk, Sharp-shinned Accipiter straitus 

Heron, Great Blue* Ardea herodias 

Heron, Green* Butorides virescens 

Heron, Little Blue Egretta caerulea 

Heron, Black-crowned Night Nycticorax nycticorax 

Heron, Tri-colored Egretta tricolor 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night Nyctanassa violacea 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated* Archilochus colubris 

Ibis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellus 

Ibis, White Eudocimus albus 

Jaeger, Long-tailed Stercorarius longicaudus 

Jay, Blue* Cyanocitta cristata 

Junco, Dark-eyed Junco hyemalis 

Kestrel, American Falco sparverius 

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus 

Kingbird, Eastern* Tyrannus tyrannus 

Kingbird, Western Tyrannus verticalis 

Kingfisher, Belted* Ceryle alcyon 

Kinglet, Golden-crowned Regulus satrapa 

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned Regulus calendula 

Kite, Mississippi Ictinia mississippiensis 

Kite, Swallow-tailed Elanoides forficatus 

Lark, Horned Eremophila alpestris 

Longspur, Lapland Calcarius lapponicus 

Loon, Common Gavia immer 

Loon, Red-throated Gavia stellata 

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos 

Martin, Purple* Progne subis 

Meadowlark, Eastern* Stumella magna 

Merganser, Hooded Lophodytes cucullatus 
236 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Merganser, Red-breasted Mergus serrator 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Mockingbird, Northern* Mimus polyglottos 

Moorhen, Common Gallinula chloropus 

Nighthawk, Common Chordeiles minor 

Nuthatch, Brown-headed* Sitta pusilla

Nuthatch, Red-breasted Sitta canadensis 

Nuthatch, White-breasted* Sitta carolinensis 

Oriole, Baltimore Icterus galbula 

Oriole, Orchard* Icterus spurius 

Osprey* Pandion haliaetus 

Ovenbird* Seiurus aurocapilla 

Owl, Barn Tyto alba 

Owl, Barred* Strix varia 

Owl, Eastern Screech* Megascops asio 

Owl, Great Horned* Bubo virginianus 

Owl, Long-eared Asio otus 

Owl, Northern Saw Whet Aegolius acadicus 

Owl, Short-eared Asio flammeus 

Parula, Northern* Parula americana 

Pelican, Brown Pelecanus occidentalis 

Phoebe, Eastern Sayomis phoebe 

Pintail, Northern Anus acuta 

Pipit, American Anthus rubescens 

Plover, Black-bellied Pluvialis squatarola 

Plover, Semipalmated Charadrius semipalmatus 

Rail, Black* Laterallus jamaicensis 

Rail, Clapper* Rallus longirostris 

Rail, King* Rallus elegans 

Rail, Virginia* Rallus limicola 

Rail, Yellow Coturnicops noveboracensis 

Redpoll, Common Carduelis flammea 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Redstart, American Setophaga ruticilla 

Robin, American* Turdus migratorius 

Sandpiper, Least Calidris minutilla 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 237

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Sandpiper, Semipalmated Calidris pusilla 

Sandpiper, Solitary Tringa solitaria 

Sandpiper, Spotted Actits macularius 

Sandpiper, Western Calidris mauri 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius 

Scaup, Greater Aythya marila 

Scaup, Lesser Aythya affinis 

Scoter, Black Melanitta nigra 

Scoter, Surf Melanitta perspicillata 

Shoveler, Northern Anas clypeata 

Shrike, Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus 

Siskin, Pine Carduelis pinus 

Skimmer, Black Rynchops niger 

Sora Porzana carolina 

Snipe, Common Gallinago gallinago 

Sparrow, American Tree Spizella arborea 

Sparrow, Chipping Spizella passerina 

Sparrow, Clay-colored Spizella pallida 

Sparrow, Field* Spizella pusilla 

Sparrow, Fox Passerella iliaca 

Sparrow, Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum 

Sparrow, Henslow’s Ammodramus henslowii 

Sparrow, House* Passer domesticus 

Sparrow, Lark Chondestes grammacus 

Sparrow, Le Conte’s Ammodramus leconteii 

Sparrow, Lincoln’s Melospiza lincolnii 

Sparrow, Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Ammodramus nelsoni 

Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Ammodramus caudacutus 

Sparrow, Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis 

Sparrow, Seaside* Ammodramus maritimus 

Sparrow, Song Melospiza melodia 

Sparrow, Swamp Melospiza georgiana 

Sparrow, Vesper Pooecetes gramineus 

Sparrow, White-crowned Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Sparrow, White-throated Zonotrichia albicollis 

Starling, European* Stumus vulgaris 
238 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Storm-Petrel, Wilson’s Oceanites oceanicus 

Swallow, Bank Riparia riparia 

Swallow, Barn* Hirundo rustica 

Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Swallow, Tree Tachycineta bicolor 

Swan, Tundra Cygnus columbianus 

Swift, Chimney* Chaetura pelagica 

Tanager, Scarlet Piranga olivacea 

Tanager, Summer Piranga rubra 

Teal, American Green-winged Anas crecca 

Teal, Blue-winged Anas discors 

Tern, Bridled Stema anaethetus 

Tern, Caspian Stema caspia 

Tern, Common Stema hirundo 

Tern, Forster’s Stema forsteri 

Tern, Gull-billed Stema nilotica 

Tern, Least Stema antillarum 

Tern, Royal Stema maxima 

Tern, Sandwich Stema sandvicensis 

Tern, Sooty Stema fuscata 

Thrasher, Brown* Toxostoma rufum 

Thrush, Gray-cheeked Catharus minimus 

Thrush, Hermit Catharus guttatus 

Thrush, Swainson’s Catharus ustulatus 

Thrush, Wood* Hylocichla mustelina 

Titmouse, Tufted* Baeolophus bicolor 

Towhee, Eastern* Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Turkey, Wild* Meleagris gallopavo 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 

Vireo, Blue-headed Vireo solitarius 

Vireo, Philadelphia Vireo philadelphicus 

Vireo, Red-eyed* Vireo olivaceus 

Vireo, Warbling Vireo gilvus 

Vireo, White-eyed* Vireo griseus 

Vireo, Yellow-throated Vireo flavifrons 

Vulture, Black Coragyps atratus 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 239

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Vulture, Turkey* Cathartes aura 

Warbler, Bay-breasted Dendroica castanea 

Warbler, Black-and-white* Mniotilta varia 

Warbler, Blackpoll Dendroica striata 

Warbler, Blackburnian Dendroica fusca 

Warbler, Black-throated Blue* Dendroica caerulescens 

Warbler, Black-throated Green* Dendroica virens 

Warbler, Blue-winged Vermivora pinus 

Warbler, Canada Wilsonia canadensis 

Warbler, Cape May Dendroica tigrina 

Warbler, Chestnut-sided Dendroica pensylvanica 

Warbler, Connecticut Oporomis agilis 

Warbler, Golden-winged Vermivora chrysoptera 

Warbler, Hooded* Wilsonia citrina 

Warbler, Kentucky Oporomis formosus 

Warbler, Magnolia Dendroica magnolia 

Warbler, Mourning Oporomis philadelphia 

Warbler, Nashville Vermivora ruficapilla 

Warbler, Orange-crowned Vermivora celata 

Warbler, Palm AR Dendroica palmarum 

Warbler, Pine* Dendroica pinus 

Warbler, Prairie* Dendroica discolor 

Warbler, Prothonotary* Protonotaria citrea 

Warbler, Swainson’s* Limnothlypis swainsonii 

Warbler, Tennessee Vermivora peregrina 

Warbler, Wilson’s Wilsonia pusilla 

Warbler, Worm-eating* Helmitheros vermivorum 

Warbler, Yellow Dendroica petechia 

Warbler, Yellow-rumped Dendroica coronata 

Warbler, Yellow-throated* Dendroica dominica 

Waterthrush, Northern Seiurus noveboracensis 

Waxwing, Cedar* Bombycilla cedrorum 

Wigeon, American Anas americana 

Whip-poor-will* Caprimulgus vociferus 

Woodcock, American Scolopax minor 

Woodpecker, Downy* Picoides pubescens 
240 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

BIRDS 

Woodpecker, Hairy* Picoides villosus 

Woodpecker, Pileated* Dryocopus pileatus 

Woodpecker, Red-bellied* Melanerpes carolinus 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded* Picoides borealis 

Woodpecker, Red-headed Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Wood Pewee, Eastern* Contopus virens 

Wren, Carolina* Thryothorus ludovicianus 

Wren, House* Throglodytes aedon 

Wren, Marsh* Cistothorus palustris 

Wren, Sedge Cistothorus platensis 

Wren, Winter Troglodytes troglodytes 

Yellow-throat, Common* Geothlypis trichas 

Yellowlegs, Greater Tringa melanoleuca 

Yellowlegs, Lesser Tringa flavipes 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 241

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

MAMMALS 

Bat, Big Brown Eptesicus fuscus 

Bat, Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus* 

Bat, Evening Nycticeius humeralis* 

Bat, Hoary Lasiurus cinereus* 

Bat, Little Brown Myotis lucifugus 

Bat, Rafinesque’s Big-eared Plecotus rafinesquii 

Bat, Red Lasiurus borealis* 

Bat, Silver-haired Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Bear, American Black Ursus americanus 

Beaver, American Castor canadensis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Cottontail, Eastern Sylvilagus floridanus 

Deer, White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus 

Fox, Gray Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Mink, American Mustela vison 

Mole, Eastern Scalopus aquaticus* 

Mole, Star-nosed Condylura cristata 

Mouse, Cotton Peromyscus gossypinus 

Mouse, Eastern Harvest Reithrodontomys humulis* 

Mouse, Golden Ochrotomys nuttalli 

Mouse, House Mus musculus 

Mouse, White-footed Peromyscus leucopus* 

Mouse, Cotton Peromyscus gossypinus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Nutria (Exotic) Myocastor coypus 

Opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Otter, Northern River Lontra canadensis 

Rabbit, Marsh Sylvilagus palustris 

Raccoon, Northern Procyon lotor 

Rat, Brown (Exotic) Rattus norvegicus 

Rat, Hispid Cotton Sigmodon hispidus* 

Rat, House (Exotic) Rattus rattus 
242 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

MAMMALS 

Rat, Marsh Rice Oryzomys palustris 

Shrew, Least Cryptotis parva* 

Shrew, Short-tailed Blarina brevicauda* 

Shrew, Southeastern Sorex longirostris 

Squirrel, Eastern Gray Sciurus carolinensis 

Squirrel, Southern Flying Glaucomys volans 

Vole, Meadow Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Vole, Woodland Microtus pinetorum 

Weasel, Long-tailed Mustela frenata 

Wolf, Red (Endangered) Canis rufus 

* Denotes species that have not been documented on the refuge but are expected to occur. 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Alligator, American (Threatened) Alligator mississippiensis 

Amphiuma, Two-toed Amphiuma means 

Anole, Green (Carolina Anole) Anolis carolinensis* 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix 

Cottonmouth, Eastern Agkistrodon piscivorus 

Frog, Brimley’s Chorus Pseudacris brimleyi 

Frog, Carpenter Rana virgatipes 

Frog, Green Rana clamitans 

Frog, Little Grass Pseudacris ocularis 

Frog, Pickerel Rana palustris 

Frog, Southern Cricket Acris gryllus 

Frog, Southern Leopard Rana utricularia (Rana sphenocephala) 

Lizard, Eastern Fence Sceloporus undulatus 

Lizard, Slender Glass Ophisaures attenuatus 

Mudturtle, Eastern Kinosternon subrubrum 

Peeper, Spring Pseudacris crucifer 

Racer, Black Coluber constrictor 

Racerunner, Six-lined Cnemidophorus sexlineatus* 

Rattlesnake, Canebrake (Timber) Crotalus horridus 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 243

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Salamander, Atlantic Coast Slimy Plethodon chlorobryonis 

Salamander, Many-lined Stereochilus marginatus 

Salamander, Marbled Ambystoma opacum 

Skink, Broad-headed Eumeces laticeps 

Skink, Ground Scincella lateralis 

Skink, Southeastern Five-lined Eumeces inexpectatus 

Slider, Yellow-bellied Trachemys scripta scripta 

Snake, Banded Water Nerodia fasciata fasciata 

Snake, Black Rat Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta 

Snake, Black Swamp Seminatrix pygaea 

Snake, Brown Storeria dekayi 

Snake, Brown Water Nerodia taxispilota 

Snake, Carolina Salt Marsh Nerodia sipedon williamengelsi 

Snake, Coastal Plain Milk Lampropeltis triangulum triangulumXelapsoides 

Snake, Corn (Red Rat Snake) Elaphe guttata 

Snake, Eastern Garter Thamnophis sirtalis 

Snake, Eastern Hognose Heterodon platirhinos* 

Snake, Eastern King Lampropeltis getula 

Snake, Eastern Mud Farancia abacura abacura 

Snake, Eastern Ribbon Thamnophis sauritus 

Snake, Eastern Worm Carphophis amoenus 

Snake, Glossy Crayfish Regina rigida 

Snake, Rainbow Farancia erytrogramma 

Snake, Redbelly Storeria occipitomaculata 

Snake, Redbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster erythrogaster 

Snake, Ringneck Diadophis punctatus 

Snake, Rough Green Opheodrys aestivus 

Terrapin, Diamondback Malaclemys terrapin 

Toad, Eastern Narrow-mouthed Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Toad, Fowler's Bufo fowleri 

Toad, Southern Bufo terrestris 

Treefrog, Cope’s Gray Hyla chrysoscelis 

Treefrog, Green Hyla cinerea 

Treefrog, Pine Woods Hyla femoralis 
244 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Treefrog, Squirrel Hyla squirella 

Turtle, Common Musk Sternotherus odoratus 

Turtle, Common Snapping Chelydra serpentina 

Turtle, Eastern Box Terrapene carolina 

Turtle, Painted Chrysemys picta 

Turtle, Redbelly Chrysemys rubiventris 

Turtle, Spotted Clemmys guttata 

* Denotes species that have not been documented on the refuge but are expected to occur based 

upon distribution maps. 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FISH 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 

Anchovy, Bay Anchoa mitchilli 

Bass, Largemouth Micropterus salmoides 

Bass, Striped Morone saxatilis 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Bowfin Amia calva 

Bullhead, Brown Ameiurus nebulosus 

Bullhead, Yellow Ameiurus natalis 

Catfish, Channel Ictalurus punctatus 

Catfish, White Ameiurus catus 

Chubsucker, Lake Erimyzon sucetta 

Crappie, Black Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus 

Darter, Swamp Etheostoma fusiforme 

Darter, Tessellated Etheostoma olmstedi 

Drum, Red Sciaenops ocellatus 

Eel, American Anguilla rostrata 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus 

Flounder, Southern Paralichthys lethostigma 

Flounder, Summer Paralichthys dentatus 

Gar, Longnose Lepisosteus osseus 

Goby, Naked Gobiosoma bosci 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 245

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FISH 

Herring, Blueback Alosa aestivalis 

Hogchoaker Trinectes maculatus 

Killifish, Banded Fundulus diaphanus 

Madtom, Tadpole Noturus gyrinus 

Menhaden, Atlantic Brevoortia tyrannus 

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Mudminnow, Eastern Umbra pygmaea 

Mullet, Striped Mugil cephalus 

Mullet, Yellow Mugil curema 

Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina 

Perch, Pirate Aphredoderus sayanus 

Perch, Silver Bairdiella chrysoura 

Perch, White Morone americana 

Perch, Yellow Perca flavescens 

Pickerel, Chain Esox niger 

Pickerel, Redfin Esox americanus 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Shad, American Alosa sapidissima 

Shad, Gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum 

Shad, Hickory Alosa mediocris 

Shiner Notropis spp. 

Shiner, Golden Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Silverside, Inland Menidia beryllina 

Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

Sturgeon, Atlantic Acipenser oxyrhynchus 

Sunfish, Banded Enneacanthus obesus 

Sunfish, Bluespotted Enneacanthus gloriosus 

Sunfish, Mud Acantharchus pomotis 

Swampfish Chologaster cornuta 

Tonguefish, Blackcheek Symphurus plagiusa 

Trout, Spotted Sea Cynoscion nebulosus 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

Crab, Blue Callinectes sapidus 
246 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

OTHER AQUATIC SPECIES 

Crab, Brackish-Water Fiddler Uca minax 

Crayfish Procambarus acutus 

Oyster, Common Crassostrea virginica 

Periwinkle, Marsh Littorina irrorata 

Shrimp, Brown Penaeus aztecus 

Shrimp, Freshwater Palaemonetes paludosus 

Shrimp, Pink Penaeus duorarum 

Shrimp, White Penaeus setiferus 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - TREES

Ash, Carolina Fraxinus caroliniana 

Ash, Green Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 

Pondcypress Taxodium ascendens 

Bay, Loblolly Gordonia lasianthus 

Beech, American Fagus grandifolia 

Cedar, Atlantic White Chamaecyparis thyoides 

Cedar, Eastern Red Juniperus virginiana 

Cheery, Black Prunus serotina 

Chinaberry (Exotic) Melia azedarach 

Chokeberry, Red Aronia arbutifolia/ Sorbus arbutifolia 

Cottonwood, Eastern Populus deltoides 

Cottonwood, Swamp Populus heterophylla 

Dogwood, Flowering Cornus florida 

Elm, American Ulmus americana 

Gum, Swamp Black Nyssa sylvatica biflora 

Hickory, Shagbark Carya ovata 

Hickory, Sweet Pignut Carya ovalis 

Holly, American Ilex opaca 

Magnolia, Llarge-flower Magnolia grandiflora 

Magnolia, Sweet Bay Magnolia virginiana 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 247

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - TREES

Maple, Red Acer rubrum 

Mimosa Albizia julibrissin 

Mulberry, Red Morus rubra 

Oak, Cherrybark Quercus pagoda 

Oak, Laurel Quercus laurifolia 

Oak, Live Quercus virginiana 

Oak, Overcup Quercus lyrata 

Oak, Shumard Quercus shumardii 

Oak, Southern Red Quercus falcata 

Oak, Swamp Chestnut Quercus michauxii 

Oak, Water Quercus nigra 

Oak, White Quercus alba 

Oak, Willow Quercus phellos 

Pecan Carya illinoensis 

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 

Pine, Loblolly Pinus taeda 

Pine, Pond Pinus serotina 

Pine, Slash Pinus elliottii 

Pondcypress Taxodium ascendens 

Poplar, Yellow (Tulip tree) Liriodendron tulipifera 

Sassafras Sassafras albidum 

Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum 

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 

Willow, Black Salix nigra 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - SHRUBS

Alder, Smooth Alnus serrulata 

Azalea, Dwarf Rhododendron atlanticum 

Azalea, Swamp Rhododendron viscosum 
248 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - SHRUBS

Alder, Smooth Alnus serrulata 

Bay, Red Persea borbonia 

Bayberry Morella heterophylla 

Beautyberry, French Mulberry Callicarpa americana 

Blackberry Rubus argutus 

Blueberry, Black Highbush Vaccinium atrococcum 

Blueberry, Highbush Vaccinium corymbosum 

Buckthorn Bully Sideroxylon lycioides 

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 

Chinquapin, Eastern Castanea pumila 

Crabapple, Southern Malus angustifolia 

Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon 

Dangleberry Gaylussacia frondosa 

Deerberry, Gooseberry Vaccinium stamineum 

Dewberry, Bristly Rubus hispidus 

Dogwood, Swamp Cornus stricta 

Elder, Marsh Iva frutescens 

Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 

Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 

Fetterbush, Doghobble Leucothoe axillaris 

Fetterbush Leucothoe racemosa 

Gallberry, Bitter (Inkberry) Ilex glabra 

Gallberry, Sweet Ilex coriacea 

Hercules’ Club Aralia spinosa 

Hercules’ Club Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 

Holly, Deciduous Ilex decidua 

Holly, Yaupon Ilex vomitoria 

Hophornbeam, Eastern Ostrya virginiana 

Huckleberry, Dwarf Gaylussacia dumosa 

Indigobush Amorpha fruticosa 

Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 249

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - SHRUBS

Alder, Smooth Alnus serrulata 

Laurel, Sheep Kalmia angustifolia 

Leatherleaf Cassandra calyculata 

Maleberry, Male-Blueberry Lyonia ligustrina 

Mallow, Seashore Kosteletzkya virginica 

Mallow, Swamp Rose Hisbiscus moscheutos 

Olive, Wild Osmanthus americanus 

Pepperbush, Sweet Clethra alnifolia 

Possumhaw Viburnum nudum 

Privet, Chinese (Exotic) Ligustrum sinense 

Rose, Swamp Rosa palustris 

Sea-myrtle, Salt meadow bush Baccharis halimifolia 

Serviceberry Amelanchier obovalis 

Shadbush Amelanchier canadensis 

Sparkleberry, Tree Vaccinium arboreum 

Staggerbush Lyonia mariana 

Strawberrybush, American Euonymus americanus 

Sumac, Poison Toxicodendron vernix 

Sumac, Winged Rhus copallina 

Sweetspire, Virginia Itea virginica 

Titi, leatherwood Cyrilla racemiflora 

Waxmyrtle Morella cerifera 

Winterberry (Black holly) Ilex verticillata 

Witchhazel Hamamelis virginiana 

Willow, Coastal Plain Salix caroliniana 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - WOODY VINES

Crossvine Anisostichus capreolata/Bignonia capreolata 

Creeper, Trumpet Campsis radicans 

Creeper, Virginia Parthenocissus quinquefolia 
250 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - WOODY VINES

Crossvine Anisostichus capreolata/Bignonia capreolata 

Creeper, Trumpet Campsis radicans 

Summer grape Vitis aestivalis 

Grape, Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Grape, Summer Vitis aestivalis 

Greenbrier Smilax smallii 

Greenbrier, Cat Smilax glauca 

Greenbrier, Common Smilax rotundifolia 

Greenbrier, Coral Smilax walteri 

Greenbrier, Earleaf Smilax auriculata 

Greenbrier, Laurel Smilax laurifolia 

Greenbrier, Saw Smilax bona-nox 

Honeysuckle, Coral Lonicera sempervirens 

Honeysuckle, Japanese Lonicera japonica 

Ivy, Eastern Poison Toxicodendron radicans 

Jessamine, Yellow Gelsemium sempervirens 

Peppervine Ampelopsis arborea 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - GRASSES

Bentgrasses Agrostis spp. 

Bermudagrass (Exotic) Cynodon dactylon 

Bluegrass, Annual Poa annua 

Bluestem, Bushybeard Andropogon glomeratus 

Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus 

Cane, River Arundinaria gigantea 

Cordgrass, Big Spartina cynosuroides 

Cordgrass, Saltmeadow Spartina patens 

Cordgrass, Smooth Spartina alterniflora 

Corn Zea mays 

Crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 251

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - GRASSES

Cutgrass, Giant Zizaniopsis miliacea 

Cutgrass, Rice Leersia oryzoides 

Dropseed Sporobolus spp. 

Fescue, Tall Lolium arundicaneum 

Foxtail Alopecurus carolinianus 

Foxtail, Giant Setaria magna 

Foxtail, Bristlegrass Setaria spp. 

Gamagrass, Eastern Tripsacum dactyloides 

Goosegrass, India (Exotic) Eleusine indica 

Grass, Rabbitfoot (Exotic) Polypogon monspeliensis 

Knotgrass, Joint paspalum Paspalum distichum 

Millet, Wild (Barnyardgrass) Echinochloa crusgalli 

Millet, Walter's Echinochloa walteri 

Milo (Exotic) Sorghum bicolor 

Mulegrass, Muhly Muhlenbergia spp. 

Orchardgrass (Exotic) Dactylis glomerata 

Panicum, Fall Panicum dichotomiflorum 

Paspalum species Paspalum spp. 

Plumegrass, Sugarcane Saccharum giganteum 

Purpletop Tridens flavus 

Reed, Common Phragmites australis 

Reedgrass Calamagrostis cinnoides 

Rice, Wild Zizania aquatica 

Saltgrass, Seashore Distichlis spicata 

Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense 

Sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne 

Sprangletop Leptochloa filiformis 

Switchcane Arundinaria tecta 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 

Watergrass, Southern Hydrochloa caroliniensis 

Wheat, Winter (Exotic) Triticum spp. 
252 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - GRASSLIKE PLANTS 

Arrowgrass, Threerib Triglochin striatum 

Beaksedge, Fascicled Rhynchospora fascicularis 

Beaksedge, Millet Rhyncospora miliacea 

Beaksedge, White Rhynchospora alba 

Bulrush, Algal Scirpus confervoides 

Bulrush, AmericanThree-square Schoenoplectus pungens 

Bulrush, Softstem Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 

Cottongrass, Tawny Eriophorum virginicum 

Flatsedge, Redroot Cyperus erythrorhizos 

Nutgrass Cyperus esculentus 

Rush, Nut Scirpus oligantha 

Rush, Giant Schoenoplectus robustus 

Sedge Carex leptalea 

Sedge Carex lurida 

Sedge, Hairy Umbrella Fuirena squarrosa 

Sedge, Dwarf Uumbrella Fuirena pumila 

Spikerush, Bald Fimbristylis spadicea 

Spikerush, Blunt Eleocharis obtusa 

Spikerush, Common Eleocharis palustris 

Spikerush, Dwarf Eleocharis parvula 

Spikerush, Foursquare Eleocharis quadrangulata 

Spikerush, Slender Eleocharis acicularis 

Spikerush, Path Eleocharis tenuis 

Rush, Black Needle Juncus roemerianus 

Rush, Canada Juncus canadensis 

Rush, Creeping Juncus repens 

Rush, Sharp-fruit Juncus acuminatus 

Rush, Soft Juncus effuses 

Umbrella-sedge Cyperus polystachyos 

Umbrella-sedge Cyperus spp. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 253

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - GRASSLIKE PLANTS 

Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Alligatorweed (Exotic) Alternanthera philoxeroides 

Ammannia Ammannia teres 

Ammannia coccinea 

Arrow Arum Peltandra virginica 

Arrowhead, Duck Potato Sagittaria spp. 

Aster Aster spp. 

Atriplex, Pigweed Atriplex patula 

Bacopa spp. Bacopa monnieri 

Beggarticks Bidens spp. 

Beggarticks, Nodding Bidens cernua 

Bishopweed, Mock Ptilimnium capillaceum 

Bladderwort Utricularia spp. 

Buckwheat Fagopyrum sagittatum 

Buttercup Ranunculus spp. 

Buttonweed Diodia virginiana 

Camphorweed, marsh fleabane Pluchea purpurascens 

Cattail Typha spp. 

Chickweed Stellaria spp. 

Clematis, Yam-leaved Clematis ternifolia 

Clover, Rabbit-foot Trifolium arvense 

Clover Trifolium spp. 

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 

Cudweed Gnaphalium purpureum 

Cupscale, American Sacciolepis striata 

Dayflower, Asiatic Commelina communis 

Daylilly, Orange Hemerocallis fulva 

Dock Rumex spp. 
254 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Dock, Swamp Rumex verticillatus 

Dogfennel Eupatorium compositifolium 

Duckweed Lemna spp. 

Duckweed, Great Spirodela spp. 

Eclipta Eclipta alba 

Eelgrass, Water Celery Vallisneria americana 

Eryngo Eryngium spp. 

Fireweed Erechtites hieracifolia 

Frogfruit Phyla lanceolata 

False Foxglove, Purple Agalinis purpurea 

False Foxglove Agalinis spp. 

Goldenrod Solidago spp. 

Goldenrod, Canada Solidago canadensis 

Ground-cherry, Cutleaf Physalis angulata 

Ground-cherry, Virginia Physalis virginiana 

Hatpins Eriocaulon compressum 

Hemlock, Water Cicuta maculata 

Hemp, Water Amaranthus cannabinus 

Hempweed, Climbing Mikania scandens 

Honeycup Zenobia pulverulenta 

Horsenettle Solanum carolinense 

Horsetail, Scouring Rush Equisetum spp. 

Horseweed Erigeron spp. 

Hydrangea, Climbing Decumaria barbara 

Iris, Blue Flag Iris virginica 

Leather-flower Clematis viorna 

Lespedeza, Creeping Lespedeza repens 

Lespedeza, Sericea (Exotic) Lespedeza cuneata 

Lizard's Tail Saururus cernuus 

Loosestrife, Narrow Lythrum lineare 

Loosestrife, Purple (Exotic) Lythrum salicaria 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 255

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Loosestrife, Swamp Lysimachia terrestris 

Marigold, Bur Bidens laevis 

Meadowbeauty Rhexia spp. 

Mermaidweed, Marsh Proserpinaca palustris 

Milfoil, Water Myriophyllum spp. 

Milkweed Asclepias spp. 

Mint Mentha spp. 

Mistflower (Blue Boneset) Eupatorium coelestinium 

Mistletoe Phoradendron serotinum 

Morningglory Ipomoea purpurea 

Muskgrass Chara spp. 

Mullien, Pink Lychnis spp. 

Naiad, Southern Najas guadalupensis 

Naiad Najas spp. 

Nitella, Stonewart Nitella spp. 

Onion, Wild Allium spp. 

Orchid, White-fringed Habenaria blephariglottis 

Orchid, Yellow-fringed Habenaria ciliaris 

Partridgeberry Mitchella repens 

Pea, Butterfly Clitoria mariana 

Pea, Partridge Cassia fasciculata 

Pennywort, Marsh Hydrocotyle umbellata 

Pennywort, Virginia Obolaria virginica 

Pepperweed, Field (Exotic) Lepidium campestre 

Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata 

Pigweed, Green Amaranth Amaranthus hybridus 

Pigweed, Mexican tea Chenopodium ambrosioidea 

Pink, Marsh, Rose of Plymouth Sabatia stellaris 

Pitcher Plant, Purple Sarracenia purpurea 

Pitcher Plant, Yellow Sarracenia flava 

Plantain Plantago spp. 
256 Appendices 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Pokeweed, Common Phytolacca americana 

Pondlily, Yellow Nuphar lutea 

Poinsettia, Annual Euphorbia cyathophora 

Pondweed, Claspingleaf Potamogeton perfoliatus 

Pondweed, Sago Stuckenia pectinatus 

Pondweed Potamogeton spp. 

Primrose, Common Evening Oenothera biennis 

Purslane, Common Portulaca oleracea 

Pussy-toes Antennaria plantaginifolia 

Ragweed Ambrosia spp. 

Rattlebox Ludwigia spp. 

Rattlebox (Exotic) Sesbania punicea 

Rattlessnake Master Eryngium yuccifolium 

Redroot, Carolina Lachnanthes caroliniana 

Rotala, Lowland Rotala ramosior 

Sesbania Sesbania herbacea 

Sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia 

Smartweed Polygonum spp. 

Sneezeweed Helenium spp. 

Sorrel, Heartwing Rumex hastatulus 

Sorrel, Wood Oxalis dillenii 

Sourgrass Oxalis grandis 

Soybean (Exotic) Glycine max 

Spadeleaf (Exotic) Centella asiatica 

Sphagnum Sphagnum spp. 

Spleenwort, Ebony Asplenium platyneuron 

Spuge, Spotted Chamaesyce maculata 

St. John's-wort Hypericum spp. 

St. John's-wort Hypericum virginicum 

Supplejack, Alabama Berchemia scandens 

Sundew, Spoon-leaved Drosera intermedia 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 257

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Sweetflag Acorus calamus 

Sweetleaf, Horse Sugar Symplocos tinctoria 

Thistle, Virginia Cirsium virginianum 

Tobacco, Rabbit, Mullein, Woolly Verbascum thapsus 

Trefoil, Birdsfoot (Exotic) Lotus corniculatus 

Vervain, White Verbena urticifolia 

Vetch Vicia spp. 

Violet Viola spp. 

Waterlily, White or American Nymphaea odorata (or tuberosa) 

Watermeal Wolffia spp. 

Waterweed Elodea spp. 

Waterwort Elatine spp. 

Waxweed Cuphea carthagenensis 

Widgeongrass Ruppia maritima 

Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris spp. 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FLORA - MOSSES AND FERNS 

Chainfern, Netted Woodwardia areolata 

Chainfern, Virginia Woodwardia virginica 

Fern, Bracken Pteridium aquilinum 

Fern, Cinnamon Osmunda cinnamomea 

Fern, Interrupted Osmunda claytoniana 

Fern, Royal Osmunda regalis 

Moss Mayaca aubletii 
258 Appendices 

Appendix VII. Priority Bird Species and their 

Habitats 

Species Status Habitat 

Brackish 

Marsh 

and 

Sounds

Managed 

Wetlands 

Maritime 

Shrub, 

Pocosin, 

and Swamp 

Forest

Pine 

Forests 

and 

Savannas

(FL=Federally-listed, SL=State-listed, SC=Species of Management Concern)

Red-cockaded Woodpecker FL X 

Sharp-tailed Saltmarsh 

Sparrow SC X X 

Seaside Sparrow SC X X 

Black Rail SC X X 

Yellow Rail SC X X 

King Rail SC X X 

American Bittern SC X X 

Least Bittern SC X X 

Sedge Wren SC X X 

Marsh Wren SC X X X 

Snow Goose SC X X X 

Tundra Swan SC X X 

Canada Goose SC X X 

American Black Duck SC X X 

Northern Pintail SC X X 

American Green-winged Teal SC X X 

Mallard SC X X 

Peregrine Falcon SC X X 

Northern Parula SC X 

Prairie Warbler SC X 

Eastern Painted Bunting SC X 

Black-throated Green Warbler SC X 

Pine Warbler SC X 

Prairie Warbler SC X 

Prothonotary Warbler SC X 

Worm-eating Warbler SC X 

Yellow-throated Warbler SC X 

Wood Duck SC X 

Brown-headed Nuthatch SC X X 

Chuck-Will’s-Widow X X 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 259

Appendix VIII. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATION NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) PROJECTS 

Projects are ordered by the project number the first two digits of which stand for fiscal year 

the project was developed. The numbers are listed in the management alternatives. 

Projects are listed as tier 1 projects that support approved critical mission or approved 

minimum staff or tier 2 projects that do not. 

Project 97005 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $162,500, Recurring Request $182,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) -18 

This project will provide the funding to hire three full-time permanent employees (one GS-9 forester, 

one GS-7 forestry technician, and one WG-8 equipment operator) to restore Atlantic white cedar 

stands on the refuge. Past logging and poor post-harvest management has resulted in over 5,000 

acres of Atlantic white cedar clear-cuts on the refuge. These clear-cuts should be restored. 

Inventories have revealed an adequate stocking of “naturally regenerated” cedar in several of the 

clear-cuts. However, the cedars are being suppressed by an extremely dense growth of hardwood 

shrubs. The project involves “releasing” the cedars from hardwood competition by aerial application 

of an environmentally safe and approved herbicide. This will allow the cedar stands to grow free of 

competition for a few years. Plans also include planting some stands with seedlings. 

Project 97007 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $60,000, Recurring Request $5,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 15 

This project will provide the funding to purchase 500,000 acres of recent infrared aerial photography 

in an electronically digitized format. The Alligator River Refuge (a forested wetland) and Pea Island 

Refuge (a coastal barrier island) have many unique and varied plant and animal communities. Good 

planning is needed to properly manage these resources and up-to-date photography is needed for 

good planning. This imagery will be used on the refuge’s geographic information system computer to 

assist in all phases of refuge management. It will also be used to document land use changes in the 

red wolf reintroduction area. 

Project 97010 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $40,000, Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 16 

This project will provide the funding to install water quality monitoring stations and conduct 

monitoring. About 70,000 acres of the refuge are comprised of a variety of wetland habitats. A 

minimum of twelve water quality monitoring stations will be installed, with at least one each in all 

refuge moist-soil units, lakes, streams, selected canals, and adjacent sound and river waters. Data 

collected will include water level, dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, and temperature. This data is 

critically needed to document current water quality conditions and to identify problem areas so that 

possible solutions can be developed and implemented. A water quality enhancement plan will also 

be developed, approved, and implemented. 
260 Appendices 

Project 97011 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 29 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time biological technician to develop and 

implement a Marsh and Water Management Plan. Two new pump sites will be installed to more 

effectively manage water levels in about 3,000 acres of the 5,400-acre moist-soil and farm-unit area. 

The project will provide more efficient management of water levels in the area for waterfowl food 

production. At critical times during high rainfall events, it will protect roads from flooding and erosion, 

thereby preventing unnecessary road closures to the public. Pump sites will be installed at the 

intersections of Milltail and North Perimeter roads and at Buffalo City and Sawyer Lake roads. 

Project 97018 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $49,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 30 

This project will provide the funding to purchase a large farm tractor and hire a permanent full-time 

WG-5 equipment operator. Within the refuge’s 4,500-acre farm unit, about 2,000 acres are diked and 

managed as moist-soil units for the production of waterfowl food plants. To improve the foodproducing potential of these units, increased soil manipulation practices (e.g., disking, plowing, and 

mowing) must be conducted. However, a farm tractor of sufficient size is not currently available to 

the refuge to do this type of work. The purchase of a new rubber-tired, four-wheel drive farm tractor 

with more than 100-horsepower will meet this need. As stated earlier, the full management potential 

of the refuge’s moist-soil units cannot be realized until this piece of equipment is available to the 

refuge. 

Project 97021 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $100,000, Recurring Request $138,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 6 

This project will provide the funding to add 20 new water control structures and hire a GS-9 resource 

specialist and a WG-8 equipment operator to manage them. The refuge has an ongoing project restoring 

the natural hydrology of 50,000 acres. However, this project needs to be expanded by adding 20 new 

water control structures and subsequently manipulating water levels. This will result in the restoration of 

20,000 additional wetland acres over 5 years. The refuge contains about 70,000 acres of forested 

wetlands, most of which were ditched and channelized by prior owners. This resulted in an unnatural 

hydrology (water flow) in the area. It has caused some areas to be “too wet” and other areas to be “too 

dry” for extended periods of time; thereby resulting in a loss or degradation of wildlife habitat. 

Project 97022 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $85,000, Recurring Request $15,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 1 

This project will provide the funding to control common reed (Phragmites australis) on 600 acres 

of the refuge. The Phragmites will be treated with an environmentally safe and approved 

herbicide by a variety of application methods. Failure to aggressively pursue control will result in 

the replacement of desirable vegetation by Phragmites and reduce the refuge’s ability to provide 

suitable habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife species. Phragmites is an invasive wetland plant 

species that has little wildlife value. Once established, it chokes out more desirable plants and 

degrades the habitat for a variety of wildlife species. On the refuge, the invasion rate of 

Phragmites has increased over the past ten years due to management activities. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 261

Project 97025 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $38,000, Recurring Request $5,200 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 11 

This project will provide the funding to purchase and maintain a globally positioning system (GPS) base 

station. The base station is needed for the collection of a variety of resource and facility data points (e.g., 

red wolf locations, red-cockaded woodpecker colony sites, rare plant or habitat types, roads, canals, 

pump sites, private land holdings). However, the collection of “accurate and precise data” is essential for 

successful resource and maintenance management. Accurate and precise GPS data depends on 

access to a community base station so that post-processing of field data can be efficiently done. Without 

the base station, reliable management decisions cannot be made on a landscape-scale data. 

Project 97039 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 6 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 assistant manager for the Pea 

island Refuge to coordinate and administer a growing permit issuance system. The barrier island 

location of the refuge results in requests for a significant number of permits on an annual basis. Most 

of the requests are received from: (1) North Carolina Department of Transportation on maintenance 

issues for North Carolina Highway 12, which bisects the refuge for 12 miles; (2) the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers on Oregon Inlet maintenance dredging and material disposal on refuge beaches; (3) 

U.S. Navy for maintenance of communication towers; (4) Dare County for storm damage disposal and 

public use facilities; and (5) University research permits. These requests must be processed through 

proper environmental agencies. 

Project 97040 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $56,000, Recurring Request $84,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 3 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 resource specialist to improve 

coordination with other agencies. The refuge needs better coordination with: (1) National Park 

Service on public use management, maintenance, visitor comfort station, and law enforcement via a 

memorandum of understanding; (2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on beach nourishment, 

maintenance dredging, and Oregon Inlet Jetty; (3) North Carolina Department of Transportation on 

North Carolina Highway 12 issues, terminal groin, and Oregon Inlet Bridge; and (4) North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission on waterfowl management and law enforcement. All of these 

activities affect the day-to-day operation of the refuge and inability to conduct these activities will 

negatively affect trust resources and the public safety. 

Project 97041 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $82,000, Recurring Request $49,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 2 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-5 biological technician to 

conduct biweekly aerial waterfowl surveys from September through March and add or increase other 

wildlife surveys. The other surveys (e.g., shorebird, piping plover, raptor, sea turtle, colonial 

waterbird, neotropical songbird) will use standard census techniques. The project is the only way to 

gauge the effects of high public use and other refuge management programs on the refuge’s wildlife 
262 Appendices 

resources. The project will improve management of these resources. The Wildlife Census Plan will 

be updated and implemented. Pea Island Refuge is a 5,800-acre refuge located on a coastal barrier 

island that has high public use (two million visitors annually). 

Project 97043 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $32,500, Recurring Request $44,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 4 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-5 biological technician to 

conduct basic nesting and production surveys on black ducks and gadwalls. The surveys will be 

conducted to document the effects of management on the two species. Based on the survey results, 

appropriate management activities will be initiated to improve habitat conditions. Black duck and 

gadwalls have traditionally nested in low, grassy habitat provided on the Pea Island Refuge. 

However, these habitats have started to succeed to more woody and brushy plant communities. 

Project 97045 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $195,000, Recurring Request $213,000; Total: $408,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 1 

This project will provide the funding to buy equipment and hire two permanent full-time GS-7 park 

rangers and two WG-6 maintenance workers to serve visitors to and maintain facilities and grounds 

at Pea Island Refuge. Two interactive computer stations will be installed at the visitor center to help 

meet visitors’ requests for basic information. The stations will display multimedia information on all 

eastern North Carolina refuges, the National Wildlife Refuge System, wildlife resources, and local 

destinations. A weather and vandal-proof station will be located on the outside of the visitor center in 

order to serve visitor needs during times when the visitor center is closed. Approximately two million 

visitors use the refuge annually. Some are just passing through; however, a large number stop at the 

visitor center for a variety of reasons. 

Project 97047 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $39,000, Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 5 

This project will provide the funding to improve and upgrade the refuge’s information resource 

management (IRM) capabilities by connecting all office computers and related equipment (e.g., printers, 

plotters, file servers, and copiers) into a modern, high-capacity local area network (LAN). The project will 

upgrade the existing computers, add file servers, and improve cable and router systems. The project will 

improve staff efficiency, productivity, and decision-making by using the many advantages of modern 

technology to get the latest biological reports, transmit information, respond to inquiries, and expand 

relationships with internal (Ecological Services Office, Migratory Bird Field Office) and external partners 

(National Park Service, local and state agencies). The LAN will also link all refuge computers to the 

office’s geographic information system (GIS) computer, which will give staff immediate access to current 

GIS layers, and to high-speed internet access. It will also help eliminate the need for duplicate office 

equipment (color printers, modems) at each employee’s workstation. 

Project 97048 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $210,000, Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 13 

This project will provide the funding to buy a truck-tractor and lowboy trailer for use in all aspects of 

the refuge’s management and maintenance programs. The refuge at present has an insufficient 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 263

number of hauling units to meet the daily needs of the management, maintenance, and fire programs. 

An additional hauling unit will allow the refuge to conduct public use, fire management, endangered 

species management, and biological management activities in a more efficient manner. The lack of 

ability to transport essential equipment will continue to hinder refuge operations and accomplishment 

of station objectives. 

Project 98003 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

One Time Request $432,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 4 

This project will provide the funding to conduct a comprehensive cultural resources survey on both 

the 152,000-acre Alligator River Refuge and the 5,800-acre Pea Island Refuge to identify significant 

cultural resources. No comprehensive cultural resource evaluations have been conducted on either 

refuge. Both refuges are located in an area rich in significant prehistoric, Native American, and early 

colonial history. The outer Banks of North Carolina, where Pea Island is located, is called the 

“Graveyard of the Atlantic” for all the shipwrecks along the barrier islands starting in the 16th century. 

Roanoke Island and the adjoining mainland, where Alligator River Refuge is located, are the site of 

the first English colony in America and the site of the famous “lost Colony.” This project is essential 

to ensure the identification and protection of any potentially significant cultural resources on these two 

refuges. The survey will be conducted by either contract archaeologists or through agreements with 

local universities. 

Project 98004 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $80,000, Recurring Request $80,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 32 

This project will provide the funding to rent 3,000 square feet of new office space as recommended 

by a recent office review. The General Services Administration is negotiating a five-year contract to 

include new office space, but an increase in funding is needed to pay for the new office space. 

Refuge staff has increased to more than 35 full-time employees (both permanent and seasonal) and 

increase seasonally with summer interns and researchers. The current office space and parking is 

inadequate. Increased office space will enhance safety, staff efficiency, and morale. 

Project 98005 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $85,000, Recurring Request $84,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 7 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time biological technician to monitor the 

U.S. Army corps of Engineers dredging operations and their effects on beach-dependent wildlife 

(e.g., shorebirds and sea turtles). Oregon Inlet is located at the north end of the refuge, which is a 

coastal barrier island. This inlet is the only passage through the barrier islands from the Pamlico 

Sound to the Atlantic Ocean and is used heavily by recreational and commercial fishing boats. The 

Corps of Engineers conducts intensive dredging operations to maintain the inlet’s opening. This has 

disrupted natural coastal processes, resulting in beach erosion on the refuge. Changes in dredging 

operations will be recommended, as needed, to protect wildlife resources. 
264 Appendices 

Project 98006 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $40,000, Recurring Request $5,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 12 

This project will provide the funding to conduct a comprehensive fisheries survey of refuge lakes, streams, 

and other water bodies (e.g., canals, ditches, and ponds) to help develop a Fishery Management Plan. The 

survey will include an evaluation of each aquatic habitat and its ability to support fish populations. Service 

fisheries biologists will conduct the survey and plan. Very little is known about the freshwater fishery 

resources on the refuge. The highly acidic waters associated with organic soils, and the periodic inflow of 

brackish waters from surrounding sounds, make for a unique combination of aquatic conditions. 

Project 98008 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $235,000, Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) – Not Ranked 

This project will provide the funding to purchase a long-reach tracked excavator for use in all aspects 

of the refuge’s management and maintenance programs. At present, the refuge does not have an 

excavator that is capable of cleaning out the large canals associated with eighty to ninety miles of 

primary refuge roads. The new excavator will allow the refuge to conduct public use, fire 

management, endangered species management, and biological activities in a more efficient manner. 

The lack of this essential equipment will continue to hinder refuge operations and accomplishment of 

station objectives. 

Project 98010 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $200,000, Recurring Request $3,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) – Not Ranked 

This project will provide the funding to purchase six new vehicles to meet the needs of new staff 

members. The refuge’s vehicle fleet has been sorely neglected in terms of additions to the fleet. 

New staff members (both permanent and seasonal) have been added in recent years; however, no 

additional vehicles have been purchased due to a lack of funds. At least six new vehicles are needed 

to properly support all aspects of the refuge’s management and maintenance programs. These 

vehicles will allow the refuge’s public use, fire management, endangered species management, and 

biological program activities to be conducted in a more efficient manner. 

Project 98011 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 10 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 park ranger to manage the 

refuge volunteer program. The current refuge volunteer program documents more than 25,000 

volunteer hours annually, supporting the biological, maintenance, management, and administrative 

programs. The current staff is not sufficient to adequately recruit, train, supervise, supply, and 

administer a program with a larger number of volunteers. Adding a volunteer coordinator will meet 

both the current need and assist in securing additional volunteer services on the refuge. Volunteers 

perform tasks such as sea turtle patrol, visitor contact duties, environmental talks at schools, 

boundary signing, and clerical duties. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 265

Project 99001 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $130,000, Recurring Request $118,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 27 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 refuge operations specialist 

and a GS-5 administrative assistant to meet the administrative needs of increased activities. 

Expanded refuge operations and activities in program areas such as endangered species 

management, fire management, biological, public use, visitor services, etc., along with increased 

administrative tasks, has caused a decrease in overall efficiency in completing administrative 

functions in a timely manner. To improve refuge operations, these administrative positions are 

needed. The increased emphasis on ecosystem management and the associated workload makes it 

necessary to have a multi-disciplined staff. This increase also necessitates the need for expanded 

administrative functions. 

Project 99002 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

One Time Request $30,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 3 

This project will provide the funding to restore a minimum of 250,000 acres (over a 20-year period) in 

eight types of forested habitats found on five national wildlife refuges in the coastal plain of eastern 

North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. In this area, forest types, such as pine pocosins, maritime 

forests, Atlantic white cedar, bottomland hardwoods, and cypress-gum swamps, are greatly reduced 

and degraded from exploitive timbering, land clearing, drainage of wetlands, and commercial 

development. Water quality will improve as the forest types are restored. Endangered red wolves 

and red-cockaded woodpeckers, wood ducks, American woodcock, migratory land birds, and the 

largest remaining black bear population on the mid-Atlantic coast will greatly benefit from the restored 

forests. Local ecotourism and timber product businesses will also benefit. We will partner with the 

Department of Defense (45,000-acre U.S. Air Force/Navy bombing range), U.S. Geological Survey, 

U.S. Forest Service (Croatan National Forest), and the North Carolina Forest Service to accomplish 

the restoration of these biologically and economically important forest resources. 

Project 99003 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $82,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 22 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 park ranger to provide 

additional educational opportunities to visitors. The geographic area surrounding the refuge has the 

North Carolina Aquarium on Roanoke Island, the sailing ship Queen Elizabeth II State Historic Site, 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Wright Brothers National 

Memorial, Nags Head Woods Nature Preserve, and many other natural and cultural history sites. 

Hundreds of school groups from a two to four state radius travel here for school field trips in the 

spring and fall. During the summer months, more than seven million people visit the Outer Banks. 

Families seek and attend educational programs that will entertain and educate their children. There 

are many opportunities for the Fish and Wildlife Service to be involved with these activities, and get 

the Service’s message to the public. 
266 Appendices 

Project 99004 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

One Time Request $48,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 14 

This project will provide the funding to fund an environmental contaminants study of the Dare County 

Landfill. 

Project 00003 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 2 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 forester to develop, 

coordinate, and implement a forest management program on the heavily forested 152,000-acre 

refuge. A 1999 Forest Management Review recommended a variety of needed forest habitat 

improvements to include restoration of hardwoods and Atlantic white cedar (a globally imperiled 

species), control of forest pest species, and effective management of fire-dependent pine stands. A 

forester is essential for preparing and implementing site-specific forest management plans that will 

improve habitat for endangered species (red-cockaded woodpecker), migratory birds (waterfowl and 

land birds), and important resident wildlife (black bear and white-tailed deer) on the refuge. The 

forester will also prepare and administer numerous contracts that will be used to accomplish forest 

habitat improvements, especially in the area of Atlantic white cedar regeneration, southern pine 

beetle control, and the establishment of permanent fire lanes (needed for prescribed fire and wildfire 

protection). The forester will work with the Department of Defense resource managers on the 

46,000-acre Dare County Bombing Range, which is surrounded by the refuge, to help implement a 

coordinated forest management program. 

Project 00007 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $53,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 1 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-7 biological technician to 

improve water management, wildlife monitoring, and interagency coordination on both the 152,000-

acre Alligator River Refuge and the 5,800-acre Pea Island Refuge. Effective water management is 

essential to restoring the natural hydrology on the Alligator River Refuge, which is heavily dissected 

by roads, drainage canals, and ditches. It is also essential to the proper management of wetland 

vegetation in three artificial moist-soil units on Pea Island Refuge, which benefit thousands of 

migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. An improved hydrology regime on Alligator River Refuge will 

benefit a variety of important wildlife species (e.g., endangered red wolf, black bear, waterfowl, and 

white-tailed deer) through an overall improvement of habitat quality and diversity. On both refuges, 

the biological technician will monitor water quality and quantity, water gauges, and pumps. The 

technician will also survey and monitor endangered red-cockaded woodpecker colonies, conduct fish 

population surveys, band migratory birds, control invasive plant species (Phragmites), and monitor 

endangered sea turtle nesting activities and marine mammal strandings. The effects of Army Corps 

of Engineers dredging and disposal activities on Pea Island Refuge would be monitored to compile 

biological information needed for management decisions concerning controversial issues associated 

with beach nourishment and shorebird feeding and nesting habitat. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 267

Project 00012 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $15,800, Recurring Request $7,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 25 

This project will provide the funding to conduct an internal outreach program. This internal outreach 

program is very successful in the regions within the Service. Staff members are trained in customer 

service, public relations, and media relations. Public service announcements are produced using 

various staff members. The announcements portray the positive attributes of staff and refuge 

programs. The team approach in training produces a quality product. 

Project 00092 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $54,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 1 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time WG-8 maintenance worker to help 

operate and maintain four refuge pump stations, numerous water control structures, and other 

facilities on the 5,800-acre Pea Island Refuge and the nearby 152,000- acre Alligator River Refuge. 

The pumps and water control structures are used to regulate the flooding and draining of three 

artificial impoundments on Pea Island Refuge and extensive farm management and moist-soil units 

on the Alligator River Refuge. Effective water management is essential to restoring natural hydrology 

(which has been degraded by an extensive system of roads, drainage canals, and ditches) on the 

Alligator River Refuge. It is also essential to the proper management of wetland vegetation in the 

intensively managed artificial impoundments on the Pea Island Refuge, which benefit thousands of 

migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. This maintenance worker is essential to the proper operation, 

maintenance, and repair of refuge pumps, water control structures, and other facilities (e.g., buildings, 

grounds, trails, vehicles, and equipment) associated with water management and other refuge 

operations (e.g., public use, biological, and prescribed fire). The harsh climatic and environmental 

conditions (e.g., corrosive salt air, hurricanes) associated with northeastern North Carolina make it 

necessary to have a quality preventive and cyclic maintenance program. Refuge facilities are in need 

of constant maintenance to increase the lifespan and efficiency of all refuge operations. 

Project 00094 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 6 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 computer specialist to 

improve automated data processing and geographic information system operations on two refuges: 

Alligator River and Pea Island. Refuge operations and maintenance decisions must be based on the 

most reliable, up-to-date information available. The use of modern automated data processing and 

geographic information system technology will allow the two refuges’ staff (about 30 employees at 

present) to obtain the latest biological information, analyze data, transmit information, respond to 

inquiries, and communicate with partners. A computer specialist would administer and maintain the 

program. As fast as computer technology is advancing, the ability to efficiently gather, analyze, and 

disseminate information and data increases staff efficiency and fosters professional operations. 
268 Appendices 

Project 00095 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 3 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 wildlife biologist to expand 

and enhance the biological monitoring program on the 5,800-acre Pea Island Refuge and the 

152,000-acre Alligator River Refuge. The field biologist will assist the senior refuge biologist and one 

biological technician in coordinating and conducting all wildlife and habitat surveys on the two 

refuges. Having a field biologist to oversee biological operations will allow the senior wildlife biologist 

to develop various wildlife and habitat management plans, which would then be implemented by the 

field biologist. These plans are essential to the proper management of a diverse number of 

endangered species (e.g., red wolf, red-cockaded woodpecker, piping plover, and loggerhead sea 

turtle) and other important wildlife species (e.g., bald eagle, American alligator, waterfowl, shorebirds, 

wading birds, land birds, black bear, and white-tailed deer) that use these two refuges. Habitat and 

fisheries surveys, based on approved plans, would also be conducted or coordinated by the wildlife 

biologist in consultation with Service fishery biologists, foresters, and fire management specialists. 

Project 00096 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $60,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 4 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time WG-10 heavy equipment mechanic 

to maintain and repair bulldozers, road graders, draglines, farm equipment, over-the-road truck 

tractors, fire equipment, front-end loaders, and fixed pump stations on two refuges: the 5,800-acre 

Pea Island Refuge and 152,000-acre Alligator River Refuge. Currently, the refuges have no staff 

person qualified to maintain and repair heavy equipment (mostly diesel engines). A qualified diesel 

mechanic would improve the overall refuge maintenance operations by reducing equipment downtime 

and by reducing transportation costs to commercial repair facilities. Also, the life of heavy equipment 

would be extended through an effective preventative and cyclic maintenance program conducted by 

this position. A large assortment of construction type heavy equipment is used to maintain the two 

refuges’ infrastructure such as roads (more than 150 miles), dikes, water control structures, trails, and 

firebreaks. These refuge facilities are heavily used by the visiting public and are necessary for 

completing many management activities. Having a heavy equipment mechanic to properly maintain a 

viable fleet of equipment is necessary to support all areas of refuge management. 

Project 00098 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $58,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 2 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-7 park ranger (law enforcement) 

to ensure a proactive law enforcement program on this 5,800-acre refuge. At present, four dualpurpose officers provide reactive visitor safety and resource protection on this refuge and the nearby 

152,000-acre Alligator River Refuge. These two refuges host more than two million annual visitors; 

most of them visit Pea Island Refuge. However, visitation and crime is increasing annually on both 

refuges. Therefore, a full-time refuge officer is needed to provide information to the visiting public 

(while striving for voluntary compliance) and to protect the refuge’s numerous visitors from a more 

sophisticated criminal element. The officer is needed to protect the two refuges’ significant wildlife 

resources such as black bear (the largest concentration of black bears on the mid-Atlantic coast) and 

endangered red wolf on Alligator River Refuge, and endangered sea turtles and piping plovers that 

nest on Pea Island Refuge. The poaching of other important wildlife (e.g., diamond-backed turtle, 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 269

white-tailed deer, timber rattlesnake, and yellow-spotted turtle), illegal collecting of cultural and 

historic resources, and vandalizing of refuge facilities, equipment, and signs would be reduced. The 

refuge officer will work closely with various local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies 

(Department of Defense) to improve the coordination and efficiency of law enforcement operations in 

the vicinity of both refuges. 

Project 00099 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 5 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 park ranger (wildlife 

interpretive specialist) to plan, design, and coordinate wildlife exhibits, trails, and special events. 

Over two million visitors use Pea Island Refuge and the nearby Alligator River Refuge annually, and 

the number of visitors is increasing every year. A wildlife interpretive specialist is needed to meet the 

increasing demand for quality environmental education and wildlife interpretation facilities, programs, 

and events on the two refuges. Day-to-day public use operations and activities need to be directed at 

a professional level, which this position will accomplish. The wildlife interpretive specialist will also 

coordinate the operation of the refuge visitor center, environmental education and interpretation 

programs, and large volunteer program (regular volunteers from the community, college interns, 

workampers). This position will provide the proper oversight and coordination of these programs and 

an active friends group (Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society). 

Project 02001 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 2 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 refuge operations specialist to 

serve as a safety/environmental compliance coordinator and asset manager. The position would 

meet ever-increasing demands for environmental protection and assurance of a safe visitor 

experience and employee work environment. This position will serve as the station’s safety officer 

and be responsible for conducting periodic safety inspections, identifying safety issues, managing all 

safety documentation, and conducting safety meetings. Refuge environmental audits and 

compliance implementation will be coordinated through this position. The individual will be 

responsible for managing real property inventory and personal property databases and managing the 

stations’ Service Asset and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) computerized maintenance 

management software application to track maintenance expenditures, capture maintenance needs, 

quantify maintenance activities, and report maintenance accomplishments. The position will serve 

both the Alligator River and Pea Island Refuges. 

Project 04001 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $330,000, Recurring Request $41,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 24 

This project will provide the funding to construct new refuge residences, a “duplex” (in one structure) 

that has two units (sides), each with 1,500-1,600 square feet. The estimated total cost is $250,000. 

The justification is the lack of affordable housing in the area for permanent full-time entry-level 

employees. The high cost of housing negatively affects the refuge’s ability to attract the “best and 

brightest” to the Service in this area. The project includes costs for initial construction and long-term 

maintenance (including a staff position). 
270 Appendices 

Tier 1 Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects (Projects that address critical mission 

criteria) (Both refuges’ projects are listed because most projects are shared and benefit both 

refuges) 

Cost 

Refuge Number Rank First Year, 

Recurring, 

Total First Year

FTE Description 

ARNWR 00007 1 65K, 53K,118K 1.0 Improve biological data collection and 

water management (biological 

technician). 

ARNWR 00003 2 65K,74K,139K 1.0 Implement a comprehensive forest 

management program (forester). 

ARNWR 99002 3 30K,0K,30K 0.0 Restore the ecosystem’s coastal plain 

forests. 

ARNWR 98003 4 432K,0K,432K 0.0 Identify and protect cultural 

resources. 

ARNWR 97047 5 39K,10K,49K 0.0 Improve information resource 

management. 

PINWR 00092 1 65K,54K,119K 1.0 Restore and manage important 

wetlands (maintenance worker). 

PINWR 00098 2 65K,58K,123K 1.0 Improve resource and visitor 

protection (park ranger-enforcement). 

PINWR 00095 3 65K,74K,139K 1.0 Expand biological monitoring 

programs (wildlife biologist). 

PINWR 00096 4 65K,60K,125K 1.0 Improve equipment maintenance and 

repair (heavy equipment mechanic). 

PINWR 00099 5 65K,74K,139K 1.0 Enhance public education and 

outreach programs (park rangerinterpretation). 

PINWR 00094 6 65K,74K,139K 1.0 Provide improved computer support 

(computer specialist). 

ARNWR 97022 1 85K,15K,100K 0.0 Reduce or eradicate invasive 

‘Phragmites’ pest plant 

ARNWR 02001 2 65K,69K,134K 1.0 Improve safety, environmental 

compliance, and asset management 

(assistant manager-facilities) 

ARNWR 97021 6 100K,138K,238

K 

2.0 Restore hydrology on forested 

wetlands 

ARNWR 98011 10 65K,69K,134K 1.0 Improve volunteer coordination (park 

ranger). 

ARNWR 97025 11 38K,5.2K,43.2K 0.0 Improve resource management data 

collection 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 271

Cost 

Refuge Number Rank First Year, 

Recurring, 

Total First Year

FTE Description 

ARNWR 98006 12 40K,5K,45K 0.0 Improve fisheries management 

capabilities. 

ARNWR 97048 13 210K,10K,220K 0.0 Improve resource management and 

maintenance operations. 

ARNWR 99004 14 48K,0K,48K 0.0 Environmental contaminants study – 

Dare County Landfill 

ARNWR 97007 15 60K,5K,65K 0.0 Improve resource management 

planning 

ARNWR 97010 16 40K,10K,50K 0.0 Improve water quality monitoring 

capabilities 

ARNWR 97005 18 162.5K,182K, 

344.5K 

3.0 Enhance natural regeneration of 

Atlantic white cedar (forester, forestry 

technician, engineering equipment 

operator) 

ARNWR 99003 22 65K,82K,147K 1.0 Improve public outreach and 

education activities (park ranger). 

ARNWR 04001 24 330K,41K,371K 0.0 Provide entry level employee 

housing. 

ARNWR 00012 25 15.8K,7K,22.8K 0.0 Implement Ambassador Program. 

ARNWR 99001 27 130K,118K,248

K 

2.0 Improve administrative support 

(refuge operations specialist), 

administrative assistant). 

ARNWR 97011 29 65K,59K,124K 1.0 Improve water level management in 

moist soil/farm units (biological 

technician). 

ARNWR 97018 30 65K,49K,114K 1.0 Improve management of moist soil 

units (maintenance worker). 

ARNWR 98004 32 80K,80K,160K 0.0 Increase refuge office space. 

ARNWR 98008 99 235K,10K,245K 0.0 Improve resource management and 

maintenance operations (excavator). 

ARNWR 98010 99 200K,3K,203K 0.0 Improve resource management and 

maintenance operations (vehicle fleet). 

PINWR 97045 1 195K,213K,408

K 

4.0 Enhance visitor services and 

education (park rangers, maintenance 

workers). 

PINWR 97041 2 82K,49K,131K 1.0 Expand wildlife monitoring surveys 

(biological technician). 
272 Appendices 

Cost 

Refuge Number Rank First Year, 

Recurring, 

Total First Year

FTE Description 

PINWR 97040 3 56K,84K,140K 1.0 Improve coordination with other 

resource and public use agencies 

(resource specialist). 

PINWR 97043 4 32.5K,44K,76.5

K 

1.0 Improve waterfowl nesting and 

production surveys (biological 

technician). 

PINWR 97039 6 65K,69K,134K 1.0 Improve administration and 

coordination of special uses (refuge 

operations specialist). 

PINWR 98005 7 85K,84K,169K 1.0 Monitor Oregon inlet dredging 

operations (biological technician). 

PINWR = Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ARNWR = Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project numbers have the fiscal year the project was developed as the first two numbers. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 273

Maintenance Management System (MMS) Projects 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

Alligator River Projects 

90041 Rehabilitate and Gravel 

Milltail Road 

$0 Alligator River 

95001 Replace Laurel Bay and 

Creef Pump Stations 

2011 $1,879,000 Alligator River 

97008 Construct Visitor Center 

and Administrative Office 

Complex 

2011 $3,724,000 9(7) Alligator River 

97009 Construct an 

Informational Trail Area 

 $54,000 Alligator River 

97049 Rehabilitate Equipment 

Repair Facility 

2010 $522,000 Alligator River 

98007 Replace Worn Shaft 

Bearings on Laurel Bay 

Waterfowl Pumps 

2008 $50,000 60(52) Alligator River 

98009 Rehabilitate and Gravel 

Milltail Road 

$0 Alligator River 

98010 Replace Military Truck 

Tractor 

 $104,000 Alligator River 

98011 Replace Ford 545 

Mowing Tractor 

$55,000 41(34) Alligator River 

98013 Replace Timer Equipment 

Trailer 

 $53,000 36(30) Alligator River 

98017 Rehabilitate Creef Cut 

Walking Trail 

$38,000 Alligator River 

98025 Rehabilitate Primary 

Refuge Road System 

2009 $283,000 33(28) Alligator River 

98029 Replace Mowers $274,000 50(42) Alligator River 

98030 Rehabilitate Primary 

Canal System 

2007 $60,000 30(25) Alligator River 

98032 Replace 1978 D3 Crawler 

Tractor 

$136,000 49(41) Alligator River 

98037 Replace Ford 6610 

Mowing Tractor 

 $88,000 43(36) Alligator River 

98039 Replace 15-Ton Crane 

and 10-Ton Forklift 

$120,000 14(11) Alligator River 
274 Appendices 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

98041 Replace Workhorse 

Equipment Transport 

Trailer 

 $71,000 57(49) Alligator River 

98042 Replace John Deere 

644G Front-end Loader 

$186,000 Alligator River 

98044 Replace Caterpillar D6H 

Crawler Tractor 

 $235,000 Alligator River 

98045 Replace Caterpillar 

EL200B Excavator 

$238,000 29(24) Alligator River 

98046 Replace John Deere 

770B Road Grader 

 $230,000 Alligator River 

98047 Replace Boat, Motor and 

Trailer 

$55,000 Alligator River 

98048 Replace Refuge Road 

Gates 

2007 $31,000 37(31) Alligator River 

98052 Replace Water Control 

Structures 

2011 $53,000 Alligator River 

98065 Replace Worn Shaft 

Bearings on Creek 

Waterfowl Moist Soil Unit 

Pumps 

2008 $32,000 59(51) Alligator River 

99001 Replace Nodwell Flex 

Tracked Vehicle 

$82,000 44(37) Alligator River 

99005 Replace Allis Chalmers 

Front End Loader 

 $164,000 24(20) Alligator River 

99006 Replace ford L9000 

Dump Truck 

$120,000 47(40) Alligator River 

99007 Repair Parking Area 

Surface 

2008 $43,000 21(40) Alligator River 

99009 Replace Air Boat $39,000 38(32) Alligator River 

99011 Replace Spryte Thiokol 

Marsh Buggy 

 $110,000 45(38) Alligator River 

01001 Remove Military Facility 

Structures 

2008 $32,000 42(35) Alligator River 

01007 Replace 1994 Ford Truck 

Tractor 

 $105,000 46(39) Alligator River 

01009 Replace 1994 Chevy 

Wildland Fire Pumper 

Unit 

$64,000 Alligator River 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 275

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

01010 Replace 1996 Ford L9000 

Truck Tractor Hauling 

Unit 

$105,000 Alligator River 

01017 Replace 1997 Ford F150 

Pickup (Wolf) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

01018 Replace 1997 Ford F150 

Pickup (Wolf) 

$31,000 Alligator River 

01020 Replace 1997 Dodge 

Ram 1500 Pickup (Wolf) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

01021 Replace 1998 Ford 

Explorer (Wolf) 

$31,000 Alligator River 

01023 Replace 1997 Dodge 

Ram 1500 Pickup (Wolf) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

01024 Replace 1997 Ford F350 

Crewcab Pickup (Fire) 

$38,000 Alligator River 

01025 Replace 1996 Ford Van $38,000 5(5) Alligator River 

01028 Replace Worn 1988 IHC 

Truck Tractor 

$105,000 16(13) Alligator River 

01029 Replace 1979 Osh Kosh 

Truck Tractor and Trailer 

 $169,000 15(12) Alligator River 

01030 Replace 1997 Ford 

Explorer 

$31,000 Alligator River 

01031 Replace Flex Tracked 

Fire Fighting Tractor 

(AX4) 

 $185,000 51(43) Alligator River 

01032 Replace Flex Tracked 

Fire Fighting Tractor 

(AX2) 

$233,000 32(27) Alligator River 

01033 Replace Full Tracked Fire 

Fighting Tractor (AX6) 

 $233,000 53(45) Alligator River 

01034 Replace Trailer Mounted 

Pump Unit Engine (Gator 

1) 

$21,000 10(8) Alligator River 

01035 Replace Trailer Mounted 

Pump Unit Engine (Gator 

2) 

 $21,000 13(10) Alligator River 

01036 Replace Trailer Mounted 

16” Water Pump (Pump 

1) 

$10,000 12(9) Alligator River 
276 Appendices 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

01037 Replace Trailer Mounted 

16” Water Pump (Pump 

2) 

 $10,000 17(14) Alligator River 

01038 Replace Heavy 

Equipment Transport 

Trailer (Witzco) 

$53000 54(46) Alligator River 

01039 Replace Heavy 

Equipment Transport 

Trailer (Boaz) 

 $53,000 55(47) Alligator River 

01040 Replace Ford 8260 

Agricultural Tractor 

$58,000 Alligator River 

01041 Replace Military Excess 

Bucyrus Erie Dragline 

 $287,000 19(16) Alligator River 

01042 Replace Worn Ford 6640 

Boomaxe Agricultural 

Tractor 

$79,000 58(50) Alligator River 

01043 Replace Fully Tracked 

Firefighting (Tractor) 

Equipment (AX5) 

 $233,000 52(44) Alligator River 

01048 Replace Military 

Pettibone Forklift 

$169,000 31(26) Alligator River 

02001 Replace 1998 Ford 

Taurus 

 $27,000 Alligator River 

02002 Replace 1999 Ford F-250 

(Wolf) 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02003 Replace 1999 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02004 Replace 1999 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02005 Replace 1999 Chevy C7500 Dump Truck  $42,000 Alligator River 

02006 Replace 2001 Dodge 

2500 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02007 Replace 2001 Dodge 

2500 

 $29,000 Alligator River 

02008 Replace 2001 Dodge 

2500 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02009 Replace 2000 Chevy 

Tahoe 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

02010 Replace 2000 Ford 

Expedition (Planners) 

$31,000 Alligator River 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 277

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

02011 Replace 2000 Chevy 

Astro (Planners) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

02012 Replace 2001 Dodge 

Ram 2500 (Wolf) 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02013 Replace 2001 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02014 Replace 2001 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02015 Replace 2002 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02016 Replace 2002 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02017 Replace 2002 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02018 Replace 2002 Ford F-150 $29,000 Alligator River 

02019 Replace 2002 Sterling L9500  $99,000 Alligator River 

02020 Replace 2002 LE Dodge 

LE 1500 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02021 Replace 2002 Ford 

Expedition 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

02022 Replace 2002 Ford F-250 

(Wolf) 

$29,000 Alligator River 

02023 Replace 2002 Ford F-250 

(Wolf) 

 $29,000 Alligator River 

02024 Replace 2002 Ford F-450 $47,000 Alligator River 

02025 Replace Allis Chalmers 

Forklift 

 $42,000 40(33) Alligator River 

02026 Replace Caterpillar D3C 

LGP 

$73,000 Alligator River 

02027 Replace Case 4X4 Front 

End Loader 

 $167,000 Alligator River 

02029 Replace Dresser TD12 

LGP Dozer 

$188,000 Alligator River 

02030 Replace Trail King Dump 

Trailer 

 $42,000 Alligator River 

02031 Replace Ford 8160 

Agricultural Tractor 

$84,000 Alligator River 

02032 Replace Ford 8830 

Agricultural Tractor 

 $94,000 Alligator River 

02034 Replace Fontaine Low 

Boy Trailer 

$63,000 Alligator River 
278 Appendices 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

02035 Replace John Deere 

4100 Mowing Tractor 

 $16,000 Alligator River 

02036 Replace John Deere 

5400 Mowing Tractor 

$31,000 Alligator River 

02037 Replace Terez D7F 

Dozer 

 $261,000 Alligator River 

02038 Replace 45’ Bridge Trailer $31,000 Alligator River 

02039 Replace Refuge 

Operations Facility 

2011 $1,670,000 Alligator River 

02040 Construct Red Wolf 

Processing Facility 

$131,000 2(2) Alligator River 

02043 Construct Two HAZMAT 

Storage Buildings 

 $60,000 1(1) Alligator River 

02044 Construct Biological 

Program Storage Building 

$40,000 3(3) Alligator River 

02128 Replace champion 710A 

Road grader 

 $136,000 25(21) Alligator River 

03001 Replace Hyster Forklift $26,000 23(19) Alligator River 

03002 Replace Worn 2002 Ford 

Explorer 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

03003 Replace Worn 2002 Ford 

Explorer 

$31,000 Alligator River 

03004 Replace Worn 2003 Ford 

F-250 (Wolf) 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

03005 Replace Worn 2003 F150 $31,000 Alligator River 

03006 Replace 1995 Ford F-150 $31,000 4(4) Alligator River 

03007 Replace Worn Chevy 

Silverado (Fire) 

$37,000 Alligator River 

03008 Replace 21’ Boston 

Whaler 

 $63,000 Alligator River 

03009 Replace Water Tender 

Truck (Tanker) 

$73,000 Alligator River 

03011 Replace 2 Worn Creef 

Pump Engines 

 $94,000 27(22) Alligator River 

03012 Replace 2 Worn Laurel 

Bay Pump Engines 

$94,000 28(23) Alligator River 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 279

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

03013 Replace Stockpile of 

Aggregate Road 

Maintenance Material 

2006 $84,000 6(6) Alligator River 

03014 Rehabilitate Station 

Heliport 

 $29,000 56(48) Alligator River 

03015 Replace Laurel Bay pump 

Vehicular Crossing 

$235,000 18(15) Alligator River 

03017 Replace Worn Caterpillar 

420D Backhoe/Loader 

 $84,000 Alligator River 

04 Rehabilitate Pump Road $189,000 Alligator River 

04001 Resurface Milltail Road 

(2.2 miles) 

2004 $400,000 Alligator River 

04002 Replace 2004 Ford F150 $30,000 Alligator River 

04003 Replace 2004 Ford F650 

Service Truck 

 $62,000 Alligator River 

04004 Replace 2004 Ford F650 

Service Truck (Fire) 

$62,000 Alligator River 

04005 Replace 2004 Ford F150 

Crew Cab 

 $30,000 Alligator River 

04006 Replace 2004 Ford F150 

Crew Cab 

$30,000 Alligator River 

04007 Replace 2004 Ford 

Expedition (Fire) 

 $36,000 Alligator River 

04008 Replace 2003 Ford F150 $30,000 Alligator River 

04009 Replace 2004 Ford 

Expedition 

 $36,000 Alligator River 

04010 Repave Creef Cut Trail $35,000 Alligator River 

04011 Replace Worn CAT 320 

Long Reach Excavator 

 $180,000 Alligator River 

04012 Rehabilitate Koehring 

Road 

$696,000 Alligator River 

04013 Rehabilitate Bear Road $293,000 Alligator River 

04014 Rehabilitate Blueberry 

Road 

$285,000 Alligator River 

04015 Rehabilitate Borrow Pit 

Road 

 $122,000 Alligator River 

04016 Rehabilitate Brier Hall 

Road 

$364,000 Alligator River 
280 Appendices 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

04017 Rehabilitate Deep Bay 

Road 

 $129,000 Alligator River 

04018 Rehabilitate Grouse Road $115,000 Alligator River 

04019 Rehabilitate Long Curve 

Road 

 $933,000 Alligator River 

04020 Rehabilitate Milltail Road $975,000 Alligator River 

04021 Rehabilitate Pamlico 

Road 

 $212,000 Alligator River 

04022 Rehabilitate Point Peter 

Road 

$169,000 Alligator River 

04024 Rehabilitate Whipping 

Creek Road 

 $429,000 Alligator River 

04025 Rehabilitate Dry Ridge 

Road 

$717,000 Alligator River 

04026 Rehabilitate Possum 

Road 

 $274,000 Alligator River 

04027 Rehabilitate Twiford Road $363,000 Alligator River 

04028 Rehabilitate Buffalo City 

Road 

 $243,000 Alligator River 

04029 Rehabilitate Lake 

Neighborhood Road 

$175,000 Alligator River 

04030 Rehabilitate Sandy Ridge 

Road 

 $92,000 Alligator River 

04031 Rehabilitate Bay Road $158,000 Alligator River 

04032 Rehabilitate Cypress 

Road 

 $57,000 Alligator River 

04033 Rehabilitate Cedar Road $180,000 Alligator River 

04034 Rehabilitate Jake Road $80,000 Alligator River 

04035 Rehabilitate West 

Widgeon Road 

$138,000 Alligator River 

04036 Rehabilitate Pollock Road $236,000 Alligator River 

04037 Rehabilitate Wigeon 

Road 

$134,000 Alligator River 

04038 Rehabilitate Canvasback 

Road 

 $173,000 Alligator River 

04039 Rehabilitate Little Field 

Road 

$115,000 Alligator River 

04040 Rehabilitate Eagle Road $113,000 Alligator River 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 281

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

04041 Rehabilitate Storm Road $111,000 Alligator River 

04042 Rehabilitate Reuben 

Road 

$79,000 Alligator River 

04043 Rehabilitate Sassafras 

Road 

 $59,000 Alligator River 

04044 Rehabilitate Alligator 

Road 

$323,000 Alligator River 

04046 Rehabilitate H&B Road $386,000 Alligator River 

04047 Rehabilitate Richmond 

Road 

$159,000 Alligator River 

04048 Rehabilitate Chip Road $143,000 Alligator River 

04049 Rehabilitate Lake Worth 

Road 

$107,000 Alligator River 

04050 Rehabilitate Beaver Road $165,000 Alligator River 

04051 Rehabilitate River Road $151,000 Alligator River 

04052 Rehabilitate Hickory Road $125,000 Alligator River 

04053 Rehabilitate Wynne Road $148,000 Alligator River 

04054 Rehabilitate Osprey Road $98,000 Alligator River 

04055 Rehabilitate Hook Road $151,000 Alligator River 

04056 Rehabilitate North 

Perimeter Road 

 $573,000 Alligator River 

04057 Rehabilitate Peterson 

Road 

$203,000 Alligator River 

04058 Rehabilitate Sawyer Lake 

Road 

 $405,000 Alligator River 

04059 Rehabilitate Creef Road $223,000 Alligator River 

04060 Rehabilitate Bobcat Road $258,000 Alligator River 

04061 Rehabilitate Gadwall 

Road 

$177,000 Alligator River 

04062 Rehabilitate Link Road $97,000 Alligator River 

04063 Rehabilitate Butler Road $290,000 Alligator River 

04064 Rehabilitate Laurel Bay 

Road 

 $442,000 Alligator River 

04067 Rehabilitate Blueberry 

Road Parking Area 

$30,000 Alligator River 
282 Appendices 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

04068 Repair/Rehabilitate 

(Koehring) Wildlife 

Parking Area 

$36,000 Alligator River 

04069 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Pollock/Koehring Wildlife 

Parking Area 

 $26,000 Alligator River 

04070 Repair/Rehabilitate Cedar 

Road Parking Lot 

$62,000 Alligator River 

04071 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Koehring Road Parking 

Lot 

 $25,000 Alligator River 

04072 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Borrow Pit Parking Lot 

$47,000 Alligator River 

04073 Repair/Rehabilitate Peter 

Point Road Parking Area 

 $30,000 Alligator River 

04077 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Sawyer Lake (Buffalo 

Ramp) Parking Area 

$26,000 Alligator River 

04078 Repair/ Rehabilitate Deep 

Bay Boat Launch Area 

 $51,000 Alligator River 

04079 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Dipper Road Parking 

Area 

$28,000 Alligator River 

04080 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Widgeon Road Parking 

 $65,000 Alligator River 

04080 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Twiford Road Parking #1 

$122,000 Alligator River 

04083 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Pamlico Road Heliport 

Parking Area 

 $34,000 Alligator River 

04087 Repair/Rehabilitate 

Twiford Road Parking #2 

$39,000 Alligator River 

04097 Replace 2004 Ford F150 

Pickup 

 $30,000 Alligator River 

04098 Replace 2004 Ford F150 

Pickup 

$30,000 Alligator River 

98014 Replace John Deere 

4240 Tractor 

 $157,000 8(2) Pea Island 

98021 Replace South Pond 

Pumping Station 

2008 $388,000 39(7) Pea Island 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 283

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

98055 Replace Pump Station 

Bulkhead 

2006 $27,000 35(6) Pea Island 

98057 Replace 1960 Office, 

Shop, Garage, and 

Residence 

2010 $800,000 20(4) Pea Island 

98063 Replace Bulkhead Pea Island 

98064 Replace North Pond 

Bulkhead 

Pea Island 

00007 Replace Storm Damaged 

Water Control Structure 

2009 $301,000 Pea Island 

01044 Replace Gasoline Fuel 

Tank 

2006 $25,000 7(1) Pea Island 

01045 Replace Aboveground 

Diesel Fuel Storage Tank 

2006 $46,000 11(3) Pea Island 

01046 Replace North Pond 

Pump Station 

2008 $474,000 Pea Island 

01047 Replace New Field Pump 

Station 

2008 $479,000 53(8) Pea Island 

03001 Transportation Planning 

for CCPs 

2007 $261,000 Pea Island 

04001 Replace Damaged 

Bulkhead That Protects 

the North Pond Moist Soil 

Units (West Side) 

2009 $61,000 26(5) Pea Island 

04089 Repair/Rehabilitate New 

Inlet Parking Area 

$39,000 Pea Island 

04090 Repair/Rehabilitate (New 

Inlet) Kiosk Parking Area 

 $27,000 Pea Island 

04091 Repair/Rehabilitate Visitor 

Center – Wildlife Trail 

Parking Area 

$0 Pea Island 

04092 Repair/Rehabilitate Pea 

Island Parking #2 

 $0 Pea Island 

04093 Repair/Rehabilitate Pea 

Island (Salt Flats) Parking 

#5 

$0 Pea Island 
284 Appendices 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station Rank 

(Alligator 

River Rank) 

Station Name 

04094 Repair/Rehabilitate Pea 

Island Parking #6, #5, #4, 

North Kiosk, and Visitor 

Center/Wildlife trail 

Parking Areas 

 $62,000 Pea Island 

04095 Repair/Rehabilitate North 

Kiosk Parking 

$0 Pea Island 

04096 Repair/Rehabilitate Pea 

Island Parking #8 

(Oregon Inlet) 

 $57,000 Pea Island 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 285

Appendix IX. Wilderness Review 

BACKGROUND 

Wilderness reviews are a required component of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s comprehensive 

conservation planning process. The primary purpose of a wilderness review is to inventory the areas 

on refuges that might have wilderness character and identify each area as wilderness study area. A 

wilderness study area must be roadless and meet one of the following size criteria: 

• greater than 5,000 acres; 

• a roadless island of any size; or 

• less than 5,000 acres but of sufficient size to be practicably managed as wilderness. 

A wilderness study area must also be natural and provide opportunities for solitude or primitive 

recreation. During the inventory phase of the wilderness review, the emphasis is on an assessment 

of wilderness character within the inventory unit. Sights and sounds originating from outside the unit, 

for example, those associated with military aircraft, cannot be used as justification to conclude that an 

area lacks wilderness character. Special values (e.g., ecological, geological, scenic, and historical) 

should be identified, but are not required. The determination to recommend (or not recommend) a 

wilderness study area to Congress for wilderness designation will be made through the 

comprehensive conservation plan decision-making process. 

On March 26 to 28, 2001, Service managers and refuge staff met at Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge to gather information and conduct field exams for the refuge’s wilderness review. The review 

team from that meeting is listed in the following table. 

Wilderness Review Team 

Team Member Title/Affiliation Address Phone 

Mike Bryant Manager 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

John Wallace Deputy Manager 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

Dennis Stewart Wildlife Biologist 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

Bonnie Strawser Wildlife Interpretative Specialist 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

Tom Crews Fire Management Officer 

Alligator River NWR 

P.O. Box 1969 

Manteo, NC 27954 252/473-1131 

Jerry Fringeli Assistant Manager 

Mattamuskeet NWR 

Route 1, Box N-2 

Swan Quarter, NC 27885 252/926-4021 

Wendy Stanton Wildlife Biologist 

Pocosin Lakes NWR 

P.O. Box 329 

Columbia, NC 27925 252-796-3004 

Bob Glennon Natural Resource Planner 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

1106 West Queen Street 

Edenton, NC 27932 252/482-2364 

D.A. Brown Habitat Protection Biologist 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

1106 West Queen Street 

Edenton, NC 27932 252/482-2364 

Donita Cotter Wilderness Program Analyst 

National Office, Division of Refuges 

4401 N. Fairfax Drive 

Arlington, VA 22203 703/358-2383 
286 Appendices 

Prior to the review, using GIS database analysis of land status, transportation system, and 

hydrographic information, ecosystem planning staff prepared a map of wilderness inventory units 

potentially meeting the wilderness study area criteria (see table below and following figure). These 

15 wilderness inventory units were evaluated over the course of the three-day field exercise. 

Wilderness Inventory Units – Alligator River NWR (62,522 acres) 

Unit Acreage Unit Acreage Unit Acreage 

7 5,139 12 2,200 17 4,710 

8 7,302 13 2,823 18 6,679 

9 4,424 14 1,231 19 1,689 

10 4,541 15 3,112 20 3,478 

11 9,804 16 2,247 21 3,144 

The wilderness management policy and regulations allow motorized access and use of mechanized 

equipment for administrative purposes, provided such uses are the minimum necessary to accomplish 

wilderness objectives. For the purposes of analysis in the draft comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment, managers should assume that authorization of such uses would be 

temporary and rare in a wilderness area. If such restrictions would significantly limit the Service’s ability 

to accomplish other resource management objectives, these impacts should be fully described in the 

environmental consequences sections of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental 

assessment and would obviously be a factor for consideration in selecting a preferred alternative. 

DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 

Photo documentation is required for each inventory unit to record existing wilderness character; any 

man-made features or “imprints of man’s work” that affect the unit’s naturalness; and condition of 

boundary roads. Photographs were taken during the field review; additional photographs were later 

taken from sounds and streams to give a complete impression of the inventory units. These photos 

will be keyed to text in the wilderness inventory evaluation reports and to maps. 

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT 

The wilderness management policy and regulations allow motorized access and use of mechanized 

equipment for administrative purposes, provided such uses are the minimum necessary to 

accomplish wilderness objectives. For the purposes of analysis in the draft comprehensive 

conservation pland and environmental assessment, managers should assume that authorization of 

such uses would be temporary and rare in a wilderness area. If such restrictions would significantly 

limit the Service’s ability to accomplish other resource management objectives, these impacts should 

be fully described in the environmental consequences sections of the draft plan and environmental 

assessment and would obviously be a factor for consideration in selecting a preferred alternative. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

Fire Management. A major concern is the need for controlled burning in areas where accumulated 

fuels could contribute to catastrophic wildfires, threatening the urban interface. The current smoke 

management guidelines have limited prescribed burns to 1,000 acres so a burn on an entire 5,000-

acre tract without firebreaks is not possible. 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 287

Wilderness Inventory Units – Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
288 Appendices 

Navigable Waters. Navigable waters (e.g., sounds, lakes, rivers, and creeks) bound most of the 

inventory units on Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. These waters are under the jurisdiction of 

the State of North Carolina. The Service has limited authority to restrict activities, such as motorized 

boating, on navigable bodies of water. 

Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. The federally listed red-cockaded woodpecker inhabits mature pond 

pine forests and requires relatively open old growth pine stands for nesting and feeding. The 

aggregate of nesting cavity trees is called a cluster and may include one to twenty or more cavity 

trees on three to sixty acres. There are three known clusters on the Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge with a possibility for six or seven clusters. The Dare County Bombing Range has five or six 

clusters. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan designated the Alligator River clusters as a 

support population rather than a recovery population. Development of a Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Management Plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge was due by July 1, 2001. Current 

management activities on the refuge consist of clearing trails to the cavity trees using machetes and 

a brush saw, paint marking and numbering trees, notation of geographic positioning system (GPS) 

locations, and monitoring of nesting activity. 

Southern Pine Beetle. The Southern pine beetle attacks all species of pines, including the pond pine 

found on Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The infestations are of concern because of the 

potential for killing red-cockaded woodpecker nest trees. On Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, 

control measures have typically consisted of felling a buffer strip of green, un-infested trees at the 

spreading edge or front of the active infestation using a tracked feller-buncher. The width of the 

buffer strip is as wide as the average height of the trees. Active infestations are located in wilderness 

inventory units 9, 10, and 11. Infestations have been treated in units 10 and 18. 

MANAGEMENT SITUATIONS SUMMARY 

A management situation summary will be prepared for each identified wilderness study area. The 

summary includes information regarding other important resource values and uses which do not 

relate specifically to the key wilderness inventory criteria. It will be used primarily in evaluating 

alternatives and making management decisions during the study phase and in responding to 

questions from the public. Much of this information is required for the comprehensive conservation 

plan and can be summarized and the planning record referenced for more detail. 

Maps of the area will be prepared showing roads, ditches, and special values such as anadromous 

fish spawning areas, primary and secondary nurseries, outstanding resource waters, state natural 

heritage areas, and location of federal and state listed threatened and endangered species. Surface 

disturbances would also be documented. The refuge staff indicated that some roads and ditches 

might be abandoned at some point in the future, following a road review. 

The following types of information should be included in a management situation summary: 

• refuge purposes 

• historic and existing public uses 

• historic and existing refuge management activities 

• status of current step-down management plans (e.g., provisions of the fire management plan that 

• relate to a specific wilderness study area) 

• existing or proposed management practices requiring motorized access or equipment and/or 

• mechanized transport 

• compatibility determinations 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 289

• special use permits 

• military uses and memorandums of understanding 

• research uses 

• commercial uses 

SUMMARY OF WILDERNESS REVIEW FINDINGS 

The review team identified five potential wilderness study areas at Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge (table below and following figure). The staff combined inventory units 17 and 18 to create the 

East Lake Wilderness Study Area; they combined inventory units 15 and 16 to create the Callahan 

Creek Wilderness Study Area. The boundaries of two wilderness study areas were also expanded. 

The staff expanded the boundary of Alice Nichols Wilderness Study Area (inventory unit 8) to include 

additional roadless lands on the north. They expanded the Quaking Bog Wilderness Study Area 

(inventory unit 11) on the northeast. The staff named wilderness inventory unit 7 the Atlantic White 

Cedar Wilderness Study Area Unit. 

Wilderness Study Areas – Alligator River NWR 

Unit Number Suggested Name of Potential Wilderness Study Area Acreage 

7 Atlantic White Cedar Wilderness Study Area 5,139 

8 Alice Nichols Wilderness Study Area 11,005 

11 Quaking Bog Wilderness Study Area 10,695 

15/16 Callahan Creek Wilderness Study Area 14,517 

17/18 East Lake Wilderness Study Area 14,517 

Total Acres 46,715 

The findings for each of the inventory units identified in the above table, including the potential 

wilderness study areas, are summarized below. 

Unit 7 (5,139 acres) meets the criteria for a wilderness study area. The unit is larger than 5,000 acres, 

apparently natural, and provides outstanding opportunities for solitude. Vegetation in the unit includes 

pond pine pocosin on the east end, bottomland hardwood in the middle part of the unit, and cypress/gum 

on the west end along the Intracoastal Waterway. Atlantic white cedar was also noted in the unit. The 

unit provided potential for restoration to the historically prevalent Atlantic white cedar habitat or other 

forested wetland types. “Atlantic White Wilderness Study Area” is the suggested name for the wilderness 

study area. It was noted that, since the refuge was acquired, this particular area has essentially been 

managed as wilderness due to its remote location, which is difficult to access. 

Unit 8 (initially 7,302 acres) meets the criteria for a wilderness study area. The unit is larger than 5,000 

acres, apparently natural, and provides outstanding opportunity for solitude. Vegetation is pond pine 

pocosin and bottomland hardwood. The north boundary of the inventory unit as initially identified is not 

located along a road or other man-made feature. The actual northern boundary of the roadless areas lies 

along Alligator Road. The eastern boundary of the roadless area is located along the boundary with Dare 

County Bombing range and “cherry-stems” Gator Roads 1, 2, 3 and 5. The four Gator Roads, two of 

which are owned and maintained by the U.S. Air Force, might potentially be abandoned and restored. 

South of the Dare County Bombing Range, the eastern acreage of the roadless area was 
290 Appendices 

Potential Wilderness Study Areas – Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 291

recalculated, and now totals 11,005 acres. It was acquired, due to its location and 

inaccessibility. This area, in which dog hunting for bear is currently prohibited, was identified by 

local hunters during comprehensive conservation plan public scooping meetings as one of the best 

potential bear hunting areas on the refuge. However, if this area becomes a wilderness study area, 

the use of dogs would almost certainly be prohibited, due to the expected increase in motorboat use 

for that activity. The largest boundary included the abandonment of Nichols Road, which was named 

in memory of Alice Nichols. Any of the alternative sizes would have distinct boundaries on all sides. 

“Alice Nichols Wilderness Study Area” is the suggested name for the wilderness study area. 

Units 9 (4,423 acres) and 10 (4,540 acres) are less than 5,000 acres in size and could not be 

practicably managed as wilderness. U.S. Highway 264 bounds the units on the north and east. Units 

9 and 10 are both bisected into smaller parcels by waterways, Long Shoal River and Pains Bay, 

respectively. These waterways are used for both recreational and commercial boating purposes. 

Due to the units’ small size, boundary configuration, and existing uses, they would be difficult to 

manage in a way to ensure outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. These areas 

do not meet the criteria for wilderness study areas. Southern pine beetle infestations and control 

buffer cuts heavily impacted the naturalness for both units. Both areas have high commercial use 

that would affect opportunities for solitude. Both units have considerable ditching in the areas 

adjacent to the units that would restrict their enlargement to more acreage. Therefore, these areas 

were eliminated from further consideration as wilderness study areas. 

Unit 11 (initially 9,803 acres) meets the criteria for a wilderness study area. The unit is larger than 

5,000 acres, apparently natural, and provides outstanding opportunities for solitude. The unit 

encompasses an area of deep organic soils that limit potential for surface disturbing activities thereby 

preserving the area’s natural features. It includes the unique land feature of a quaking bog, which 

was considered to be a supplemental value for the area. Vegetation in the unit varies from bog to low 

pocosin to tall pocosin to pond pine pocosin. The unit also has viable red-cockaded woodpecker 

habitat on the western edge. The roadless area actually includes a “finger” of land northeast of the 

initially identified inventory unit bound on the north by Lake Worth Road, U.S. Highway 264 on the 

east, and the Dare County Bombing Range on the west. Inclusion of this finger increases the unit’s 

expanded boundary acreage by 892 acres to a total of 10,695 acres, which includes all of the 

roadless area in the bombing range. At some point, an alternative may be written to modify the 

boundary to exclude red-cockaded woodpecker habitat for management purposes. The area has a 

distinct boundary on three sides and the Dare County Bombing Range on the north boundary. The 

area was recommended as a potential wilderness study area and “Quaking Bog Wilderness Study 

Area” was one suggested name. It is commonly referred to as the “264 Low Pocosin Area” and that 

was also suggested as an alternate name. 

Unit 12 (2,199 acres), Unit 13 (2,823 acres) and Unit 14 (1,230 acres) are less than 5,000 acres in size 

and could not practicably be managed as wilderness. The units are all bound on the east by Croatan 

Sound, which is a commercial fishery. The units are bordered on the west by refuge lands where natural 

values have been impacted by an extensive system of excavated drains that limit the possibility of 

enlarging the units’ boundaries. These units do not meet the criteria for wilderness study areas. 

Units 15 (3,112 acres) and 16 (2,247 acres) are separated by Callahan Creek, a natural feature that 

was originally drawn as a boundary dividing the two units. Both units are apparently natural and offer 

opportunities for solitude. The units are bound on the south, west, and east by drains and 

constructed firebreaks. Manns Harbor and Spencer’s Creek border Unit 16 on the north. The review 

team recommended combining the two units and making the combined area (5,359 acres) a 
292 Appendices 

wilderness study area. The boundary may be modified to include firebreaks on the eastern boundary 

to protect Manns Harbor. The combined units meet the criteria for a wilderness study area, and 

“Callahan Creek Wilderness Study Area” was a suggested name for the site. 

Adjacent Units 17 and 18, initially 4,710 acres and 6,679 acres respectively, were identified as two 

distinct inventory units for analysis. Significant man-made features, such as a road or drainage ditch, 

do not separate the units. Based on this finding, the two units were combined (11,389 acres) into one 

roadless area. In addition, the boundary of the combined roadless unit was extended on the east 

side to include additional roadless refuge lands. Drains and private lands now form the east 

boundary. Surface disturbances include old abandoned logging roads, sporadically situated in a 

north/south orientation along U.S. Highway 64. Southern pine beetle control buffer cuts also occur 

along the southern boundary adjacent to U.S. Highway 64. However, these disturbances are limited 

in size and do not affect the overall apparent naturalness of the combined unit. The densely 

vegetated unit is expansive for the area (14,517 acres) and provides outstanding opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation. Unit 17/18 has distinct boundaries on three sides and Manns 

Harbor on the east. Trapping and hunting occur in the area; these activities are allowed in wilderness 

study areas and designated wilderness. Most of Unit 17/18 is suitable for red-cockaded woodpecker 

recruitment or foraging habitat although no red-cockaded woodpeckers presently nest or forage in the 

area. The area killed by the southern pine beetle has tall pocosin vegetation without pines on it and 

would need restoration to be suitable as red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. A modified boundary 

could be evaluated to allow construction of firebreaks on the eastern boundary to protect Manns 

Harbor. Unit 17/18 meets the criteria for a wilderness study area. “East Lake Wilderness Study 

Area” is the suggested name for the potential wilderness study area. 

Unit 19 (1,689 acres) does not meet the criteria for a wilderness study area. The unit is less than 

5,000 acres. Unit 19 could not be practicably managed as wilderness because of fire protection 

requirements to protect residential property in the adjacent community of Mashoes. 

Units 20 (3,478 acres) and 21 (3,144 acres) do not meet the criteria for a wilderness study area. The 

units encompass less than 5,000 acres and could not be practicably managed as wilderness. Milltail 

Creek, a tributary to Alligator River (a part of the Intracoastal Waterway), bisects both units. The 

creek is heavily used by motorized craft, including fishing and pleasure boats. Large sailboats and 

motorboats traveling through the Intracoastal Waterway also seek refuge in the creek during major 

storm events. The uses impact the quality of available opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. Milltail Creek is a navigable waterway and the Service has limited ability to manage 

motorized boating uses. Vegetation in Unit 20 is in transition from a hardwood forest to a marsh due 

to rising sea level, beaver dam impoundments, and excess water pumped into the unit from the 

refuge farm units north of Laurel Bay Road.