COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

PEA ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Dare County, North Carolina

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 30345 

September 2006 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

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

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

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

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................3

National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................3

Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................4

National Conservation Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................5

Relationship To State Partners.....................................................................................................5

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

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

Location...............................................................................................................................7

Establishment......................................................................................................................7

Importance ..........................................................................................................................7

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

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

Purpose...............................................................................................................................9

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

Ecosystem Context.....................................................................................................................10

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................10

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

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

Alterations To Hydrology...................................................................................................14

Siltation Of Aquatic Ecosystems .......................................................................................14

Proliferation Of Invasive Aquatic Plants ............................................................................15

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

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

Physical Environment .................................................................................................................16

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

Geology.............................................................................................................................17

Minerals.............................................................................................................................20

Soils ..................................................................................................................................20

Hydrology..........................................................................................................................20

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

Air Quality..........................................................................................................................23

Visual Resources ..............................................................................................................23

Biological Environment ...............................................................................................................23

Habitats.............................................................................................................................23

Wildlife...............................................................................................................................29

Insects and Diseases........................................................................................................31

Exotic Organisms..............................................................................................................31

Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................31
 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge ii

Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................32

Socioeconomic Conditions and Land Use..................................................................................32

History Of Dare County.....................................................................................................33

Land Use in Dare County..................................................................................................34

Demographics in Dare County..........................................................................................35

Employment in Dare County.............................................................................................36

Outdoor Recreation ..........................................................................................................36

Outdoor Recreation Economics........................................................................................38

Tourism.............................................................................................................................39

Transportation...................................................................................................................39

Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................40

Refuge Administration and Management...................................................................................40

Land Protection and Conservation ...................................................................................40

Visitor Services .................................................................................................................40

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance.........................................................................44

Refuge Infrastructure ........................................................................................................44

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................49

Public Involvement and The Planning Process..........................................................................49

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities.....................................................................49

Hydrology..........................................................................................................................50

Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................50

Habitat Management.........................................................................................................51

Visitor Services (Public Use).............................................................................................52

Resource Protection .........................................................................................................52

General Administration .....................................................................................................53

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................55

Introduction ................................................................................................................................55

Vision .........................................................................................................................................55

Goals..........................................................................................................................................56

Fish and Wildlife Populations:...........................................................................................56

Habitat: .............................................................................................................................56

Public Use:........................................................................................................................56

Resource Protection: ........................................................................................................56

Administration: ..................................................................................................................56

Objectives, Strategies, and Projects ..........................................................................................56

Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................56

Habitat ..............................................................................................................................61

Public Use.........................................................................................................................64

Resource Protection .........................................................................................................70

Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................76
Table of Contents iii

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ..............................................................................................................79

Introduction.................................................................................................................................79

Proposed Projects ......................................................................................................................79

Refuge Administration ................................................................................................................83

Funding and Personnel ..............................................................................................................83

Volunteers ..................................................................................................................................84

Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................84

Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................88

SECTION B. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................89

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED..................................................................95

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ................................................................................99

APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...........................................................................................107

APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................119

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ...........................................................................119

Compatibility Determinations....................................................................................................125

APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA........................................................................................................133

APPENDIX VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS ...............................................149

APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS............................................................................................151

APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................181

APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................185
 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Pea Island River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare County, North Carolina ........8

Figure 2. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Area .............................................................................................................11

Figure 3. Characteristics of soils of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge ...........................................21

Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.........................................24

Figure 5. Cross-section of vegetative habitat types of coastal barrier islands....................................25

Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.................................41

Figure 7. Current visitor facilities at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge...........................................47

Figure 8. Future visitor facilities at Pea Island NWR ..........................................................................85

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge...................................................................................10

Table 2. Threatened and endangered animals of the North Carolina Coastal Plain ........................13

Table 3. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge...................................................................................22

Table 4. Species of Management Concern at the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge ...................30

Table 5. Dare County agricultural statistics from 1997.....................................................................35

Table 6. Commodity production in Dare County in 1992 and 1997..................................................35

Table 7. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties. .........................37

Table 8. Acquisition history of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge .................................................40

Table 9. Staff of the Alligator River and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuges, 2005.......................45

Table 10. Projects supporting Wildlife Strategies ...............................................................................79

Table 11. Projects supporting Habitat Strategies ...............................................................................80

Table 12. Projects supporting Public Use Strategies..........................................................................81

Table 13. Projects supporting Resource Protection Strategies ..........................................................82

Table 14. Projects supporting Refuge Administration Strategies .......................................................83

Table 15. Proposed staffing plan for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge .........................................86
Executive Summary 

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

management of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in Dare County, North Carolina. The plan 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

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

management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the issues 

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

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

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

round of public meetings to solicit public reaction to the proposed alternatives. 

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

status quo. The refuge currently manages its impoundments 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 with prescribed fire. The staff surveys sea turtles, 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds on a routine basis. The refuge allows five of the six priority 

public use activities: fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation. The staff conducts extensive environmental education and interpretation 

programs with the assistance of 25,000 hours of volunteer service every year. There is one staff 

public use specialist (0.9 FTE) stationed on the refuge. Staff from the Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge (an additional 6.3 of the 23 FTEs) manages the refuge, administers budgets and contracts, 

maintains the facilities, manages impoundment and marsh habitat, and conducts wildlife surveys. 

Alternative 2 proposed moderate program increases. The refuge would continue to manage its 

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

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

shorebird habitat. It would also manage marshes with prescribed fire. The staff would survey a wider 

range of wildlife on the refuge, adding regular surveys of land birds. The refuge would continue to 

allow five of the six priority public use activities, but would have the capacity to increase the number 

of opportunities. The staff would continue to conduct extensive environmental education and 

interpretation programs with the assistance of 30,000 hours of volunteer service every year. There 

would be five staff members (4.4 FTEs) stationed on the refuge, including an assistant refuge 

manager, biologist, two public use specialists, and a maintenance worker. Staff from the Alligator 

River National Wildlife Refuge (an additional 8.85 of 39 FTE) would still administer budgets and 

contracts and manage impoundment and marsh habitat. 

Alternative 3 proposed optimum program increases. The refuge would continue to manage its 

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

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

shorebird habitat. It would also manage marshes with prescribed fire. The staff would survey a wider 

range of wildlife on the refuge, adding regular surveys of land birds, wading birds, mammals, 

invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. The refuge would continue to allow five of the six priority 

public use activities, but would have the capacity to increase the number of opportunities. The staff 

would continue to conduct extensive environmental education and interpretation programs with the 

assistance of 35,000 hours of volunteer service every year. There would be twelve staff members 

(11.4 FTEs) stationed on the refuge, including an assistant refuge manager, biologist, three biological 
technicians, two public use specialists, and five maintenance workers. Staff from the Alligator River 

National Wildlife Refuge (an additional 13.9 of the 69.5 FTEs) would still administer budgets and 

contracts and manage marsh habitat. 

Alternative 4 assumed that vehicular access to the refuge on a paved road would be eliminated from 

the north but would be maintained from the south as far north as the Visitor Center. The alternative 

assumed that natural processes would dominate the area north of the Visitor Center and habitat for 

colonial nesting shorebirds would increase. The refuge would continue to manage impoundments 

and marshes. The staff would survey wildlife on the refuge. The refuge would provide public use 

opportunities, but the number of visitors would decrease due to the limited access. Staffing would be 

the same as Alternative 3. 

Alternative 5 assumed that access to the refuge on a paved road would be totally eliminated. The 

Service would provide other means of accessing the refuge. The alternative assumed that natural 

processes would dominate the entire refuge and habitat for colonial nesting shorebirds would 

increase substantially. The refuge would continue to manage impoundments and marshes. The staff 

would survey wildlife on the refuge. The refuge would provide public use opportunities, but the 

number of visitors would decrease due to the limited access. Staffing would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

The planning team selected Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative. It advances the refuge program 

considerably, and is more realistic than Alternative 3 in terms of expected staffing levels to conduct 

the proposed program. The staff evaluated Alternatives 4 and 5 in the event that the North Carolina 

Department of Transportation would close the Bonner Bridge over Oregon Inlet and eliminate access 

from the northern end of the island. The North Carolina Department of Transportation is considering 

the bridge’s closure, but has not yet made a decision. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

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

for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in Dare County, North Carolina, to provide a foundation 

for the management and use of the refuge. The Service designed the plan as a working guide for 

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

However, with the pending Herbert C. Bonner Bridge replacement project, the North Carolina 

Department of Transportation proposes several alternatives, each affecting future refuge 

management in significant ways. The “status quo” alternative in this plan should not be 

interpreted in any way as a statement that the Service prefers the Bonner Bridge or North 

Carolina Highway 12 remain where it is currently located. The alternatives merely reflect 

planning strategies with the road and bridge located in their current positions. The potential 

exists for the refuge portion of the North Carolina Highway 12 to be relocated west of the refuge 

in the Pamlico Sound as early as 2010. If this occurs, this comprehensive conservation plan may 

require revision to reflect new methods of access that would result if the North Carolina 

Department of Transportation chooses to abandon its existing right-of-way through the refuge. 

The North Carolina Department of Transportation has indicated that if it chooses to replace the 

bridge by paralleling the existing alignment and using the existing right-of-way, it will request 

permits for work outside the existing right-of-way, such as large-scale, repetitive beach building 

and dune building over at least the next 50 years; and permits for many miles of a major new 

right-of-way west of the existing right-of-way in an attempt to maintain North Carolina Highway 12 

for the life of the new bridge. Requests for large-scale, long-term, repetitive beach building and 

dune building permits or for major new right-of-way permits are not likely to be compatible. The 

Service would work with federal, state, county and local officials, and other groups to identify 

feasible public use access and management actions that are compatible with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredges the Oregon Inlet navigation channel adjacent to the 

refuge. This dredging affects the amount and kind of sand that natural processes bring to the 

refuge beach face and the beach-face organisms. Annually, the Corps requests a refuge permit 

to dispose dredged sand on the refuge. Dredge disposal timing and placement, sand suitability 

characteristics, and monitoring and remediation of impacts are addressed in permit conditions. 

Long-term trends are analyzed to monitor changes in beach sediment and beach-face organisms 

associated with sand disposal on and near the refuge. Present trend analysis indicates that the 

Corps’ Oregon Inlet dredge disposal has changed the refuge beach over time to a beach with 

finer grain-sized sand, a greater percentage of heavy (dark) minerals, and decreased abundance 

of beach-face organisms. Compatibility of this permitted use can only be determined if long-term 

monitoring and adjustments to other permit conditions continue. 

The permitted activities of both the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Corps of 

Engineers are long-term and large-scale. They have significant effects on the physical

environment of the refuge and on all management planning and actions. To achieve the refuge’s 

desired condition, the actions of these two agencies must be considered when refuge 

management decisions are made. 
2 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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. When fully implemented, this plan will strive to achieve the vision and 

purposes of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. 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 preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment, which was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The environmental assessment contained a description of the 

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

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 (e.g., wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with the refuge’s mission and 

purposes. 

A planning team prepared the plan. The planning team was made up of 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 incorporated the input 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. 

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

other alternatives, as described in the environmental assessment referred to above. After reviewing a 

wide range of public comments and management needs, the planning team developed the alternatives in 

an attempt to determine how to best meet the goals and objectives of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The preferred alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for management of the refuge, 

and forms the basis for this comprehensive conservation plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that Pea Island National 

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

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

years. The plan is needed to: 

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

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

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 laws; and 

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

maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

states and several island territories. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

Act of 1997, is: 

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

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

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

mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 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. 
4 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 37.5 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 1998, mostly to 

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

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

reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the local 

economies. In addition, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

reports that nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent a combined $108 billion on wildlife-related 

recreational pursuits in 1996 (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 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. 

Pea Island is one of ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those refuges—Alligator 

River, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, Mackay Island, Mattamuskeet, Roanoke River, 

Pocosin Lakes, Swanquarter, and Pea Island—and the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia 

are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and Cape Fear rivers, which the 

Service has classified as Ecosystem Unit #34. This watershed unit covers a 40,000-square-mile-area 

in southeast Virginia and eastern North Carolina, extending from the piedmont to the Atlantic Coast. 

Specifically, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Pasquotank River basin that 

encompasses 3,635 square miles of low-lying lands and vast open waters, including the Albemarle 

and Pamlico sounds, in the state’s northeast outer coastal plain. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

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

and presidential executive orders guide the administration of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The documents and acts listed in Appendix III contain management options under 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). 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

coordinate planning initiatives involving federal, state, and local agencies; local communities, nongovernmental organizations, and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on 

and off public lands. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan and the 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 midcontinental wood duck and colonial bird populations. 

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

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

priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified 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 to 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 to protect it with easements. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS 

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

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

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

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

of fish and wildlife throughout the United States. 

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

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

managing the state’s natural resources. 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 have been valuable. 

It is continuing its work with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue 
6 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

with the public to improve the condition of fish and wildlife populations on the Outer Banks. 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. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

LOCATION 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Dare County, North Carolina, coastal barrier 

island chain known as the Outer Banks. The refuge is between Oregon Inlet to the north, the village 

of Rodanthe (2000 population: 206) to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and the Pamlico 

Sound to the west. The refuge also lies within Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which is managed 

by the National Park Service. The town of Nags Head (2000 population: 2,700) is 13 miles north of 

the refuge, just north of Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Figure 1). 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Pasquotank River basin that encompasses 

3,635 square miles of low-lying lands and vast open waters, including the Albemarle and Pamlico 

sounds, in the state’s northeast Lower Coastal Plain. 

ESTABLISHMENT 

Executive Order 7864 established Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge on April 8, 1938, as a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. Presidential Proclamation 2284 closed a 

25,700-acre area encompassing the refuge and a portion of the Pamlico Sound west of and adjacent 

to the refuge to migratory bird hunting. The refuge covers approximately 5,000 acres (reduced by 

erosion from the original 5,915 acres). 

IMPORTANCE 

The Bureau of Biological Survey named the refuge for the beach peas (Stropostyles helvula) that 

once dominated the backsides of the coastal dunes. The peas mature in October as geese arrive. 

The beach face and exposed areas of the dunes are also nesting habitat for colonial nesting birds, 

such as oystercatchers. The beaches provide foraging habitat for shorebirds and nesting habitat for 

sea turtles. Piping plovers nest on unvegetated sand areas with shallow pools of water. Ducks rest 

and feed in the bodies of water west of the refuge. Marsh birds and wading birds inhabit the 

marshes. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES 

HISTORY 

In the early days, Pea Island had only a sand pathway traversing the refuge. Ferry transportation 

began to the area that is now Pea Island in the mid-1920s, when Captain J.B. Tillet established a tug 

and barge service across Oregon Inlet. In 1934, the North Carolina Highway Commission recognized 

the importance of this service to residents and began subsidizing Tillet’s business. In 1942, full 

reimbursement by the state began and Tillet eliminated the tolls. This continued until 1950 when 

Tillet sold his business to the state. The Service authorized a specific road easement for the State of 

North Carolina in October 1951, and the state constructed a clay-surface road. The state initially 

paved the road that is now North Carolina Highway 12 in the mid-1950s. Ferry service ceased with 

the opening of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge on November 20, 1963. 
8 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location of Pea Island River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare County, North Carolina 

NC−12

DARE CO.

DARE CO.

NC 12



012 0.5

Miles

Refuge Ownership

Proclamation Boundary

Impoundments

Primary Roads

County Boundaries

Open Water

Cape Hatteras National Seashore Soundside Boundary





P e a I s l a n d N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e R e f u g e P r e s i d e n t i a l P r o c l a m a t i o n B o u n d a r y

Rodanthe

To Nags Head



Oregon 

Inlet

Eagles Nest

Point

Goat Island

Goose Island

Pea Island

Point

Terrapin Creek

Bay

Jack

Shoal

Cedar

Hammock

Round Hammock

Point

C

a

p

e

H

a t t e r a

s

N

a t i o

n

a l S

e

a

s

h

o r e

South Point

North Point

	





North

Pond

South

Pond

New

Field

New Inlet

Eagle Nest Bay

Salt

Flats
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Upon its establishment, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, managed 

“Pea Island Migratory Waterfowl Refuge.” A U.S. Army Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp 

(Camp BF-2, Company 436, 1933-1942) in the area was responsible for numerous jobs, including 

dike construction; dune enhancement; water control structure installation; planting to prevent erosion; 

land surveys; building fences; maintaining truck trails; marking boundaries; and planting trees and 

shrubs. One of the most significant jobs the CCC accomplished was the construction of dikes. The 

initial purpose of the dike system (according to historic narratives) was to prevent salt water from 

contaminating the inland freshwater areas. 

In 1939, the administration placed the Bureau of Biological Survey and Bureau of Fisheries under the 

U.S. Department of the Interior. The following year, these two bureaus were combined to create the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the refuge was officially renamed Pea Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. The first manager at Pea Island Refuge was Sam A. Walker, who served in this capacity from 

1938 through 1944. The staff grew to a high of eight permanent full-time employees in the mid-1980s. 

Pea Island Refuge is an overlay of a portion of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Through a 

Memorandum of Understanding signed in July 1975 and amended in 1987, the National Park Service 

and Fish and Wildlife Service work together to manage the refuge and the national seashore. The 

National Park Service is responsible for interpreting historical and cultural assets, maintaining all 

parking lots and the restroom facility adjacent to the Visitor Center, and assisting with law 

enforcement patrols along the beach. The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for all wildlife and 

habitat management activities, operation of the Visitor Center, recreational access, and uses on the 

refuge. The current Memorandum of Understanding is under review and the agencies will update it in 

the near future. 

Pea Island Refuge remained a stand-alone refuge until 1984 when the Service started administering 

it as part of a two-refuge complex with the newly created Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Today, the refuge complex staff administers both the Pea Island and Alligator River refuges from an 

office located in Manteo, North Carolina. 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is to protect and conserve migratory birds and 

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

“...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory waterfowl and other wildlife...” (Executive 

Order 7864, August 8, 1938) 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

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

of its moist-soil areas, as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. The Nature Conservancy ranks certain 

vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 1). 

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

Pea Island Refuge as outstanding resource waters or high-quality waters (Table 3). 

The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has designated water bodies within and off the 

borders of the refuge as anadromous fish spawning habitats. 
10 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 1. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Pea Island National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank 

Maritime Dry Grassland S2 G3 

Dune Grass S3 G3 

Maritime Shrub S3 G4 

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

state. 

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

S3 = Rare or uncommon in North Carolina. 

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

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

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

G4 = Apparently secure 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Pea Island 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 

have 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. 

On the Lower Coastal Plain, the daily tidal cycles flooded beaches and marshes maintaining the 

hydrology that kept the area’s flora and fauna vigorous. Coastal breezes blew salt spray over the 

barrier islands trimming the woody vegetation behind the low broad dunes and depositing fresh sand on 

the herbaceous dune vegetation. Periodic storm events cut inlets through the barrier islands bringing 

tidal fluctuations to the sounds. Periodic storm events also overwash the barrier islands. Ocean 

overwash can deposit fresh layers of sand across the islands that sometimes extend new layers of 

sand to the sounds. Within a period of sea level rise where ocean overwash occurs, the elevation of 

the island can be raised and the whole island effectively moves toward the mainland to the west. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

coordinate planning initiatives involving regional, state, and local agencies; local communities; nongovernmental organizations; and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on 

and off public lands. 

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

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

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

between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service; the 

Partners in Flight Plan; and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 2. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Area 
12 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focuses 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 songbirds returning 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nature Conservancy, have identified 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 have state-level plans 

and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. For private landowners who own lands in 

the vicinity of national wildlife refuges, the Service uses these programs to help them manage habitat 

for wildlife, or protect their lands with easements. 

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

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

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

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

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 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 beaches 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. 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, threatened, or endangered 

include the extinct passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, and Bachman’s warbler; the threatened 

piping plover and sea turtles; and the endangered red wolf. Federal species of concern for this area 

include the black rail and the “Buxton Woods” white-footed mouse. 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/or 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

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

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 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 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 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

** Presence Not Documented on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

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 within dune ecosystems. 

More than 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds occupy the region. Some 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 Outer Coastal Plain, songbirds, such as the seaside sparrow, saltmarsh sharptailed sparrow, and Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, depend on declining marsh habitat. The black rail and 

yellow rail, secretive marshbirds, require brackish marsh. The red knots, least terns, black skimmers, 

American oystercatchers, and threatened piping plovers are shorebirds that nest on the decreasing 

acreage of unvegetated sand along beaches and among coastal dunes. 

Habitat loss on the Outer Coastal Plain is more permanent than in the Upper Coastal Plain. 

Conversion of coastal dunes and marshes for commercial development is irreversible. 

Construction of tall, steep-sided dunes and vegetative stabilization of those dunes to protect 
14 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

infrastructure prevents natural processes from shaping the landscape and the vegetative 

communities that evolve on that landscape. 

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

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

South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s hydrology. The changes are a result of channel dredging for 

navigation and access to marshes; drainage ditches; degradation of aquatic systems from 

excessive sedimentation, contaminants, and urban development; changes in managed stream 

flows from flood control and hydroelectric power generation reservoirs; river channel 

modifications; flood control levees; and deforestation. 

The natural hydrology of a region 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 accelerate erosion on 

the ditch banks and throughout the marshes. The changed flooding regimes also decrease 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 the 

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. If the 

material is fine-textured, it may not be suitable for placement on the closest potential site, such as 

beaches. On beaches the material must be a coarse 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). 

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. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

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 species 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. Alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) is an 

ever-increasing invasive aquatic plant in eastern North Carolina. It can severely impede the natural 

surface flow of water with its web-like growth in narrow bodies of water. 

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 

songbirds that only breed in the interior of large forested areas. They also provide habitat for fisheating raptors that require forested habitat close to water in which to perch and from which to fish. 

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 when 

crop prices do not justify the maintenance of intensive drainage systems required to maintain 

production. Many government habitat restoration programs focus on bottomland hardwood forests. 

In the Outer Coastal Plain, the loss of marsh, dune, and beach habitat continues unabated. Although 

wetland protection laws regulate development in the marshes, the public’s desire to live and recreate in 

dune and beach habitats is steadily growing, and development continues to alter these areas. The potential 

for restoring these habitats is lower than it is for bottomland hardwood forests because the habitat loss is 

due to land use conversions to residential and commercial development. Conservationists must mitigate 

habitat loss by intensive management through restoration or use of a variety of habitat enhancement 

techniques involving various plantings, mechanical manipulation, prescribed fire, or 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. 

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

to overcome the impacts of hydrologic changes and habitat 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. 
16 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 Pea Island Refuge in an effort to provide habitat for many species of waterfowl that require 

managed herbaceous wetlands. Such an approach may overlook the critical habitat needs of 

neotropical migratory songbirds 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. When appropriately managed, Pea Island 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 Pea Island Refuge to meet its multiple objectives of national, regional, and local scope, 

ranging from impoundment and marsh management to providing for public use, the Service must 

seek resources above current levels. Securing resources to successfully address historical wetland, 

beach, and dune alterations and hydrological functions is the refuge’s biggest challenge. In the 

interim, as the needed resources 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 ENVIRONMENT 

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. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Low pressure areas 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 northto-south contrasts. The 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. 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 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 is 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 mid-afternoon 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 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 temperature is 38.6 degrees. The lowest temperature on record, 

which occurred at Cape Hatteras on January 21, l985, is 6 degrees. In July the average temperature 

is 79.2 degrees, the average daily maximum temperature is 85.4 degrees, and the average daily 

minimum temperature is 72.9 degrees. The highest recorded temperature, which occurred on 

July 10, 1992, was 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. 

GEOLOGY 

The Outer Banks are part of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina that stretches from the Piedmont 

Plateau in the west to the continental shelf in the east. Water covered this area during the Tertiary 

period and early Pleistocene epoch more than 730,000 years ago. The coast later emerged during 

the first ice age, but with the melting of the continental ice sheets was again submerged. 

During the Wisconsin glacial maximum approximately 25,000 years ago, the sea was between 250 

and 450 feet below its present level. It seems that the barrier islands of the Outer Banks were formed 

since the melting of the Wisconsin ice sheet, and have generally been in their current position for the 

last 4,000 to 5,000 years. Although there is no general agreement as to how the barrier islands were 

initially created, they may have existed in one form or another near the edge of the current 

continental shelf during low stands of sea level, and then migrated back and forth across the Coastal 

Plain with fluctuating sea levels. 
18 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

The Outer Banks are being constantly modified as a rule. Generally, the barrier islands are long, 

narrow islands standing only a few feet above sea level. The islands vary in width from about 600 

feet to nearly 3 miles, and are separated from the mainland by shallow sounds as much as 28 miles 

wide. The barrier islands are slowly moving westward, primarily due to a lack of sediment supply and 

a rise in sea level. The sea level is rising at approximately two feet per century. When it was 

established in 1938, Pea Island Refuge was 5,915 acres in size. Today, likely due to erosion and 

natural barrier island processes, the size is approximately 5,000 acres. 

This consistent pattern of migration is only one of the dynamic features associated with the barrier 

islands. The sediments that make up the islands are composed mainly of sand, and are therefore 

subject to constant alteration by both wind and water (i.e., via waves, currents and flooding). Wind is 

constantly moving and reshaping the dune features on the islands. Historical documents indicate that 

such major dunes engulfed dwellings and roads in the past, and the only practical response to this 

threat was to move such features out of harm’s way. 

The more common dune feature is the beach dune. These are found just behind the beach line and 

offer some measure of protection to the land surfaces behind. But unless they are stabilized, beach 

dunes will also migrate and fluctuate, exposing interior areas to storms and wind. During the 1930s, 

the Civilian Conservation Corps augmented and stabilized the entire beach dune line of the Outer 

Banks (Stick 1958; Pilkey et al. 1998). The project trucked sand where the beach dunes had eroded 

and bulldozers shaped the fill into dunes (Ted Mew, personal communication). Workers stabilized the 

dunes with sand fences and planted stabilizing vegetation. The program offered artificial protection 

from overwash and inlet formation to many exposed areas of the islands, including the refuge. 

Oregon Inlet at the north edge of Pea Island formed during a northeastern storm in 1846, at the same 

time that Hatteras Inlet formed to the south. The fishing vessel Oregon was lost at the new inlet, and 

from that point on the inlet has been called Oregon Inlet. Oregon Inlet migrated southward at a rate 

of 23 meters/year and landward, or westward, at 5 meters/year between 1849 and 1975 (Inman and 

Dolan 1989). With it, two lighthouse structures were lost. Today, the Bodie Island Lighthouse sits 

near where the northern extremity of Oregon Inlet once was. 

Due to migration, local officials and fishermen began their effort for channel stabilization in the 1940s to 

ensure a safe route of passage through Oregon Inlet. In 1950, Congress authorized the Corps of 

Engineers to dredge a 400-foot-wide by 14-foot-deep channel through the Inlet, but the actual dredging 

did not begin until 1962. This dredging has been ongoing sporadically since that time. 

In 1963, the Bonner Bridge over the Oregon Inlet was opened to traffic. Because of erosion on the 

southern side of the Inlet, a permit was issued to the North Carolina Department of Transportation in 

1989 to install a terminal groin on the north end of Pea Island Refuge. Since that time, the Inlet’s 

southern shoreline has remained relatively stable, while the northern shore and the tidal channels 

within the Inlet have continued to fluctuate in response to coastal processes. The Corps of Engineers 

has dredged Oregon Inlet for navigational passage for more than 30 years, with approximately 0.6–

1.2 million cubic yards of sediment removed annually. 

At least 13 inlets have existed between the Virginia state line and Cape Hatteras since historic maps were 

recorded. Various inlets existed at or near Oregon Inlet from 1585 to 1770 and then again since 1846 

with the current inlet. New Inlet, located on the Pea Island Refuge, was open from the 1730s until 1922, 

when it closed naturally. An attempt to open the inlet artificially in 1925 failed. A hurricane in 1933 

reopened the inlet, but it again closed on its own in 1945. The remaining bridge structures found in the 

shallow sound waters of this area were constructed at that time. A third inlet known as Loggerhead Inlet 

also may have been in the area of the refuge during the mid- to late-1800s. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

The Outer Banks of North Carolina have the highest wave energies striking the Atlantic coast in the 

southeastern United States. The long-term average annual oceanfront erosion rates for the refuge, 

as defined by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, range from 2 to 16 feet per year. 

Erosion rates are greatest at the southern boundary of the refuge near Rodanthe and at two points 

roughly 4 and 6 miles south of Oregon Inlet. Accretion locally occurs approximately 2 miles south of 

the old Headquarters buildings and stretches for about a mile. Boss and Hoffman (2000a) attribute 

part of the high erosion rates on Pea Island to the fairly narrow and steep shoreface that allows 

higher wave energies to reach the beach, and to the lack of sand in the offshore trough to naturally 

replenish the beaches; they also state that the presence of the bathymetric trough impedes crossshore transport of sediment to the beaches. Platt Shoals may also reflect and refract incoming waves 

such that the wave energy is concentrated in certain areas and comparatively defused in others, 

which may explain the variability in erosion rates within the refuge (Boss and Hoffman 2000a). 

There are six “hot spots” of perpetual overwash and erosion along Hatteras and Ocracoke islands. 

These hot spots threaten North Carolina Highway 12 in three places within the refuge: the Canal 

Zone Hotspot located 0.75 miles south of Oregon Inlet; the Sandbag Area Hotspot located 3.4 miles 

south of Oregon Inlet; and the “S” Curves Hotspot, which extends from the south refuge boundary at 

Rodanthe to about 1 mile north. The State of North Carolina has relocated Highway 12 several 

times, both within and outside the refuge, as a result of these natural hazards. Many of the hot spots 

appear to be controlled by the underlying geology, which recent research suggests consists of 

paleofluvial channels of the Pamlico Creek drainage basin during lower sea levels. This basin 

emptied into the Neuse/Pamlico system to the southwest of Cape Hatteras. These channels and 

their valleys were then filled in with estuarine sediments (i.e., mud, peat) as sea level rose (Riggs et 

al. 1995). North of Oregon Inlet, the Roanoke/Albemarle river basin drained to the east and underlies 

the current Nags Head–Kitty Hawk area. These soft mud deposits tend to erode slower than sand 

and gravel sediments (Riggs et al. 1995). 

Pea Island would be an overwash-dominated island if left to completely natural processes. Starting 

with the extensive dune building in the 1930s with the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works 

Progress Administration, however, man has stabilized the island. Since that time, dune building with 

sand fences, bulldozers, and vegetation has stabilized the island and held it in place. Overwash is a 

natural coastal process that adds elevation to central parts of the island and to the sound-side 

shoreline. The North Carolina Department of Transportation continually removes storm overwash 

deposits from the roadway of North Carolina Highway 12, and rebuilds artificial dunes between the 

highway and the beach. Thus, the lack of natural sediment redistribution hinders the island’s 

migration during a time of rising sea level. The oceanfront beaches are narrower than they would 

naturally be, and the interior and sound shorelines of the island are starved of sediment. The artificial 

dunes are not in their natural position, composed of their natural stratigraphy and sedimentology, or 

of natural shapes and sizes. 

The sediments composing these barrier islands were deposited in a marine or near-marine environment. 

Silt and clay may be mixed with sand to form heterogeneous beds of low permeability. The beaches of 

the Outer Banks are composed mostly of sand but also may have outcrops of mud, peat, pea gravel, 

shells, or tree stumps, depending on the underlying geology. Sands and gravels dominate areas that 

once were inlets. Old stream or river channels from periods of lower sea level will have some pea gravel 

as well as mud from estuaries that filled them as sea level rose. Peat and tree stumps indicate old forests 

or marshes that the island has since migrated or rolled over. Likewise, oyster or clamshells, as well as 

shells stained black, are from marsh deposits that are now cropping out on the beach or the shoreface 

(the underwater portion of the beach). Pea gravel content may vary between 20 and 60 percent on the 

local beach surface, while shells may compose up to 25 percent of the surface sediments (Carroll 1999). 

(Much of this has already been documented above.) 
20 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

No new sediment is being delivered to these barrier islands from either the rivers or eroding 

headlands, because the rivers discharge into estuaries. The Albemarle and Pamlico sounds 

separate the flows that would deliver sediment from the beaches. Various geologists, including Riggs 

et al. (1995) and Pilkey et al. (1998), have called them “sediment starved.” The underlying geologic 

framework of old inlet sands and gravels, fluvial channel sands and gravels, and marsh peats and 

estuarine muds are supplying a limited amount of sediment to the oceanfront beaches when the 

island migrates over itself and recycles its sediments. 

MINERALS 

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

of the refuge. Because sand has become a very desirable material due to erosion, there have been 

several instances of persons removing sand from the refuge without authorization to use on personal 

projects outside the refuge boundary. Also, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has mined 

sand from behind the terminal groin to use for dune construction within the refuge. 

SOILS 

Soil types identified on the refuge are Carteret sand, Corolla fine sand, Duckston fine sands, and 

Newhan fine sands, and a complex of Corolla and Duckston fine sands (USDA Soil Conservation 

Service 1992). The soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in “Hydric Soils of the United States” 

(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985). 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) (Figure 3). 

Most of the refuge is Carteret sand, a soil with 80 inches or more of sand. It floods regularly to a 

depth of up to 3 feet with tidal fluctuations and has a water table from the surface to 1 foot below the 

surface. Carteret soils support freshwater and brackish herbaceous marsh vegetation. 

Duckston fine sands occur on the eastern edge of the Carteret soils. They have 8 inches of fine sand 

over 72 inches of sand. Duckston soils have rapid permeability above the water table. They are 

poorly drained with water tables from the surface to 1 foot below the surface. They flood more than 

once every 2 years, but only for 2 to 7 days. Duckston soils support shrub and herbaceous 

vegetation adapted to poor drainage. 

Corolla fine sand and Newhan fine sand are well-drained soils that occur under the dunes on the 

eastern edge of the refuge. Corolla fine sand occurs on the backsides of dunes and has 3 inches of 

fine sand over sandy subsoil. The water table is 1-1/2 to 3 feet below the surface. The herbaceous 

dune vegetation on Corolla soils is adapted to good drainage, but not necessarily tolerant of 

extremely droughty conditions. Corolla soils are also excellent soils for building construction, but are 

poor filters for septic systems. Newhan fine sand occurs on the tops of dunes and has 80 inches of 

fine sand over sandy subsoil. The water table is more than 6 feet below the surface. Newhan soils 

also support herbaceous vegetation that is the most drought-tolerant and salt-tolerant. They are also 

excellent soils for building construction, but are poor filters for septic systems. 

HYDROLOGY 

Ground water 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 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Figure 3. Characteristics of soils of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 
22 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 3 feet above mean sea level. 

Maintenance of the fresh ground water 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. After the ground has 

become saturated, some runoff occurs in roadside ditches and small intermittent freshwater ponds 

during periods of intensive rainfall. 

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

range in thickness 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 ground water is best described as a lens-shaped mass floating on top of denser salt water. 

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

Between the fresh water and salt water a zone of brackish water occurs. This zone periodically 

changes due to flooding, tidal movement, and rainfall. 

WATER QUALITY 

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

waters adjacent to the refuge. One is a domestic sewage system for a town; one is a harbor project; 

two are domestic water supply treatment plants; and two are seafood-processing facilities. 

The state’s list of impaired waters due to fecal coliform includes portions of Roanoke, Croatan, and Pamlico 

sounds. Technical conditions do not exist to develop total maximum daily loads for the water bodies. 

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 Pea Island Refuge are listed in Table 3. 

Table 3. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding Pea Island National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Water Body or Stream Classification Best Uses 

Pamlico Sound 

Oregon Inlet 

Eagle Nest Bay 

Goat Island Bay 

The Trench 

Pea Island Creek 

Pea Island Bay 

Terrapin Creek Bay 

Terrapin Creek 

Beach Slue 

Wreck Creek 

Round Hammock Bay 

Pauls Ditch 

SA – Highest 

Quality Saltwater 

HQW – High 

Quality Water 

Commercial shellfishing and all other tidal 

saltwater uses 

Atlantic Ocean SB – Moderate 

Quality Saltwater All recreation 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

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. 

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. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Visitors have recognized Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge for its outstanding and diversified visual 

resources that have been a draw for persons of all ages, backgrounds, and interests since its 

establishment. A 13-mile stretch of North Carolina Highway 12 runs directly through the refuge and is part 

of the North Carolina Scenic Byway System; it is also the primary route from the mainland to the historic 

Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, a national recreation area that extends 

from Nags Head to Ocracoke Island, surrounds the refuge and overlays portions of the same land. 

The refuge’s location between sound and ocean provides unique opportunities for visitors to view 

both sunrise and sunset over water. A photo blind enables birding enthusiasts to capture the many 

species of birds identified on the refuge without disturbing them in their natural environment. Walking 

trails, raised platforms, and platforms overlooking impoundments offer further opportunities for 

viewers to appreciate the small mammalian and feathered species dependent upon the refuge for 

their habitat and survival. The 13 miles of sand dunes create a barrier between ocean and 

beachfront and the marsh, shrub thickets, tidal ponds, freshwater ponds, and nesting areas. Refuge 

waters within the sound are a haven for the tens of thousands of migratory birds that use the Atlantic 

Flyway each season. Islands with sea oats, wax myrtle thickets, salt meadow cord grass, and other 

vegetation dot the sound. 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

HABITATS 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is situated on a typical southeastern United States barrier island 

system with ocean beach, dune, brackish ponds, and marsh communities dissected by tidal creeks 

containing submerged aquatic vegetation (Figures 4 and 5). The refuge’s plant communities have 

been affected by human development activities over time. Some of these activities occurred before 

the Service established the refuge and some have occurred since. The most notable products of 

those activities today are artificial dunes, North Carolina Highway 12, the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, 

and three impoundments. 

Although natural dunes occur, the Civilian Conservation Corps first constructed some oceanfront dunes in 

the 1930s and, since then, agencies have vegetated and maintained them for various reasons. The 

primary reason for dune maintenance on the refuge today is protection of North Carolina Highway 12. 
24 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Figure 5. Cross-section of vegetative habitat types of coastal barrier islands 

Although a sand trail pre-dated the refuge, the state did not pave what is now North Carolina Highway 12 

until the 1950s, and the state has relocated much of it westward since its initial construction. 

The Service constructed three man-made impoundments in the late 1950s and 1960s to enhance habitat 

quality for migratory waterfowl. The plant communities today reflect succession since the late 1930s, with 

some areas being subjected to ocean overwash, agricultural practices, and prescribed fire. More 

recently, prescribed fire has substantially altered plant communities and successional stages on most of 

the refuge. The community descriptions in this document are not complete species lists. 

Ocean Beach Community 

Lower Beach. This is the exposed portion of the beach between the mean high tide and mean low 

tide lines. It is the unvegetated portion of the beach subject to diurnal tidal flooding. Substrate 

consists of unconsolidated sand and variable shell fragment content. This is a dynamic community 

subject to the effects of tidal swash twice daily. 

Upper Beach. This is that portion of the beach above the mean high tide line up to the toe-of-slope 

for the frontal dune or berm. The substrate consists of unconsolidated sand and shell fragments and 

is constantly changing due to wind and tidal surges during storm events. Vegetation is sparse, 

characterized by a small number of mostly succulent species adapted to regular disturbance: Sea 

rocket (Cakile edentula; Cakile harperi), seabeach sandmat (Chamaesyce spp.), and seabeach 

knotweed (Polygonum glaucum). Although biologists have not located it on the refuge, the federally 

threatened seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) could occur in this community. This 

community is subject to the dynamics of coastal processes including frequent tidal inundation and 

wind disturbance. Landward of the Upper Beach community is a Barrier Dune ecosystem. 

Barrier Dune Community 

Dune Grass. The Dune Grass Community occurs immediately landward of the Upper Beach 

community and is subject to exposure to salt spray and abrasive, wind-blown sand. These 

communities are excessively drained due to the nature of the substrate and are subject to frequent 

shifting unless stabilized through artificial means. Artificial dune building by sand fencing and dense 

planting of grasses has led to the development of a high continuous line of dunes which concentrates 

the effects of storm waves on the beach, increasing erosion rates. Vegetative composition and plant 

community structure is highly correlated with exposure to salt in the environment, either in aerosol 

form or by ocean overwash. Generally, plant species found on the ocean side of the dunes are more 

tolerant to salt and the abrasive effects of wind-blown sand. The Dune Grass community transitions 
26 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

into a Wet or Dry Maritime Grassland, Maritime Shrub, Maritime Forest, or various combinations on 

the landward side of the barrier dune. 

Common plants in this community are sea oats (Uniola paniculata), which grow from sturdy rhizomes 

that help to stabilize shifting sands. Other plants in this community may include American beach 

grass (Ammophila breviligulata), Atlantic coastal panic grass (Panicum amarum), seaside bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium), trailing wild bean (Strophostyles helvula), seaside croton (Croton 

punctatus), and gaillardia (Gaillardia pulchella). Plant species of federal concern, such as dune 

bluecurls (Trichostema spp.) and the federally threatened seabeach amaranth, may also occur in this 

community, but neither has been documented on the refuge. 

Grasslands 

Maritime Dry Grassland. This community occurs on low, stable dunes and sand ridges. It also 

occurs in overwash terraces behind or between dunes in areas subject to inundation by the ocean or 

partial burial due to wind-blown sand. Frequently, this community transitions into the dune grass 

community on the ocean side. The dominance of saltmeadow grass (Spartina patens) readily 

distinguishes maritime dry grassland from the dune grass community. Under natural conditions this 

community is influenced by salt spray that retards shrub invasion. Where dunes are naturally 

protected or have been artificially stabilized, these grasslands can succeed into maritime shrub and 

possibly to maritime forest with sufficient time. In contrast, the maritime dry grassland may transition 

from maritime shrub or maritime forest in areas where there is loss of dune protection. In addition to 

saltmeadow cordgrass, this community may have a moderate to dense herbaceous cover of species 

such as seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), marsh pink (Sabatia stellaris), seaside 

greenbrier (Smilax auriculata), and gaillardia (Gaillardia pulchella). It is not uncommon to find some 

sparse woody vegetation such as yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) and yucca (Yucca spp.). 

Maritime Wet Grassland. This community occurs on dune swales, sand flats, and sand-filled marsh 

where the water table is near the surface. Typically, this community type is seasonally or 

permanently staturated, but lacks surface flooding throughout most of the year. The community may 

be subject to infrequent overwash. 

Dense, herbaceous vegetation dominates this community, with a mix of wetland and mesic species 

such as saltmeadow grass (Spartina patens), bald spikerush (Fimbristylis spadicea), three-square 

bulrush (Scirpus americancus), or duneslack muhly (Muhlenbergia filipes). Seaside pennywort 

(Hydrocotyle bonariensis), small whitetop sedge (Rhynchospora colorata), common foxtail grass, 

(Setaria geniculata), and common broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus) may also occur and can 

sometimes be very common in patches. 

Through exposure to some salt spray, occasional (but infrequent) overwash, and saturated soil 

conditions, succession does not occur quickly in this community type. With dune accretion through 

overwash or aeolian deposition, the community type could transition into dry grassland or maritime 

shrub. The lack of standing water for most of the year distinguishes this community from the 

Interdune Pond community. Its higher diversity and occurrence on wetter sites distinguishes it from 

the Maritime Dry Grassland community. 

Shrub Communities 

Maritime Shrub. The Maritime Shrub community occurs in a wide range of conditions from 

excessively to poorly drained soils in areas protected from salt spray and flooding by salt water. 

These conditions may occur on stabilized sand ridges, in dune swales, and on sand flats. Depending 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

upon successional stage, there may be substantial variation in the plant community. In earlier 

successional stages it has a dense growth of shrubs, mostly wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), red cedar 

(Juniperus virginiana), Southern red cedar (Juniperus silicicola.), saltmeadow bush (Baccharis 

halimifolia), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and poison ivy 

(Toxicodendron radicans). Stunted live oak (Quercus virginiana) dominates older communities. 

Artificial dune construction increases protection from overwash on sand flats and from salt spray, 

allowing shrubs to invade. The maritme shrub community can undergo succession into Maritime 

Evergreen Forest with increased protection. 

The prevalence of shrubby, woody plant species distinguishes this community from maritime 

grasslands and dune grass communities. The relatively low canopy and a lower occurrence of live 

oak distinguish it from the maritime evergreen forest community. It is distinguishable from the Salt 

Shrub community due to the predominance of wax myrtle and presence of species such as yaupon, 

live oak, and greenbrier. 

Salt Shrub. The Salt Shrub community occurs along higher margins and other slightly higher areas in salt 

and brackish marshes. The plant species diversity found in the community is somewhat variable and is 

positively correlated with the frequency and amount of saltwater flooding. Most salt shrub communities 

have an open to closed shrub canopy, typically consisting of saltmeadow bush (Baccharis halimiflora), 

marsh elder (Iva fructescens), seaside oxeye (Borrichia frutescens), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), and 

southern red cedar (Juniperus silicicola), as well as inclusions of marsh vegetation. 

The salt shrub community is similar to the maritime shrub community, but is distinguished by the 

dominance of the species listed above and the absence of species not tolerant of salt, as well as its 

physical location. The salt shrub community may grade into salt or brackish marsh as areas become 

wetter. In contrast, the community can grade into maritime shrub, maritime forest, or grassland 

communities with lower salinity or sand deposition. 

Marsh 

Salt Marsh. This community occurs on the margins of sounds, estuaries, and other coastal waters. 

Salt marsh occurs on the landward side of barrier island systems in areas under tidal influence. 

Although the community is not dependent upon diurnal tide cycles, it does require periodic flooding by 

water with a moderate salinity level. Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) dominates the salt 

marsh community. Although overall plant species diversity is low, black needlerush (Juncus 

roemerianus), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), or saltmeadow grass (Spartina patens) dominates areas 

that are slightly higher in elevation. Other plant species may include seashore mallow (Kosteletskya 

virginica), Virginia saltwort (Salicornia virginica), rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutus), and bald 

spikerush or fimbry (Fimbristylis spadicea). Although the salt marsh community occurs on the refuge, 

it is most prevalent in the middle and southern portions of the North Carolina coast. 

The salt marsh community may transition into brackish marsh, or it can become an estuarine channel 

mud flat. It can also undergo a conversion into a salt flat or salt shrub community, depending upon 

changes in environmental conditions. 

The refuge staff manages the salt marshes with prescribed fire at a 3- to 5-year frequency to maintain 

herbaceous vegetative cover and suppress succession to woody vegetation. 

Brackish Marsh. The brackish marsh community occurs 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 
28 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

the brackish marsh is generally low due to the distance from a saltwater source and freshwater inflow, 

but can be mid-range 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. Black needlerush (Juncus 

roemerianus) dominates the vegetation in the brackish marsh community, but patches of saltmeadow 

grass (Spartina patens) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) are common. Less common are patches of 

big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) and sawgrass (Cladium jamaiciense). As salinity increases, 

this community can grade into salt marsh or, if salinity decreases, freshwater marsh. This community 

is most prevalent in the middle and northern portions of the North Carolina coast. 

The refuge staff manages the brackish marshes with prescribed fire at a 3- to 5-year frequency to 

maintain herbaceous vegetative cover and suppress succession to woody vegetation. 

Salt Flat. The salt flat community occurs in estuarine areas subjected to irregular flooding by salt 

water. It occurs in shallow depressions wherein evaporation of the high salinity ocean water 

concentrates salt. Sparse cover and low diversity characterize its plant density and species 

composition. In vegetated areas, dominant species may include halophytic herbs such as 

saltmeadow glasswort (Salicornia virginica), Bigelow's saltwort (S. bigelovii), jointed saltwort (S. 

maritima), rarely sea blite (Suaeda linearis), sand spurrey (Spergularia marina), and orach (Atriplex 

patula). Saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), and seaside oxeye 

(Borrichia frustecens) occur in marginal zones. The centers of these communities are often 

completely barren of vegetation. 

These communities tend to be relatively small and occur within the salt marsh community. Primary 

differences between the salt flat and salt marsh communities include the dominance of vegetation 

with high salt tolerance and lower overall vegetative cover in the salt flat community. The salt flat 

community can change or shift location depending upon change in environmental conditions, such as 

a change in water circulation, salinity, or sand deposition. The salt flat community may transition into 

either salt or brackish marsh. 

Exposed Overwash Flats. The exposed overwash flats are marine flats, not otherwise considered 

part of the current beach. These flats are direct results of overwash during storm events. These flats 

are the unvegetated, sandy areas adjacent to beaches and inlets that can have high shell content. At 

low tide, rich overwash from previous storms or other events are exposed. Due to the lack of 

vegetation, this habitat type is attractive to several species of shorebirds and colonial nesting birds as 

nesting habitat and is the most likely place for the occurrence of seabeach amaranth. This 

community will transition into a dune grass community as natural dunes begin to form with 

accumulation of various types of debris. 

Managed Wetlands. These are manmade impoundments with borrow canals around the perimeter that 

may include open water, moist soil, exposed sand/mud flats, and emergent vegetation with varying 

amounts and management regimes. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge has three impoundments: 

390-acre North Pond, 192-acre New Field Pond, and 208-acre South Pond. Plant communities within 

the impoundments include maritime wet grassland, maritime shrub, salt marsh, brackish marsh, and 

open water. Open water areas typically have a bottom substrate dominated by sago pondweed 

(Potamogeton pectinata), wigeon grass (Ruppia maritime), and muskgrass (Chara spp.). Horned 

pondweed (Zannichellia palustris) has been identified on occasion. The refuge staff manages this 

wetland community primarily for wintering waterfowl and spring shorebird migration. 

The staff manages the areas by draining water in the spring to create mudflats for shorebirds and 

allow annual seed-bearing plants, maintaining it at a low elevation through the late summer shorebird 

migration, and allowing them to fill or pumping water to fill them for waterfowl migration in the fall. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

The staff fills the impoundments by opening the water control structures when the tide is appropriate 

to fill or drain them whenever possible. The impoundments are burned, mowed, and/or disked as 

needed to suppress succession to perennial herbaceous and woody plants. 

WILDLIFE 

Appendix VI provides a complete list of wildlife species that occur on the refuge. Table 4 lists the 

species of management concern that occur on the refuge. 

Birds 

Birds are the most common and evident land vertebrates along the Outer Banks. Because the environment 

is predominantly maritime, the large and conspicuous water and marsh birds are especially well 

represented. Approximately 265 species of birds regularly visit the refuge, with about 50 additional species 

considered accidental visitors. 

The area is roughly at the midpoint of the Atlantic Flyway and is a much used and valuable feeding and 

resting area for numerous species of wintering waterfowl. Snow geese, tundra swans, coots, and more than 

25 species of ducks winter here. In addition to waterfowl, large numbers of shorebirds, colonial nesting 

birds, gulls, terns, ibises, hawks, owls, and numerous species of passerine birds frequent the area. During 

the spring and fall, large numbers of raptors, especially accipiters and falcons, use the Outer Banks as a 

migration corridor. Other birds such as warblers, shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, gulls, terns, herons, and 

egrets also follow the barrier islands during migration. 

Avian species composition changes throughout the year since most are migratory. Peak shorebird 

spring migration occurs in early to mid-May, with a less defined fall migration beginning in late July 

and extending through September in some years. The populations of migratory waterfowl peak 

during the months of November through February. 

In summer, dunlins, dowitchers, plovers, sandpipers, royal terns, least terns, black skimmers, 

American oystercatchers, yellowlegs, willets, black-necked stilts, laughing gulls, and numerous other 

shorebird species are observed. Many wading birds such as glossy ibises; snowy and great egrets; 

little blue, tri-colored, green, and black-crowned night herons; American avocets; and others are also 

present. An interesting variety of songbirds is present throughout the year. 

Osprey and brown pelicans are very common. Although they were species of special concern in past 

years, they have made a remarkable comeback. 

Several species of shorebirds and colonial nesting birds have been found nesting along the open 

beaches of the area. The black skimmer, least tern, common tern, and gull-billed tern nest in the 

cobble and overwash areas of the beach above high tide. From one to four American 

oystercatchers nest on the refuge beach each year. All of these birds are recognized species of 

various levels of concern in a recent Fish and Wildlife Service publication entitled, “Birds of 

Conservation Concern 2002.” Degradation or loss of breeding habitat is the primary cause for 

concern with all of these species. 

Mammals 

Of the 47 species of mammals that occur in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, 21 native 

terrestrial mammals, 8 marine mammals, and the feral cat are recorded for the Outer Banks. The 

most common land mammals are the cottontail rabbit, raccoon, and mink. Semi-aquatic furbearers 
30 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 4. Species of Management Concern at the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Species Status Brackish 

Marsh 

Maritime 

Shrub 

Beach, 

Dune, 

Grass / Dry 

Grassland 

Managed 

Wetlands 

(Moist Soil 

Units) 

Piping Plover FL X 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle FL X 

Green Sea Turtle FL X 

Bald Eagle FL X 

Seabeach Amaranth FL X 

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow 

FSC X 

Seaside Sparrow FSC X 

Black Rail FSC X 

Yellow Rail FSC X 

King Rail FSC X 

Sedge Wren FSC X X 

Prairie Warbler FSC X 

Yellow-throated Warbler FSC X 

Northern Parula FSC X 

Red Knot FSC X 

Wilson’s Plover FSC X 

Least Tern FSC X 

Black Skimmer FSC X 

American Oystercatcher FSC X 

Canada Goose SMC X 

Snow Goose SMC X 

Tundra Swan SMC X 

American Black Duck SMC X X 

Gadwall SMC X X 

Mallard SMC X 

American Widgeon SMC X 

Blue-winged Teal SMC X 

Green-winged Teal SMC X 

Ruddy Duck SMC X 

Ringneck Duck SMC X 

Northern Pintail SMC X 

Greater Scaup SMC X 

Lesser Scaup SMC X 

Gull-billed Tern SMC X 

Common Tern SMC X 

(FL=Federally-listed, FSC=Federal Species of Concern, SMC=Species of Management Concern on Pea Island NWR) 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

such as the muskrat, nutria, and river otter are common. White-tailed deer numbers have been 

increasing in recent years. Marine species, including various species of whales, dolphins, and 

porpoises, are seen at rare intervals in the nearshore ocean waters. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

There are 20 species of reptiles recorded on the barrier islands. Sea turtles include the loggerhead 

and the green, and they are present only during the nesting season. The relatively few permanent 

freshwater ponds produce a correspondingly small number of amphibian species. 

Fish 

Many species of important invertebrates and fish are found in the waters surrounding the islands. 

The marshes and tidal creeks serve as nursery grounds fish such as spot, croaker, red drum, striped 

and white mullet, Atlantic menhaden, and several species of flounder. Striped bass, bluefish, and 

spotted sea trout are also present. Productive shellfish beds are found throughout the surrounding 

waters. Clams and scallops are found in the grass and softer mud bottoms, and crab and shrimp are 

found on the bottom. Oysters are found in the shallow sound areas. 

INSECTS AND DISEASES 

The gypsy moth is now well established as far south as northeastern North Carolina. The North 

Carolina Division of Plant Industry and USDA Forest Service closely monitor gypsy moth populations 

using pheromone traps located throughout the Dare County mainland and barrier islands, including 

refuge lands. When they detect large-scale outbreaks, they use integrated pest management 

techniques to suppress the outbreak, but not necessarily eliminate the species from the area. 

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. 

EXOTIC ORGANISMS 

At the present time biologists know little about exotic organisms on the refuge. Unknown individuals 

introduced the ring-necked pheasant to the barrier islands and a viable population existed until the 

mid-1990s. A few birds remain on the refuge and were sighted in the spring of 2004. There are feral 

cats on the refuge, but their numbers and the extent of their impact on wildlife are unknown. Other 

possible species include nutria, phragmites, alligator weed, and beach vitex. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Four federally listed species occur in the area. Among them are the piping plover, loggerhead and 

green sea turtles, and bald eagle (Table 2). 

The Service has listed the bald eagle as a federally threatened species and biologists observe them 

infrequently throughout the year. There have been no nesting attempts on the refuge. Sighting 

numbers have been increasing in recent years. 

The Service has listed the Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations of the piping plover 

as a federally threatened, whereas the Great Lakes population is endangered. Between one and 

three nesting attempts have occurred annually since 1996. Over those 9 years, the plovers have 

attempted to nest 12 times and have fledged 5 chicks. 
32 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Primary federally protected reptiles found using the refuge are the Atlantic loggerhead and green sea 

turtle. Both species are inhabitants of the open ocean and nest just above the high tide line on the 

beach. Mating takes place in the water near nesting beaches. Egg-laying occurs most frequently 

during June thru mid-August. 

The refuge is within the known range of the seabeach amaranth and dune bluecurls. The Service 

has listed the seabeach amaranth as federally threatened, whereas the dune bluecurls is a species of 

special concern. Biologists have not observed either species on the refuge. 

The refuge staff will give the status and habitat requirements of the above species primary 

consideration during the planning and implementation of management actions. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The refuge has no documented cultural resource sites. In 1978, the Thunderbird Research 

Corporation conducted background and archival investigations and field reconnaissance to assess 

the cultural resources of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. It concluded that, due to the 

dynamic nature of the geologic forces on the barrier islands, it is unlikely that any archaeological 

resources have been preserved on the refuge. There was the Pea Island Lifesaving Station in the 

vicinity of the former refuge headquarters, but the facilities were moved frequently and no 

archaeological remains were found at that location (Thompson and Gardner 1979). The refuge staff 

and refuge visitors occasionally find shipwrecks uncovered on the beach, and the staff reports the 

shipwrecks to the State Historic Preservation Office. The State Historic Preservation Office has not 

found any of these to be significant. 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND LAND USE 

The entire span of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge lies within Dare County, North Carolina. 

Recently made more accessible to the mainland by bridges and primarily supported by tourism, 

coastal Dare County has seen an influx of tourists, visitors, and residents over recent 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 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. 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and Dare County are in the northeastern part of North Carolina 

and are bounded by Currituck County to the north, Tyrrell County to the west, and Hyde County to the 

south. The Alligator River forms the western boundary of the 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. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

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 local economy. The importance of Pea 

Island Refuge and its appropriate management is, therefore, easily understood. 

HISTORY OF 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). The Algonkians lived in permanent villages where they could hunt, 

fish, shellfish, and farm in close proximity to the village. They 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 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 survivors returned to England the following year. 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—the 

first English child born in the New World. Later that year, White sailed back to England for supplies, but 

Spanish hostilities and England’s financial hardships delayed his return for three years. Upon arriving 

back at Roanoke Island in 1590, he found no trace of the colonists. Many theories have been proposed 

about the fate of those 117 people—called “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 Colington 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, to grow grapes for a winery, and to 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 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 the inland counties came to escape the hot humid summer. Cottages and the Nags Head Hotel 

became a home to visitors. The hotel was the scene of nightly dinners and dances. A railway was 

built for transportation to the beach (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). 
34 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

In the early 1800s, the Atlantic Ocean earned the name “Graveyard of the Atlantic” as numerous 

vessels sunk. 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 Hill near Kitty Hawk on the Outer Banks. German submarines filled the waters off 

the North Carolina coast during World War I and II. Since 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 could 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. 

LAND USE IN DARE COUNTY 

Logging and farming have seldom been important sources of income in Dare County due to the deep, 

sandy soils of the dunes, the saturated soils of the marshes on the Outer Banks, and the wetlands 

with deep organic soils on the mainland. The forest and marsh plant communities have always 

provided hunting opportunities, however, 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 islands known 

as the Outer Banks from Hatteras Village to Corolla. 

Before the Civil War, farmers cultivated up to 5,000 acres of corn and tobacco on mainland Dare 

County in a settlement known as Beechlands, near Milltail Creek. They also grazed cattle on 25,000 

acres of marsh. The Dare County Lumber Company harvested enough timber on 168,000 acres of 

mainland Dare County to set up a settlement called Buffalo City, which 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 1992 to 1997, the land in farms decreased 30 percent from 7,046 acres to 4,961 acres; the 

average size of the farms decreased 45 percent from 1,007 acres to 551 acres; the number of fulltime farm operators remained the same at 6; the total market value of agricultural products sold 

increased 34 percent from $554,000 to $836,000; and the average market value of agricultural 

products sold per farm increased 17 percent from $79,114 to $92,923 (Table 5). 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Table 5. Dare County agricultural statistics from 1997 

Number of Farms 9

Acres in Farms 4,961

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 551

Market Value of Land Per Farm $55,033

Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,007

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $75,877

Total Cropland (Acres) 4,265

Market Value of All Products Sold $836,000

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $92,923

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 6

Operators with Anther Occupation as Principal Occupation 3

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 3,516

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, 1997 

Soybeans are the most important crop in Dare County. Production has increased substantially 

between 1992 and 1997 (Table 6) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1997). 

Table 6. Commodity production in Dare County in 1992 and 1997 

Commodity 1997 Production 1992 Production 1997-1992 Change 

Soybeans (acres) 3,516 2,736 Increased 29% 

Wheat (acres) 0 1,652 

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, 1997 

DEMOGRAPHICS IN DARE COUNTY 

Dare County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 29,967 in 2000 (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a) (Table 7). 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. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). In 

2000, the median family income was $35,258, about the same as the state average of $35,320. The 
36 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

poverty rate was 8.1 percent of the population, well below the state average of 12.6 percent (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). The unemployment rate in May 2002, was 

3.0 percent, well below the State of North Carolina’s unemployment rate of 6.7 percent (North 

Carolina Employment Security Commission 2002). 

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. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). 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 (Table 7). 

EMPLOYMENT IN DARE COUNTY 

The hotel and food service and retail trade industries are the largest employer 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, Bureau of the Census 2000b). This is due in large part to the tourist 

industry on the Outer Banks (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 1999). 

OUTDOOR RECREATION 

Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Dare County has always 

had an abundance of fish and game, due to its 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 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge to conserve and restore 

habitat for native wildlife and migratory birds. 

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 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. 

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, and health care, manufacturing, and finance (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2000b). 

A variety of federal, state, and local government agencies and non-governmental organizations provide 

environmental education and interpretation opportunities. These include 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 weeklong ecocamps throughout the summer. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Table 7. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties. 

County Average 

Income1

Poverty 

Rate (%)1

2004 Average 

Unemployment 

Rate (%)2

2000 

Population1 Population Trend

N. Carolina $35,320 12.6 6.1 8 million +21% since 1990

County in the Vicinity of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Dare $35,258 8.1 7.6 29,967 +32% since 1990

Other Northeastern North Carolina Counties 

Beaufort $28,614 17.4 9.0 44,958 +6% since 1990

Bertie $22,816 12.6 9.3 19,773 Same as 1990

Camden $35,423 12.2 4.0 6,885 +16% since 1990

Carteret $34,348 11.8 6.5 59,383 +13% since 1990

Chowan $27,900 18.7 4.0 14,526 +7% since 1990

Craven $33,214 13.8 4.7 91,436 +12% since 1990

Currituck $36,287 10.8 3.6 18,190 +32% since 1990

Gates $30,087 15.4 2.6 10,516 Same as 1900

Halifax $24,471 23.6 9.3 57,370 Same as 1950

Hertford $23,724 23.1 4.0 22,601 Same as 1960

Hyde $23,568 24.8 10.9 5,826 -37% since 1900

Martin $26,058 20.1 8.4 25,593 Same as 1940

Northampton $24,218 23.1 7.9 22,086 Same as 1980

Pamlico $28,629 16.8 4.9 12,934 +14% since 1990

Pasquotank $29,305 19.0 3.6 34,897 +11% since 1990

Perquimens $26,489 19.5 3.3 11,368 Same as 1920

Tyrrell $21,616 25.7 7.5 4,149 -17% since 1900

Washington $27,726 20.5 8.3 13,723 Same as 1960

1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of the United States 

2 North Carolina Economic Security Commission, December, 2004 
38 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS 

Fish and wildlife are the focus of the refuge, but they are also important to the local economy. First, a 

considerable commercial fishery is present in ocean, lakes, and sounds. Striped bass, red drum, 

flounder, speckled trout, croakers, blue crabs, and gray trout are the major species harvested. Second, 

hunting and fishing are economically important to local businesses, both directly as the local population 

spends money, and indirectly as an attraction that draws sportsmen from outside the county. 

Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, combined 

with the 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, Pea Island National Wildlife 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. 

No studies have been performed to estimate the economic impact of outdoor recreation on Pea 

Island Refuge. However, 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 by hunters, and $199 per day by 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 $63.70 to $332.55 per day 

(Vogelsang 2001). A similar study of visitors at Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia also 

showed a range of expenditures from $62 to $101 per day (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997). 

A study commissioned by the State of New Jersey demonstrated that the average visitor to the 

shorebird migration spent $130 per day (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2000). 

Birdwatchers on eight national wildlife refuges in New Jersey reported a range of expenditures from 

$25 to $41 per day (Kerlinger 1994). 

Ecotourists on Dauphin Island, Alabama, spent an average of $60 per visitor per day (Kerlinger 1999). 

Birdwatchers from the local area on 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, Pea Island 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 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

providing recreational opportunities for the local population, and indirectly by attracting tourists from 

outside the parish 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 the Roanoke Island Festival Park with a historic 

visitor’s center and a replica of the Queen Elizabeth II; the 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 form the basis of many events that attract tourists. Thes include the 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.Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge could serve as an additional 

attraction to tourists visiting the area at least seasonally. 

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. 

Ferry transportation began to the area that is now Pea Island in the mid-1920s when Captain J.B. 

Tillet established a tug and barge service across Oregon Inlet. In 1934, the North Carolina Highway 

Commission recognized the importance of this service to residents and began subsidizing Tillet’s 

business. In 1942, full reimbursement by the state began and Tillet eliminated the tolls. This 

continued until 1950 when Tillet sold his business to the state. Before 1951, Pea Island had only a 

sand pathway traversing the refuge. The Service authorized a specific road easement for the State 

of North Carolina in October 1951 and the state constructed a clay-surface road. The state initially 

paved the road that is now North Carolina Highway 12 in the mid-1950s and ferry service ceased with 

the opening of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge on November 20, 1963. 

U.S. Highway 64 runs east and west through the middle of the area and connects population centers 

in central North Carolina and Interstate 95 to the Outer Banks. U.S. Highways 158 and 168 run north 

and south through the center of the area and connect Dare County with population centers in 

southeastern Virginia. A number of smaller roads connect the various communities in the area. 
40 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Visitors can reach Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge via North Carolina Highway 12. Refuge dike roads 

are not open to vehicular traffic. Road access is a constraint on vehicular access, but not necessarily on 

public use. Travel by foot or boat is 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; theaters at local high schools and parks; music at local fairs, festivals, and nightclubs; and art 

at local fairs, festivals, and 20 small galleries. There has been a summer-long production of “The 

Lost Colony” annually since 1936 at the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site commemorating the first 

English settlers on Roanoke Island. 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 performing arts with national touring collections and companies. 

/REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The refuge covers approximately 5,000 acres (reduced by erosion from the original 5,915 acres). Its 

acquisition history is summarized in Table 8. Figure 6 shows the refuge’s approved acquisition 

boundary. 

Table 8. Acquisition history of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

YEAR NUMBER OF 

TRACTS ACRES COST COST ACRE 

TOTAL 

ACREAGE 

TOTAL 

COST 

1937 1 1,539.36 $8,466.48 $5.50 1,539.36 $8,466.48

1938 4 4,247.42 $26,935.38 46.34 5,786.78 $35,401.86

1959 3 47.12 $5,000.00 $106.11 5,834.20 $40,401.86

Total 8 5,834.20 $40,401.86 

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 provide the wildlife-dependent 

environmental education, interpretation, and recreation opportunities the refuge’s visitors expect. A few 

commercial businesses have interests in guiding canoeing and kayaking tours and angling adventures. 

Hunting 

Currently, the Service does not permit hunting on the refuge. Careful evaluation has failed to identify 

any game species on the refuge that could support a hunt without impacting the primary wildlife 

management programs that are focused on waterfowl and other migratory birds. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 
42 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Fishing 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is located within one of the top five saltwater fishing capitals of 

the United States. Surf fishermen can readily find secluded and private fishing spots along the 

refuge’s 13-mile oceanfront. Red drum, striped bass, spotted seatrout, and flounder are the most 

popular species sought. Boat ramps are available to launch boats, kayaks, and canoes into Pamlico 

Sound, and the refuge offers special permits for nighttime surf fishing. Once a year, the refuge opens 

North Pond to crabbing, providing a unique family recreational opportunity while also ensuring a 

proper balance of creatures in this important waterway. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

The refuge’s trained professional personnel and well-organized intern/volunteer program offers public 

programs on migratory birds, wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, loggerhead turtles, and the piping 

plover, as well as their habitats and nesting habits. 

Opportunities to participate in self-guiding experiences, guided tours, educational nature talks and 

walks and programs are available year-round on Pea Island Refuge. Guided canoe tours enable 

visitors to inspect and appreciate more closely the bays and backwater trails and marshlands. The 

refuge offers children’s programs, outreach programs in the local school system, and special 

seminars and conferences, including the nationally recognized Wings over Water Festival, on a 

regular and continuing basis. The refuge has an extensive volunteer program. Not only do these 

volunteers present educational opportunities to others, they participate in experiential programs, such 

as the Turtle Patrol, which enables them to patrol, locate, and identify sea turtle nests, and Turtle 

Watch, which affords them the opportunity to escort newly hatched turtles to the ocean. These 

programs, plus specially designed internships and the workamper program, provide environmental 

education and appreciation to the participants that can be passed on to others. 

The Visitor Center, built and manned by the support group for the refuge, has quality displays that 

give experienced and novice environmentalists more insight into the necessity for maintaining and 

sustaining wildlife refuges. A knowledgeable staff is able to answer general nature questions and 

provide additional information through videos and an ongoing interactive computer program. The 

Visitor Center also offers a plethora of educational and interpretive materials for sale. Teachers and 

librarians have lauded the book selections at the refuge as the best they have seen. A variety of 

educational/interpretive books and toys specially geared toward children continues the refuge’s 

dedication towards establishing sound educational opportunities at the earliest age levels. 

The ocean and sounds, which are not a part of the refuge itself, are accessible from the refuge for 

most types of water-dependent recreation, ranging from surf fishing and shelling to fly-fishing on the 

sound side. Personal watercraft is not permitted in the waters surrounding the refuge. Nonwildlifedependent recreational uses, such as surfing, swimming, sunbathing, bicycling, hiking, and 

picnicking, occur on the refuge; however, the refuge’s facilities and programming are not designed to 

specifically support these activities. 

Wildlife Observation 

As a strategic part of the Atlantic Flyway, the refuge’s opportunities to observe migratory birds, as 

well as shore and water birds, are limitless. Visitor Center volunteers are eager to point out recent 

and unusual sightings, lend binoculars at no charge, and provide assistance in helping new hobbyists 

enjoy their experience to the fullest. Two wildlife trails are associated with the North Pond, a brackish 

impoundment. A service road that encircles the pond is open to the public for wildlife observation. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Raised observation platforms, spotting scopes, and interpretive signs are provided along the route. 

The limited human interruption of this natural resource enables visitors to view the waterfowl, 

songbirds, turtles, and other wildlife native to the island. 

Wildlife Photography 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is a photographer’s paradise. Between the ocean, beachfront, 

dunes, and impoundments, which draw tens of thousands of migratory birds, photographers have 

unlimited opportunities for wildlife photography. Its unique location, situated where sunrises occur 

over the ocean and sunsets over the sound, enables camera enthusiasts to shoot natural beauty from 

one end of the day to the other. A photo blind, observation decks, oceanfront vistas, and canoe tours 

through the bays and marshes promote and encourage the noninvasive wildlife photography that is 

popular with the general public. 

Universal Access 

Pea Island Refuge gives special attention to ensuring that visitors with disabilities can visit the refuge 

for pleasure, education, interpretation, and wildlife observation opportunities. The Visitor Center 

offers a special indoor bird watching area for those who do not want to take a trail around the 

impoundment. A portion of the impoundment trail is level and accessible by wheelchair, and a 

wheelchair is available at no charge for those who request it. The North Pond Wildlife Trail is 

universally accessible. 

Public Involvement 

The refuge offers nearly limitless involvement for the public on either a volunteer or spectator basis. 

Steady, reliable volunteers operate the Visitor Center. The refuge offers special educational opportunities 

to the scores of local residents and visitors who volunteer for these unique experiences. Sea turtle watch 

and patrol programs not only provide assistance for the threatened loggerhead and endangered green 

turtle, but also enable refuge staff to educate the public on the habits and habitats of these wildlife 

species. Tern and pelican banding and counts also enable the sharing of expertise and equipment in 

exchange for further educational opportunities and participation in avian protection and record-keeping. 

Volunteers and staff share their information with beach visitors who may otherwise have no interest, 

concern, or knowledge in protecting threatened and endangered species. The Coastal Wildlife Refuge 

Society, a nonprofit local organization, was established to provide support 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. The program also provides additional volunteer services 

to maintain the high standards of the refuge. A work camping program, bartering a campsite and utilities 

in exchange for work hours, enables the refuge to take advantage of a wide spectrum of individual 

experiences and expertise that 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 awareness about the critical need for protecting the human/natural interactions. 
44 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Personnel 

The staff of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge manages Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

from its office in Manteo. Alligator River Refuge uses 6.3 full-time equivalent positions (5.4 non-fire 

and 0.9 fire) of its 23 positions at Pea Island Refuge. One park ranger (0.9 full-time equivalent 

position) is stationed on the refuge. The staff conducts extensive environmental education and 

interpretation programs with the assistance of 25,000 volunteer-hours every year. The refuge 

complex’s current staff is listed in Table 9. 

Operations 

The staff manages the refuge marshes with prescribed fire and manages the impoundments and 

moist-soil units with water management, prescribed fire, and tillage. The refuge controls common 

reed (Phragmites australis) in both the marshes and moist-soil units. The staff and volunteers 

monitor waterfowl, shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, wading birds, and sea turtles. They also 

maintain the facilities that support the public use program, as well as the levees and pumps that 

enable management of the impoundments and moist-soil units. 

REFUGE INFRASTRUCTURE 

Roads and Trails 

The refuge has an established half-mile-long wildlife trail on the levee of the south shoreline of the 

impoundment known as North Pond. This trail, called the North Pond Wildlife Trail, is universally 

accessible and features several overlooks and one wildlife observation platform. Pedestrians may 

also walk around the entire impoundment on a 4-mile service road. There is a second, shorter wildlife 

trail on the north end of North Pond called the Salt Flats Wildlife Trail. The service road is open to 

bicycles; however, the designated trails are not. The North Pond Wildlife Trail area is part of a series 

of trails among the eleven refuges and one fish hatchery in eastern North Carolina. This series of 

trails was established in honor of the late television news commentator Charles Kuralt, for the 

recognition he brought to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Figure 7 shows the locations of the 

refuge’s roads and trails. 

Only the refuge staff has vehicular access to the remainder of the refuge roads. These roads are used 

by the staff to conduct wildlife surveys and maintain the marshes, impoundments, levees, and pumps. 

Utility Corridors and Distribution 

The Cape Hatteras Electric Membership Cooperative has a power transmission right-of-way across 

refuge lands. The right-of-way is 13 miles long by 50 feet wide and covers 79 acres of land in the 

backdune area parallel to North Carolina Highway 12. Permits to relocate the power lines have been 

approved on several occasions due to encroachment by the ocean. The last relocation was 

completed in 2004. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

Table 9. Staff of the Alligator River and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuges in 2005 

Position Status Percentof Time 

on Pea Island 

Management Staff 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-14 PFT 60 

Deputy Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13 PFT 40 

Assistant Refuge Manager, GS-0485-12 PFT 25 

Administrative Officer, GS-0341-09 PFT 25 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07 PPT 25 

Forestry Technician, GS-0462-07 PFT 10 

Biological Staff 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-12 PFT 60 

General Biologist, GS-0401-07 PFT 50 

Interpretive Staff 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-12 PFT 60 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-09 PFT 90 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-07 TERM 90 

Law Enforcement Staff 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-09 PFT 30 

Maintenance Staff 

Engineering Equipment. Operator Supervisor, WS-5716-09 PFT 25 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-10 PFT 10 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09 PFT 10 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-08 PFT 10 

Automotive Worker, WG-5823-08 PFT 10 

Fire Management Program 

Fire Management Officer, GS-0460-12 PFT 10 

Fire Management Officer (Wildland Urban Interface), GS-0401-11 PFT 10 

Fire Management Specialist, GS-0401-09 PFT 10 

Forestry Technician, (Fire) GS-0462-08 PFT 10 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-06 PFT 10 

Forestry Technician, (Fire) GS-0462-06 PFT 10 
46 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Position Status Percentof Time 

on Pea Island 

Forestry Technician (Fire) GS-0462-07 PFT 10 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08 PFT 10 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08 PFT 10 

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)

Communication Systems 

The refuge communications system currently consists of mobile radios with a base station located at 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge on mainland Dare County. The staff uses cellular phones for 

communication between the field and office. 

Waste Collection and Disposal 

The National Park Service constructed the restroom facilities located in the Visitor Center parking lot 

in 1983. They are responsible for daily cleaning and overall operation of the facility. 

Volunteers transfer general trash to dumpsters located at the refuge office and Visitor Center, which 

are emptied by Dare County for a fee. The North Carolina Department of Transportation is 

responsible for removing trash from the North Carolina Highway 12 right-of-way. Septic systems treat 

sanitary waste from the office, intern quarters, Visitor Center restrooms, and workamper pads. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Figure 7. Current visitor facilities at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 
48 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

At initial planning meetings, the refuge and planning staff discussed strategies for completing the 

plan, identified the issues and concerns, and compiled a mailing list of likely interested government 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and local citizens. The Service invited these 

agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in four public scoping meetings on 

June 26 and 27, 2000, in Rodanthe and Manteo, North Carolina. The staff introduced the attendees 

to the refuge and its planning process, and asked them to identify their issues and concerns. The 

staff published announcements giving the locations, dates, and times for the public meetings in the 

Federal Register and legal notices in local newspapers. The staff also sent the announcements as 

press releases to local newspapers and as public service announcements to television and radio 

stations. The planning staff placed fifty 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 of four public meetings held on 

September 25 and 26, 2000, in Rodanthe and Manteo, North Carolina. The planning staff again 

published announcements giving the locations, dates, and times for the public meetings, as well as 

legal notices in local newspapers. They also sent press releases to local newspapers and public 

service announcements to television and radio stations. The staff placed seventy-five posters 

announcing the meetings in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

At the second round of public meetings, members of the public expressed concern that the three 

alternatives being considered did not represent a wide enough range of alternatives. The refuge staff 

developed Alternatives 4 and 5 in response to those concerns. Alternative 4 assumes that natural 

forces will dominate the landscape from the north end of North Pond to Oregon Inlet. Alternative 5 

assumes that, except for the impoundments and administrative sites (e.g., buildings and their parking 

lots), natural forces will dominate throughout the refuge. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The input of local citizens and public agencies, the team members’ knowledge of the area, and the 

resource needs identified by the refuge staff and biological review team all contributed to the issues 

and concerns addressed in the plan. The Fish and Wildlife Service assembled a planning team to 

evaluate the resource needs. The team then developed a list of goals, objectives, and strategies to 

shape the management of the refuge for the next 15 years. 

These issues provided the basis for developing the refuge’s alternative management objectives and 

strategies. These issues also played a role in determining the desired conditions for the refuge and 

were considered in the preparation of the long-term comprehensive conservation plan. The issues 

and concerns are described below. They are of local, regional, and national significance and reflect 

similar issues that were, in part, identified by the public at the planning meetings. 
50 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

HYDROLOGY 

Alteration of Coastal Processes: The dunes on Pea Island Refuge were originally low, broad dunes 

with relatively flat slopes. In the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps enhanced the dunes, making 

them higher and steeper to protect the road on the backside of the dunes. These dunes destroyed 

unvegetated habitats that existed on the original dunes and prohibited the western migration of the 

dunes. The North Carolina Department of Transportation maintains North Carolina Highway 12 

through the refuge by removing sand from the road surface and placing it on the dunes, maintaining 

their steep slopes. The construction of the groin in 1989-90 to protect the Bonner Bridge over the 

Oregon Inlet alters the normal flow of sand off shore that replenishes the beaches. Ocean overwash 

that would occur on an unaltered inlet spit would maintain early successional habitats suitable for 

beach nesting birds. The groin prevents this kind of overwash. The Army Corps of Engineers 

maintains the Oregon Inlet navigation channel by dredging. Their dredge disposal activities can alter 

the quantity and quality of sand for the nearshore environment and refuge beaches that alter 

invertebrate populations that are the prey for shorebirds and some nearshore fish. 

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 Pea Island National Wildlife 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, colonial nesting birds, and neotropical migratory birds. 

Threatened and Endangered Species: Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered 

plants and animals are important responsibilities delegated to the Service and its national wildlife 

refuges. Eight threatened or endangered animals use (or could use) Pea Island Refuge: the piping 

plover (federally threatened Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations and endangered 

Great Lakes populations); bald eagle (federally threatened); loggerhead sea turtle (federally 

threatened); leatherback sea turtle (federally endangered); hawksbill sea turtle (federally 

endangered); green sea turtle (federally threatened); Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (federally endangered); 

and seabeach amaranth (federally endangered). 

Loggerhead sea turtles are the most prevalent federally listed species on the refuge. An average of 

10 females typically nests successfully on the refuge every year. There was a record high of 37 nests 

in 1994 and a record low of 1 nest in 2004. Although less common, green sea turtles use Pea Island 

Refuge beaches for nesting on occasion. 

Prior to 1996, no historic data existed documenting the nesting of piping plovers on the refuge except 

one nest in the 1960s on a newly constructed finger island in North Pond. Historically, the refuge had 

wide beaches, low flat naturally formed dunes, and overwash fans. Prior to construction of artificial 

dunes in the 1930s, it is presumed that piping plovers nested on overwash areas and beaches on the 

refuge. Construction of the dune system in the 1930s, maintenance of North Carolina Highway 12, 

and erosion of the beaches have degraded or removed nesting habitat. 

Construction of the terminal groin in the early 1990s to protect the Bonner Bridge resulted in sand 

deposition on the ocean side of the groin. After sand mining by the North Carolina Department of 

Transportation in 1995, the first plover nest occurred in 1996. Since that time, plovers have nested 

on an irregular basis in the area behind the groin. There have been no other nesting attempts 

elsewhere on the refuge since 1996. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Nests are susceptible to predation and pedestrian trampling and do not always produce young 

despite being posted as closed and patrolled. Symbolic fencing is used to protect nests. Piping 

plovers forage on refuge beaches throughout the year. 

Bald eagles have historically nested on lands adjacent to the Pamlico Sound, but the refuge does not 

provide adequate nesting habitat. They do nest on the mainland in Dare County and adjacent 

counties and travel over the shorelines and refuge impoundments for foraging. 

Waterfowl: Management of refuge impoundments and marshes for waterfowl is important for meeting 

the refuge’s purpose. The waterfowl objectives help guide water management actions on the refuge. 

In order to meet the waterfowl objectives, the refuge must maintain the impoundments to meet 

waterfowl habitat needs and provide sufficient sanctuary areas to provide undisturbed resting and 

feeding areas for waterfowl. 

Shorebirds and Colonial Nesting Birds: Management of refuge impoundments, beaches, and flats for 

shorebirds and colonial nesting birds is important for meeting the refuge’s purpose. The shorebird 

objectives help guide operation and management actions on the refuge. The refuge must maintain 

the impoundments to meet the habitat needs of shorebirds and colonial nesting birds, especially 

during the fall and spring migrations, and provide sufficient sanctuary areas that provide undisturbed 

resting and feeding areas for shorebirds and colonial nesting birds. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds: Neotropical migratory birds are a species group of special management 

concern. Providing habitat (i.e., brackish marshes, grasslands, and maritime shrub) for these birds is 

a refuge objective. Strategic marsh management compatible with the refuge’s waterfowl habitat 

objectives contributes to the maritime shrub needs of neotropical migratory birds. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

The 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 Pea Island 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, colonial nesting 

birds, and neotropical migratory birds. 

Impoundment Management: The staff manages impoundments for moist-soil vegetation and 

submerged aquatic vegetation for waterfowl habitat, and mud flats for shorebird habitat. Providing 

quality habitat requires water management using water control structures and pumps; vegetation 

management with disking, prescribed burning, and mowing; and monitoring of water levels, 

vegetation, and invertebrates. 

Marsh Management: The staff manages marshes for perennial emergent vegetation and salt flats for 

waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and colonial nesting birds, and habitat for neotropical migratory 

songbirds. Providing quality habitat requires prescribed burning and control of invasive species such 

as common reed (Phragmites australis). 

Maritime Shrub Management: The staff manages woody shrub, trees, and vines for certain colonial 

nesting birds and as neotropical migratory songbird habitat. Providing quality habitat requires little 

management other than allowing natural succession and, on occasion, limited prescribed burning and 

control of invasive species such as common reed (Phragmites australis). 
52 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

VISITOR SERVICES (PUBLIC USE) 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge offers five of 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 along the 13 miles of refuge beach and is allowed 

within the North Pond impoundment one day a year during the annual crabbing rodeo. Hunting is not 

authorized on the refuge at this time. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography: Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge has consistently been 

called a “birders’ paradise” due to its mid-way location along the Atlantic Flyway and the numerous 

migratory visitors and overwintering avian species. Especially in peak migration seasons but also 

throughout the year, the refuge welcomes thousands of avid birdwatchers, nature lovers, and 

fortunate passers-by. The majority of these visitors simply observe the migration, aided by the 

refuge’s universally accessible boardwalks and spotting scopes. Some make use of the refuge’s 

photo blind and observation platforms. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation: With numerous visitors to the beach during the summer 

months, 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 an inadequately 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 the refuge and 

the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Fishing: The refuge attracts several thousand anglers annually, primarily in the surf and in the area 

surrounding Bonner Bridge. Existing parking lots on the refuge are limited, especially since the 

damage resulting from Hurricane Isabel in September 2003; therefore, many anglers park on the side 

of North Carolina Highway 12 to access the beach. Historically, pedestrian traffic created nearly 80 

foot paths over the artificial dunes. Many of these paths no longer exist, but access is permitted at 

basically any point along the highway. The refuge permits night access for fishing outside of the sea 

turtle nesting season. 

Hunting: Currently, no hunting is permitted on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. Migratory bird 

hunting is prohibited by Presidential Proclamation on the refuge and on 25,700 acres of adjacent 

Pamlico Sound waters. Hunting and fishing are integral parts of the rural North Carolina culture. 

Waterfowl hunting is currently permitted within the adjacent Cape Hatteras National Seashore on 

Bodie Island. It is not surprising that there is considerable state and local interest in providing hunting 

opportunities. Any future hunting opportunities on the refuge will be dependent upon providing safe, 

quality experiences that are compatible with refuge purposes. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Cultural Resources: There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. A 

cultural resources and impact area assessment conducted in 1979 concluded that there were 

numerous hunt clubs on the refuge as well as the Pea Island Lifesaving Station, but that there were 

no significant archaeological remains on the refuge. The assessment recommended that no further 

work be done (Thompson and Gardner 1979). The staff must conduct management activities so as 

to avoid compromising sensitive sites. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Land Acquisition: There is a 10-acre inholding owned by the State of North Carolina on the northern 

end of the refuge surrounding the old Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station. Acquiring this inholding 

would secure the Service’s ability to protect all refuge resources. The Service does not, however, 

wish to purchase the Coast Guard Station itself nor be responsible for its upkeep. 

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 Pea Island and Alligator 

River Refuges. The officer has obligations over more than 158,000 acres and the 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 the enforcement of permit conditions. 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: There are other threats to refuge resources that require closer monitoring and management. 

Pest plants and animals and wildlife diseases are concerns of which the refuge should be paying 

closer attention. 

Required dredging for channel maintenance results in the need for disposal of sand removed from 

Oregon Inlet. The placement of that dredged material on refuge beaches by the Army Corps of 

Engineers requires a permit that mandates monitoring in the disposal areas to ensure sand 

compatibility. The inlet would naturally bypass a higher volume of sand to the refuge beach if the 

groin that protects the bridge were not present. Placing the dredge material on the beaches partially 

compensates for the interception of sand by the groin, but the grain size of the dredged material is 

not always compatible with invertebrate survival on the beaches. The refuge staff must monitor the 

grain size and the placement of the dredged material closely. 

Scheduled and post-storm maintenance of the North Carolina Highway 12 right-of-way also poses threats 

to refuge resources. This activity requires close coordination with the state and frequent monitoring. 

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 

Funding and Staffing: Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is currently unfunded and unstaffed and 

relies on personnel officially stationed at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge to conduct all work. 

By utilizing an extensive volunteer workforce, the refuge is able to provide some environmental 

education, interpretation, and wildlife observation opportunities. 

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 types 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. 
54 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

In 1974 the Service submitted a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FES-75-92) that proposed 

wilderness designation for several roadless islands on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Wilderness designation was recommended for all islands on the Pamlico Sound side of the refuge, 

encompassing approximately 180 acres. These areas consist of salt marsh with each island being 

dominated by needlerush with marsh elder scattered throughout. However, the Service never 

forwarded the recommendation to Congress. The refuge is currently managing the islands as if they 

were wilderness areas until the Service forwards the recommendation to Congress and Congress 

either approves or denies the recommendation. 

During this comprehensive planning process, the lands within Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness 

Act of 1964. No lands in the refuge, other than the areas already recommended, were found to meet 

these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further 

analyzed in this plan. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

Under the preferred alternative, 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) 

preserving nesting and migratory habitat for neotropical migratory songbirds; 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 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 made available to the public 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 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 with 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. 

VISION 

The vision for the refuge is as follows: 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina is an example of a historic mid-Atlantic coastal 

barrier island in a relatively undisturbed condition. Features including North Carolina Highway 12, the 
56 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, a terminal groin, and utility lines affect natural processes and will partially 

determine future pressures on refuge resources. 

Wildlife viewing will increase in popularity as thousands of birds and unique, rare and threatened wild 

creatures continue to seek sanctuary on this barrier island refuge. Refuge staff and partners will be 

increasingly diligent in the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant species and their 

habitats in the face of rising human impacts. 

The refuge will encourage visitors to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. Working with others, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge will adaptively manage natural 

resources and create in this wild place a legacy of barrier island fish, wildlife, and plants for future 

visitors to experience and enjoy. 

GOALS 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS: Protect, maintain, and enhance healthy and viable 

populations of indigenous migratory birds, wildlife, fish, and plants including federal and state 

threatened and endangered species. 

HABITAT: Restore, maintain, and enhance the health and biodiversity of barrier island upland and 

wetland habitats to ensure optimum ecological productivity. 

PUBLIC USE: Provide the public with safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreational and educational 

opportunities that focus on barrier island wildlife and habitats of the refuge. Continue to participate in 

local efforts to sustain economic health through nature-based tourism. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION: Protect refuge resources by limiting the adverse impacts of human 

activities and development. 

ADMINISTRATION: Acquire and manage adequate funding, human resources, facilities, equipment, 

and infrastructure to accomplish all refuge goals. 

OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, AND PROJECTS 

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 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 Pea Island 

National Wildlife Refuge. Depending upon the availability of funds and staff, the Service intends to 

accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies during the next 15 years. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

Goal: Protect, maintain, and enhance healthy and viable populations of indigenous migratory birds, 

wildlife, fish, and plants including federal and state threatened and endangered species. 

Fish 

Objective: Manage refuge resources continuously to protect species of fish and other marine and 

estuarine species in estuarine nurseries and adjacent waters. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing for the surveying and monitoring 

of fish species in the estuarine ponds and impoundments. There are fish and other aquatic species 

on the refuge, but there are substantial aquatic resources in the Atlantic Ocean, Pamlico Sound, and 

other bays and inlets surrounding the refuge. The flooded edges of the marshes on the refuge and 

shallow water adjacent to the marshes are important fish nursery areas. Proper land management on 

the refuge is critical to the maintenance of water quality in those nursery areas. 

Strategies: 

• Assist with and/or conduct studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

• Survey and monitor fish species in the estuarine ponds and impoundments every three years. 

Invertebrates 

Objective: Document presence or absence of invertebrate species as they are identified. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. Invertebrates are important food for 

shorebirds and colonial nesting birds and indicators of water quality. This alternative provides for the 

documentation of presence of species, but not detailed surveys of the refuge. 

Strategy: 

• Assist in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

Land Birds 

Objective: Provide resting, nesting, and foraging habitat continuously for about 100 species of land 

birds. 

Discussion: This objective is an improvement on the status quo by providing for conducting ground 

surveys and studies. The traditional emphasis on the refuge has been on waterfowl, shorebirds, 

colonial nesting birds, and wading birds. There is good habitat on the refuge for land birds that utilize 

coastal dunes, shrublands, and marshes for nesting, resting, and foraging. This alternative adds the 

staff to perform the surveys and studies and investigations. 

Strategies: 

• Assist with and/or conduct banding activities as requested or directed. 

• Assist with and/or conduct studies and investigations, as requested. 

• Conduct 36 ground surveys annually of all land birds (3 times monthly). 

Mammals 

Objective: Monitor mammal populations as opportunities present themselves. 

Discussion: This objective is an improvement on the status quo by providing for conducting surveys 

of land and semi-aquatic species. There is good habitat on the refuge for mammals that utilize 
58 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

coastal dunes, shrublands, and marshes for nesting, resting, and foraging. This alternative adds the 

staff to perform the surveys. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor and collect data continuously from stranded marine mammals. 

• Survey and monitor land and semi-aquatic mammal populations annually. 

• Evaluate mammalian predator populations for management actions. 

• Evaluate the potential of game species to be harvested by hunting. 

• Review and revise species lists as necessary. 

Piping Plovers 

Objective: Protect and monitor use of nesting, foraging, and wintering habitat by piping plovers. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. Three populations of piping plover, one 

endangered (Great Lakes) and two threatened (Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains), use the 

refuge. The birds nest on sand without any vegetation and shallow pools of water nearby. In a 

natural system, this habitat would occur in areas where the ocean washed over gaps in the dunes. 

On the refuge, this habitat occurs behind the groin along the northern edge of the refuge that is the 

southern shore of Oregon Inlet. Sand accumulates behind the groin and creates the exposed sand 

where the birds nest. The refuge staff must periodically remove sand to create the depressions in 

which water collects. Disturbance of birds and destruction of eggs by pedestrians and predators 

killing chicks are threats to the plovers. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor piping plover activities to document nesting success at least twice weekly during 

nesting. 

• Post active nesting areas and close them to all access. 

• Protect nests from predators (e.g., raccoons and feral cats) as needed. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Objective: Monitor reptile and amphibian populations as opportunities present themselves. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing for the documentation of the 

presence of reptiles and amphibians. There is limited habitat on the refuge for reptiles and 

amphibians that utilize coastal dunes, shrublands, and marshes for nesting, resting, and foraging. 

This alternative adds the staff to perform the surveys. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Strategies: 

• Document presence or absence of reptiles and amphibians as they are identified. 

• Assist in conducting studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

Sea Turtles 

Objective: Protect and monitor sea turtle nesting activities. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. The refuge has an average of ten nesting 

sea turtles (primarily the threatened Loggerhead Sea Turtle) each year in summer. The turtles hatch 

in the early fall. Refuge volunteers and staff patrol the beach during the nesting season and mark the 

nest locations. They monitor the nest locations when hatching should occur and make sure the 

hatchlings get to the ocean. 

Strategies: 

• Document the nests established during each nesting season. 

• Protect nesting habitat from human disturbance. 

• Protect hatchling sea turtle crawls to the ocean during each nesting season. 

• Monitor and collect data from stranded (dead) sea turtles. 

Shorebirds and Colonial Nesting Birds 

Objective: Provide forage and resting habitat in impoundments for 6,000 shorebirds and colonial nesting 

birds during spring migration and 3,000 shorebirds and colonial nesting habitat during the fall migration. 

Protect nesting habitat for 1,000 shorebirds and colonial nesting birds during spring migration. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing habitat for 3,000 birds in the fall 

by managing the water levels in impoundments to create mudflats so they can feed on 

invertebrates. This alternative also provides for monitoring shorebirds and colonial nesting birds 

(e.g., terns, skimmers, oystercatchers, and other species) that utilize the refuge for nesting and 

foraging. Many species nest on the beach or in the dunes where visitors fish or observe or 

photograph wildlife. Refuge staff monitors these areas and erects fences to protect the nests, 

birds, and hatchlings. Birds use the beach as well as the mudflats in the impoundments to forage 

for invertebrates. Providing the habitat in the impoundments requires the removal of water from the 

impoundments after waterfowl migration season to create mudflats where they can probe for the 

invertebrates with their bills. 

Strategies: 

• Assist with and/or conduct banding activities as directed. 

• Assist with and/or conduct studies and investigations to the extent possible. 
60 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

• Conduct about 36 ground surveys annually (3 times monthly). 

• Conduct surveys to monitor nesting and fledging activities as necessary. 

Marsh and Wading Birds 

Objective: Protect habitat for 500 marsh and wading birds. Provide habitat for about 200 marsh and 

wading birds. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. There is good habitat on the refuge for marsh 

and wading birds (e.g., rails, egrets, herons, and others) in marshes, ditches, and impoundments. The 

staff surveys marsh and wading birds from the ground at the same time as they survey other birds. 

Strategies: 

• Assist with and/or conduct banding activities as directed. Assist with and/or conduct studies 

and investigations to the extent possible. 

• Conduct a total of 36 ground surveys of all marsh and wading birds annually (3 times 

monthly). 

Waterfowl 

Objective: Provide wintering habitat for 3,000 snow geese, 500 tundra swans, 100 migratory Canada 

geese, and 5,000 dabbling ducks annually. Protect wintering habitat for 1,500 North Atlantic and 

Atlantic population Canada geese, 1,500 dabbling ducks, and 1,000 diving ducks annually. 

Document the use of habitat by waterfowl. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. The Service established the refuge for 

waterfowl habitat. The “peas” on the refuge were trailing wild beans (Strophostyles helvula), 

reseeding annual plants that trailed in the backdune areas where perennial vegetation was sparse. 

Snow geese migrated south through the refuge just as the “peas” were maturing. The “peas” are 

scarce now, but the Service manages impoundments for waterfowl and they inhabit the inlets and 

sounds surrounding the refuge. The staff surveys the waterfowl from the air and the ground. 

Strategies: 

• Assist with and/or conduct banding activities as directed. 

• Assist with and/or conduct studies and investigations to the extent possible. 

• Conduct about 36 ground surveys annually (3 times monthly). 

• Conduct about 14 aerial surveys bi-monthly from September to March. 

• Conduct productivity surveys for tundra swans and snow geese each winter as requested. 

• Conduct brood surveys yearly to determine which species are breeding. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

HABITAT 

Goal: Restore, maintain, and enhance the health and biodiversity of barrier island upland and 

wetland habitats to ensure optimum ecological productivity. 

Barrier Dune, Groin Flats, and Overwash Areas 

Objective: Provide about 450 acres of artificial and natural barrier dune habitat for a variety of birds 

and other wildlife continually by allowing biogeophysical processes to occur to the extent possible. 

Manage portions of about 40 acres of groin flats periodically for piping plover and other shorebird 

nesting/foraging habitat. Allow biogeophysical processes to dominate on about 70 acres of 

reconstructed dunes along North Carolina Highway 12 wherever practicable and possible. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. The majority of these areas are manmade 

habitats. The Civilian Conservation Corps constructed the high, steep-sided dunes to protect the 

road and the North Carolina Department of Transportation removes sand from the highway where it is 

close to the dunes and the ocean and places it back on the dunes maintaining their artificial profile. 

The area behind the groin on the northern end of the refuge accumulates sand regularly enough that 

it remains unvegetated. This area is good piping plover habitat, but the staff must excavate it 

regularly to maintain depressions where water can accumulate for the plovers. 

Strategies: 

• Evaluate, regulate, and monitor North Carolina Department of Transportation dune 

reconstruction projects regularly on about 70 acres along North Carolina Highway 12. 

• Evaluate, regulate, and monitor sand transport projects of non-Service agencies regularly to 

limit impacts. 

• Conduct surveys, studies, and inventories as necessary. 

• Analyze and quantify data using geographic information systems as necessary. 

Estuarine Salt Flats and Ponds 

Objective: Provide 135 acres of salt flats for shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, waterfowl, and other 

wildlife continuously by allowing biogeophysical processes to dominate where possible. Provide 40 

acres of estuarine ponds for wading birds, shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, waterfowl, and other 

wildlife continuously by allowing biogeophysical processes to dominate where possible. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. These areas are good habitats for wildlife 

without any active management. The staff monitors them as necessary. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct surveys, studies, and inventories as necessary. 

• Analyze and quantify data using geographic information systems as necessary. 
62 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Impoundments 

Objective: Manage about 790 acres of impoundments for submerged aquatic vegetation production 

in South Pond. Provide about 500 acres of mud/sand flat habitat in impoundments annually for 

shorebird foraging/loafing during spring migration. Provide about 200 acres of mud/sand flat habitat 

in impoundments for shorebird foraging/loafing during fall migration. Maintain a minimum of 40 acres 

of open water within the impoundments annually as year-round resting/feeding areas for waterfowl, 

shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, wading birds, and other wildlife and fish. Provide and maintain 

about 200 acres of moist-soil vegetation and palustrine marsh in impoundments annually for marsh 

birds, waterfowl, and other wildlife. Provide about 85 acres of maritime scrub/shrub islands in 

impoundments annually for land birds and wading birds. Maintain and improve structural integrity 

and provide about 50 acres of shrub and grassland habitat annually (in appropriate balance) on 

impoundment dikes for land birds, passerines, and waterfowl. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing more acreage for submerged 

aquatic vegetation (500 to 750), mud/sand flats in the spring (300 to 500), and mud/sand flats in the 

fall (100 to 200). These types provide more habitats for waterfowl and shorebirds. The refuge 

impoundments attract a wide range of migratory birds and other types of wildlife. The staff orients 

most management towards waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds, but land birds and mammals 

utilize the maritime scrub/shrub islands and grasslands within the impoundments. Invertebrates are 

the prey base for the foraging shorebirds in the spring and fall. Reptiles and amphibians also thrive in 

the impoundments. 

Strategies: 

• Manage for submerged aquatic vegetation by improving water level management in South 

Pond and increasing monitoring efforts of management effectiveness. 

• Manage mud and sand flats by monitoring the effects of water level management. 

• Manage for moist-soil vegetation through water level management and vegetation controls. 

• Manage scrub/shrub habitats by allowing natural processes to dominate. 

Grasslands and Sand Ridges 

Objective: Provide 27 acres of predominantly palustrine grassland for a variety of birds and other 

wildlife annually. Manipulate 50 transitional acres of grassland/shrub community and 183 acres of 

sand ridges to increase grassland coverage for a variety of birds and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing for surveys, studies, and 

inventories of the area. These upland grassland communities provide unique habitat on the refuge in 

that they are herbaceous areas that are neither upland dunes nor brackish marshes. The dunes to 

the east protect them from the wind; the marshes to the west are too wet for many of the species that 

utilize them. This alternative adds the staff to perform the surveys. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

• Maintain the area in a perennial herbaceous successional stage. 

• Conduct surveys, studies, and inventories as necessary. 

• Analyze and quantify data using geographic information systems as necessary. 

Maritime Scrub/Shrub 

Objective: Manage, monitor, and maintain 565 acres of maritime scrub/shrub habitat for land birds 

and other wildlife annually. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing for surveys, studies, and 

inventories of the area. These woody plant communities provide unique habitat on the refuge in that 

they are the only woody vegetation on the 5,000-acre refuge. The vertical structure of the branching 

provides sites for land birds to nest and escape from predators; many species bear fruit to feed the 

land birds and other wildlife species. This alternative adds the staff to perform the surveys. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct scientifically valid surveys, studies, and inventories as necessary. 

• Analyze and quantify data using geographic information systems as necessary. 

Salt Marsh 

Objective: Manage, monitor, and provide about 1,375 acres of emergent salt marsh for a variety of 

birds and other wildlife. Cooperate with regulatory agencies that monitor about 30 acres of mitigation 

marsh to determine mitigation success. Manage 30-acre mitigation marsh as emergent marsh when 

mitigation criteria are fully met to the satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers. Protect about 180 acres 

of emergent marsh soundside islands continuously as candidate wilderness for a variety of marsh 

birds and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing for surveys, studies, and 

inventories of the area. These herbaceous plant communities are the dominant habitat on the refuge 

and support waterfowl, wading birds, marshbirds, and many other wildlife species. The dense 

vegetation is especially important to the secretive marsh birds such as rails. This alternative adds the 

staff to perform the surveys. 

Strategies: 

• Manage barrier island marshes with prescribed fire or another technique that controls 

succession and maintains a diverse vegetative community. 

• Manage soundside islands by allowing natural processes to dominate. 

• Conduct surveys, studies, and inventories as necessary. 

• Analyze and quantify data using geographic information systems as necessary. 
64 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Soundside Islands (Proposed Wilderness Areas) 

Objective: Monitor and protect about 180 acres of islands continuously as candidate wilderness for a 

variety of shorebirds, water birds, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. The marshes on the islands are the 

dominant habitat on the refuge and support waterfowl, wading birds, marshbirds, and many other 

wildlife species. The dense vegetation is especially important to the secretive marsh birds, such as 

rails and soras. 

Strategy: 

• Manage by allowing natural processes to dominate. 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 

Objective: Protect threatened and endangered plant species and associated habitats as identified. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. The federally threatened seabeach 

amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) and the plant species of federal concern, such as dune bluecurls 

(Trichostema spp.), may occur in this community, but neither has been documented on the refuge. 

The eroding beach and steep dune slopes minimize the potential that they will establish a population. 

Strategies: 

• Train staff in identification of seabeach amaranth and dune bluecurls. 

• Encourage staff to remain vigilant of the plants and follow up on potential sightings. 

PUBLIC USE 

Goal: Provide the public with safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreational and educational 

opportunities that focus on barrier island wildlife and habitats of the refuge. Continue to participate in 

local efforts to sustain economic health through nature-based tourism. 

Commercial Ecotours 

Objective: Provide quality and diverse ecotour programs by issuing four permits per year for two 

paddling ecotours per day per site per permit. 

Discussion: This objective improves the status quo by increasing the total number of permits issued 

(from two to four per year) while decreasing the total number of ecotours that each permittee 

conducts (from a maximum of five per day to two per day per site). 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

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. 

Environmental Education 

Objective: Increase environmental education opportunities for 3,000 students on-site per year and 

2,000 students off-site per year to meet the current demand. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by proposing a 100 percent increase in 

participation on and off the refuge. There is currently a demand for programs in excess of what the 

staff and volunteers can provide. Volunteers and staff conduct a wide variety of environmental 

education programs, especially during the summer tourist season. This alternative proposes to add 

staff and volunteers to conduct the programs. 

Strategies: 

• Utilize permanent staff and volunteers to design, plan, and conduct programs. 

• Conduct 300 programs on the refuge and 5 programs off the refuge in schools and at the 

facilities of other agencies and organizations. 

• Advertise the availability of programs with fliers, print media, and the web site. 

Fishing 

Objective: Provide access opportunities for 50,000 fishing visits annually. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. The refuge is well known among saltwater 

anglers as an excellent surf fishing location. The public has pedestrian access to the beach across 

the dunes from parking areas and boating access to the sound. The refuge has provided access to 

the refuge for surf fishing at night outside of the turtle nesting season. 

Strategies: 

• Work with partners to improve information about beach fishing access (up to 150 vehicles at 

oceanside parking lots, not including road shoulders). 

• Improve information about access for sound fishing (20 vehicles at New Inlet and up to 100 

vehicles at Bonner Bridge). 

• Continue to provide self-issuing permits for night fishing for up to 2,000 persons annually. 

• Plan and implement two fishing events; one 3-hour crabbing and fishing rodeo for 200 to 300 

people each June and explore the potential of other fishing events. 
66 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Hunting 

Objective: Provide opportunities for up to 24 hunting use days annually. 

Discussion: This objective provides more opportunities than the status quo. There is a Proclamation 

boundary around the refuge that prohibits migratory bird hunting. The narrow width of the refuge 

makes hunting with some types of firearms questionable from a safety standpoint. Hunting with 

shotguns can be done safely in many areas of the refuge. An archery hunt for deer has potential if 

the population is high enough to support it. Other species, such as rabbits or quail and Canada 

geese, could be considered if populations would support a hunt. 

Strategy: 

• Evaluate the potential of white-tailed deer and other wildlife to be harvested by hunting. 

Interpretation 

Objective: Improve interpretive programming and facilities to meet the current demand by annually 

providing interpretation opportunities for 1,400,000 visitors, including staff/volunteer-conducted talks 

for 2,000 visitors, tours for 800 visitors, and demonstrations for 800 visitors; 60,000 on-refuge Visitor 

Center visits; 150,000 kiosk visits; and 1,200,000 visits on interpretive trails. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by proposing a 20 percent increase in 

visitation for interpretation over the status quo from 1.1 million to 1.4 million. There is currently a 

demand for interpretive programs in excess of what the staff and volunteers can provide. The refuge 

is located in an area that attracts 7 million tourists each year and has a tremendous opportunity to 

educate the public through interpretation. The volunteer workforce is an important asset to deliver 

the interpretive programs and maintain the interpretive facilities. 

Strategies: 

• Utilize permanent staff and volunteers to design, plan, and conduct programs. 

• Conduct 40 programs for 2,000 visitors, 40 tours for 800 visitors, and 40 demonstrations for 

800 visitors. 

• Staff the Visitor Center 60 hours per week. 

• Advertise the availability of programs with fliers, print media, and the web site. 

• Maintain kiosks to accommodate 150,000 visitors and trails to accommodate 1.2 million 

visitors. 

Nonwildlife-dependent Recreational Public Uses 

Objective: Evaluate nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses on a weekly and case-by-case basis; 

regulate 750,000 visits for recreational uses such as beachcombing, sunbathing, surfing, hiking, 

jogging, swimming, kite-flying, boating, and biking where compatible; or regulate the number of visits for 

certain tolerated uses to limit impacts; or prohibit visits for recreational uses that are not compatible. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Discussion: This objective proposes to improve on the status quo by actively enforcing refuge 

regulations with a recently hired law enforcement officer. The refuge is located in a heavily used 

tourist area and within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Visitors are not necessarily aware of 

the subtle differences between permitted recreational uses on the refuge and the National Seashore. 

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 non wildlife-dependent recreational uses refuge staff can prevent. The staff 

must prohibit noncompatible uses and enforce regulations efficiently. 

Strategies: 

• Utilize management and biological staff to evaluate requests for uses. 

• Enforce regulations with full time and dual function officers. 

Outreach 

Objective: Increase and improve communication with media, conservation organizations, elected 

officials, local communities, and other potential supporters to reach 10 million people annually. 

Discussion: This objective proposes to double the size of the refuge’s outreach audience from 5 to 

10 million. The refuge is located in an area that attracts 7 million tourists each year and has several 

large urban centers within a few hundred miles. The refuge staff has excellent relationships with local 

media outlets and an excellent web site. 

Strategies: 

• Provide basic and detailed refuge information on programs, resources, management, and 

regulations with printed material, through contact with the media, and on the Internet. 

• Maintain proactive monthly schedule of Service programs and activities at the refuge 

headquarters and Visitor Center, on kiosks, and on the Internet. 

Refuge Support 

Objective: Work formally with the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society and informally with other groups 

and agencies to provide approximately $150,000 annually to support refuge programs and facilities. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. The refuge has the Coastal Wildlife Refuge 

Society as its “Friends” group that raises funds for the refuge, applies for grants to conduct programs 

on the refuge, and recruits and coordinates volunteers. 

Strategies: 

• Meet with the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society at its regular meetings. 

• Maintain contact with officers and members between regular meetings. 

• Communicate the needs of the refuge for funds and volunteer staffing to the Coastal Wildlife 

Refuge Society. 
68 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

• Identify refuge needs for additional organizational support and activity. 

• Develop additional support groups as needed. 

Special Events 

Objective: Plan, coordinate, and execute two major and four minor quality special events annually in 

eastern North Carolina for 7,500 people. 

Discussion: This objective proposes a 50 percent increase from current level of participation in 

special events. The refuge currently participates in Wings over Water, a nature-based recreation 

festival, each autumn; a Crabbing and Fishing Rodeo each June; and Wildfest, a family-oriented 

nature-based festival each autumn. There are opportunities to engage the public at more special 

events that will educate them and provide nature-based recreation opportunities. This alternative 

provides for additional staff to assist the wildlife interpretive specialist plan and execute the events. 

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; control 

access into hazardous areas; and inform visitors of potential hazards. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as status quo. 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. 

• Notify the public of safety hazards with signs and printed material. 

• Conduct law enforcement patrols on a regular basis. 

Volunteer Coordination 

Objective: Support and enhance designated refuge programs by recruiting, training, and coordinating 

volunteers to donate 30,000 hours of service annually. 

Discussion: This objective provides for a 20 percent increase over current levels of volunteer hours. 

The refuge depends heavily on volunteers to conduct its public use, biological, and maintenance 

programs. Volunteers come from the local community, colleges, and great distances (as 

workampers). The refuge provides housing and a food stipend for college interns and camper pads 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

and hookups for workampers. Volunteers staff the Visitor Center, conduct public use programs, 

monitor sea turtle nesting and hatching, and maintain the buildings, grounds, and public use facilities. 

The refuge only has one permanent full-time staff person assigned to the refuge. This alternative 

provides for additional staff to coordinate volunteers more effectively. 

Strategies: 

• Recruit volunteers from the local community, conservation and youth organizations, 

universities, work kamper 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. 

Wildlife Observation 

Objective: Provide 100-120 quality guided observation tours annually averaging 8 people each to 

meet current demand. Provide observation facilities for 1,200,000 visits. 

Discussion: This objective provides for a 20 percent increase in visitors participating in wildlife 

observation over current levels. Refuge visitors have access to the refuge beaches, dunes, and 

marshes from a number of parking lots, a trail around North Pond, and an observation blind at the 

north end of North Pond. This alternative provides for additional staff to maintain the facilities better. 

Strategies: 

• Utilize permanent staff and volunteers to design, plan, and conduct programs. 

• Advertise the availability of programs with fliers, print media, and the web site. 

• Maintain facilities that support wildlife observation. 

• Identify and provide additional quality/low impact wildlife observation opportunities. 

Wildlife Photography 

Objective: Provide quality opportunities and facilities for wildlife photography sufficient for 300,000 

visits annually. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. A substantial proportion of refuge visitors 

photograph wildlife as part of their refuge experience. Refuge visitors have access to the refuge 

beaches, dunes, and marshes from a number of parking lots, a trail around North Pond, and 

photography blind at the north end of North Pond. This alternative provides for additional staff to 

maintain the facilities better. 
70 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

• Utilize permanent staff and volunteers to design, plan, and conduct programs. 

• Advertise the availability of programs with fliers, print media, and the web site. 

• Maintain facilities that support wildlife photography. 

• Identify and provide additional quality/low impact wildlife photography opportunities. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Goal: Protect refuge resources by limiting the adverse impacts of human activities and development. 

Communication Towers 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources from existing and proposed communication towers. 

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 

one tower on the refuge, but there are great demands to erect more towers in the rapidly developing 

area in which the refuge is located. This plan provides for additional staff to assist with reviewing 

permits and coordinating with the United States Navy on the operation of its tower. 

Strategies: 

• Limit impacts to refuge resources by coordinating with the United States Navy on 

development and maintenance of its communication tower. 

• Minimize impacts to refuge resources by providing review and comment on all other 

communication tower projects that are proposed. 

• Avoid adverse impacts to refuge resources by developing special use conditions consistent 

with Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for communication tower construction and 

maintenance proposals. 

Cultural Resources 

Objective: Avoid all impacts to cultural resources on the refuge. 

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. A consultant performed a cultural 

resources study of the refuge in 1978. The refuge is a very active area geologically. Although there 

have been buildings and shipwrecks on the refuge lands, the study concluded that the dynamic 

nature of the geologic processes has destroyed evidence of their existence. The State Historic 

Preservation Office has not deemed any of the recently discovered resources significant. The staff 

will refer all land-disturbing activities to the Service’s Regional Archaeologist. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Strategies: 

• Avoid all impacts to cultural resources by evaluating all proposed external projects and 

coordinating with the Service’s Regional Archaeologist within 30 days of receiving a proposal. 

• Avoid all impacts to cultural resources by coordinating all internal projects with the Service’s 

Regional Archaeologist within 30 days of receiving funds. 

• Manage and limit impacts to identified cultural resources annually by restricting access to or 

regulating activities in cultural resource areas. 

• Provide access to cultural resources training to the management and law enforcement staff. 

Inholdings 

Objective: Maintain contact with the North Carolina Aquarium on the use, management, and potential 

future development of the 10-acre inholding. 

Discussion: The plan is the same as the current level of management. There was a Coast Guard 

Station on the northern end of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Coast Guard abandoned the 

station and transferred it to the State of North Carolina. The North Carolina Aquarium administers the 

property, but has not developed it or utilized it for programs. If the Aquarium develops the property or 

wishes to dispose of it, the refuge staff must be aware of its plans. 

Strategies: 

• Enhance refuge resources and programs by coordinating specific inholder activities on a 

case-by-case basis. 

• Limit impacts to refuge resources annually by developing special use conditions for permitted 

inholder activities on the refuge. 

Interagency Coordination 

Objective: Facilitate and enhance refuge programs and protect refuge resources by coordinating with 

local, state, federal, public, and private agencies at least 20 times annually formally and informally. 

Discussion: The plan is the same as the current level of management. The management of Pea 

Island Refuge requires an extraordinary amount of coordination because the refuge is located within 

a national seashore, has a state highway running through it, has an active Corps of Engineers 

dredging project, is within a larger tourist area that attracts 7 million visitors annually, and is in an 

area subject to destructive natural forces. The plan provides for additional staff to coordinate with 

other agencies and organizations. 

Strategies: 

• Represent the Service throughout the year at a minimum of 20 local meetings, 15 state 

meetings, 5 national meetings, 10 public meetings, and 5 meetings with private organizations. 
72 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

• Enhance public use programs and facilities by formally coordinating with the National Park 

Service annually through regular meetings and other forms of contact. 

• Enhance refuge programs and resources by developing cooperative agreements with other 

local, state, and federal agencies annually. 

• Review and revise existing cooperative agreements annually. 

Land Protection 

Objective: Acquire the state-owned 10-acre inholding surrounding the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard 

Station within the approved refuge acquisition boundary if it becomes available. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. There was a Coast Guard Station on the 

northern end of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Coast Guard abandoned the station and 

transferred it to the State of North Carolina. The North Carolina Aquarium administers the property, 

but has not developed it or utilized it for programs. If the Aquarium wishes to dispose of it, the 

Service will acquire it. This alternative provides for additional staff that will maintain contact with the 

North Carolina Aquarium. 

Strategy: 

• Maintain contact with the North Carolina Aquarium regarding the availability of the 10-acre 

inholding. 

Law Enforcement 

Objective: Ensure public safety and protect refuge resources continuously by encouraging voluntary 

compliance and enforcing refuge regulations as necessary. 

Discussion: This objective provides for more proactive enforcement than the status quo. It improves 

law enforcement by providing for patrols frequent enough to establish a presence and signage that 

encourages voluntary compliance. 

Strategies: 

• Patrol frequently enough to establish a presence for law enforcement on the refuge. 

• Provide assistance to and coordinate with appropriate local, state, and federal law 

enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal laws. 

Navigable Waters 

Objective: Consult with the National Park Service and the State of North Carolina to establish a 

cooperative management agreement to regulate certain activities within selected waters. 

Discussion: This objective pursues the agreement more proactively than the status quo. There are 

state waters under the jurisdiction of North Carolina and waters over which the National Park Service 

has jurisdiction that are bays and inlets surrounded on three sides by refuge land. There are illegal 

activities that occur on those waters that threaten refuge habitat and fish and wildlife populations. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

The State of North Carolina and the National Park Service have limited resources to enforce existing 

regulations on those waters. Under this alternative, the Service would actively pursue comanagement of those waters. 

Strategy: 

• Coordinate selection of waters with Fish and Wildlife Service coordinating refuge manager. 

Permits 

Objective: Limit impacts to or enhance refuge resources by evaluating approximately 40 use 

proposals annually on a case-by-case basis. 

Discussion: This objective increases the capacity for permit review from 30 proposals in the status 

quo to 40 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 applicants may engage in the activity. This alternative adds staff to assist in 

permit review and development and monitoring of permit conditions. 

Strategy: 

• Protect refuge resources annually by developing special conditions for those permitted uses 

that are compatible. 

Pest Animals 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by monitoring, controlling, or eradicating pest animals as 

necessary. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. Pest animals, particularly feral cats, are a 

threat to wildlife populations. There is no active control program at this time. 

Strategies: 

• Encourage all staff and volunteers to maintain vigilance while observing wildlife in the course 

of their routine duties and report pest animals to the appropriate authorities. 

• Develop a Nuisance and Exotic Animal Control Plan. 

Pest Plants 

Objective: Improve native plant communities and limit impacts on approximately 25 acres by 

monitoring, controlling, or eradicating pest plants as necessary. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. Pest plants, particularly common reed 

(Phragmites australis), are a threat to the natural vegetative communities on the refuge. The refuge 

staff is currently managing common reed with herbicides and pest plants in the vicinity of the Visitor’s 

Center with mowing and hand weeding. 
74 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

• Monitor pest plants and record their location in an electronic format. 

• Develop a Nuisance and Exotic Pest Control Plan. 

• Control pest plants with mechanical or chemical measures. 

Rights-of-Way (Highway and Utility) 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by coordinating on the development and maintenance of 

rights-of-way. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. The State of North Carolina and the Cape 

Hatteras 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 right-ofway projects that are proposed. 

• Avoid adverse impacts to refuge resources by developing terms and conditions to ensure the 

compatibility of right-of-way construction and maintenance proposals. 

Sand Management 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by managing sand removal and placement on the 

refuge annually, and by monitoring biogeophysical shoreline processes four times a year and after 

storm events. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. The North Carolina Department of 

Transportation removes sand from North Carolina Highway 12 that blows from the beaches and 

dunes east of the highway. The Corps of Engineers dredges sand from Oregon Inlet on the north 

end of the refuge and disposes compatible sand on the refuge’s beaches. The refuge staff maintains 

a relationship with both agencies, reviews applications for permits to move sand, and establishes and 

enforces conditions under which they may move sand. Of critical concern is the compatibility of sand 

placed on refuge beaches for shorebird foraging habitat. 

Strategy: 

• Protect habitat for shorebirds, sea turtles, and other species by analyzing sand budget data 

and biota annually. 

Water Quality 

Objective: Monitor water quality on a weekly basis by measuring salinities at up to nine collection 

points west of North Carolina Highway 12. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. Measuring the salinities keeps the staff 

aware of salinity levels in the impoundments on the refuge and the Pamlico Sound immediately west 

of the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Train staff and volunteers to measure salinity. 

• Record the data in an electronic format. 

• Analyze the data and adapt management accordingly. 

Wilderness Areas 

Objective: Allow natural processes to dominate on the candidate wilderness islands annually. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. There are 180 acres of candidate 

wilderness islands in the Pamlico Sound. The staff is allowing natural processes to dominate on 

these islands. Members of the public and researchers present proposals to engage in recreation or 

perform research on the islands. 

Strategies: 

• Avoid impacts to candidate wilderness islands by reviewing and evaluating two to three 

proposed development projects per year. 

• Review and evaluate proposals for additional protection designations as directed. 

Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources from wildlife diseases as necessary. 

Discussion: This objective is the same as the status quo. There have not been any significant 

incidences of wildlife disease on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Observe wildlife on the refuge during routine monitoring, note any disease symptoms, and 

report them to the appropriate authorities. 

• Encourage all staff and volunteers to maintain vigilance while observing wildlife in the course 

of their routine duties and report disease symptoms to the appropriate authorities. 

• Follow up on visitors’ observations of potential disease symptoms. 

• Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies to monitor and control wildlife disease. 
76 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal: Acquire and manage adequate funding, human resources, facilities, equipment, and 

infrastructure to accomplish all refuge goals. 

Capital Property Management 

Objective: Use increased level of funding and staffing to effectively operate, maintain, and dispose of 

capital property; acquire minimum equipment necessary to support refuge programs. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing for the acquisition of the minimum 

amount of equipment to support the refuge programs. The refuge is currently reasonably well 

equipped, but replacement schedules are not adequate to avoid major repairs of critical equipment. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct one capital property inventory annually. 

• Evaluate operating condition of capital property. 

• Maintain and upgrade property to ensure safety of staff and general public. 

Financial Management 

Objective: Manage budget and develop and administer contracts in accordance with Fish and 

Wildlife Service policy. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing a new refuge operations 

specialist at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge to assist with financial management. The 

management and administrative staff at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge currently manage the 

finances of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Develop annual and long-term budgets. 

• Develop and execute contracts. 

• Process travel vouchers. 

• Maintain Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System 

(MMS) databases by adding new needs and deleting funded projects. 

• Apply for flex-funding and other grants. 

Office Space 

Objective: Provide and maintain a safe adequate office, parking facilities, and utilities for the planned 

size of the staff. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing for new offices at Pea Island 

National Wildlife Refuge for the staff located there and at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge for 

the staff that serves Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Service has evaluated the facilities and 

determined that they are near the end of their useful life. Computerization, an increasing volunteer 

workforce (currently 25,000 hours per year), and a planned increase in staff at Pea Island Refuge 

mandate a new facility designed for the planned level of use. The rented office space in Manteo, 

where most of the currently shared staff is located, is cramped with inadequate parking for the staff’s 

personal or government vehicles and visitors’ vehicles. There is no parking space for equipment that 

requires trips to the Alligator River Refuge shop for repair. 

Strategies: 

• Replace 1960s office, shop, garage, and residence. 

• Provide Service-owned Manteo office space and parking facilities for optimum staff levels by 

building a refuge headquarters/Visitor Center. 

• Provide fuel, office supplies, and utilities for refuge operations and staff. 

Personnel 

Objective: Manage personnel in accordance with Fish and Wildlife Service policy. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing a new refuge operations 

specialist at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge to assist with personnel management. The 

management and administrative staff at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge currently manage the 

personnel of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Recognize employee performance annually through the employee incentive program. 

• Hire and manage minimum levels of staff to meet refuge objectives at approved full-time 

equivalent (FTE) levels. 

• Provide the minimum 40-hour staff training opportunity for professional, technical, and 

leadership development goals. 

Real Property Management 

Objective: Use increased level of funding and staff to effectively maintain buildings, grounds, 

firebreaks, structures, roads, and other facilities to protect the health and safety of the refuge staff 

and public. 

Discussion: This objective improves on the status quo by providing a new refuge operations 

specialist at Pea Island Refuge to assist with property management. The management and 

administrative staff at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge currently manage the property of Pea 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. 
78 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

• Maintain buildings, structures, and other facilities to support refuge programs. 

• Evaluate the need for and acquire additional buildings, structures, and other facilities to 

support refuge programs. 

• Conduct one real property inventory annually. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

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, see (Tables 10, 11, 12, 13, 

and14). 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 since any one position, piece of equipment, or facility executes more than a single strategy. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Table 10. Projects supporting wildlife strategies 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist, biological 

technician, and forestry technician. 

Recruit, hire, train new wildlife biologist (RONS 

00095). 

Protect wildlife. Existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, deputy manager, 

assistant manager, and office assistants. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge 

manager (refuge operations specialist) (RONS 

97039) 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, train new wildlife biologist (RONS 

00095). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment to survey and protect 

wildlife. 

Replace John Deere 4240 Tractor 

(MMS 98014). 

Replace vehicles (MMS 01030, 02015, 02016, 

03006). 

Replace equipment shared by Alligator River 

NWR. 
80 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 11. Projects supporting habitat strategies 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Use existing wildlife biologist, biological technician, 

and forestry technician. 

Recruit, hire, train new wildlife biologist (RONS 

00095). 

Conduct prescribed burning. Use existing fire management officer, wildlife 

biologist, forestry technicians, and engineering 

equipment operators. 

Protect habitat. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, deputy manager, 

assistant manager, and office assistants. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge manager 

(refuge operations specialist) (RONS 97039). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing wildlife biologist. 

Recruit, hire, train new wildlife biologist (RONS 

00095). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment to manage habitat. Replace John Deere 4240 Tractor 

(MMS 98014). 

Replace vehicles (MMS 01030, 02015, 02016, 

03006). 

Replace equipment shared by Alligator River 

NWR. 

Facility Projects 

Replace facilities to manage habitat. Replace bulkheads, water control structures, and 

pumping stations (various MMS projects). 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

Table 12. Projects supporting public use strategies 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Plan, design, and conduct programs and 

outreach. 

Use existing park rangers and volunteers. 

Recruit, hire, train new park ranger 

(RONS 00099). 

Maintain education, interpretation, wildlife 

observation, and photography facilities. 

Use existing volunteers and staff from Alligator 

River Refuge. 

Recruit, hire, train new maintenance worker 

(RONS 00092). 

Protect visitors. Existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, deputy manager, 

assistant manager, and office assistants. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge 

manager (refuge operations specialist) (RONS 

97039). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing park rangers. 

Recruit, hire, train new park ranger (RONS 

00099). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment to maintain facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace John Deere 4240 Tractor 

(MMS 98014). 

Replace vehicles (MMS 01030, 02015, 02016, 

03006). 

Replace equipment shared by Alligator River 

Refuge. 

Facility Projects 

Replace facilities as necessary. Replace parking lots, kiosks, office, shop, 

garage, and residence (various MMS). 
82 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 13. 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 refuge manager, deputy manager, 

assistant manager, and wildlife biologists. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge manager 

(refuge operations specialist) (RONS 97039) and 

new wildlife biologist (RONS 00095). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing volunteers and staff from Alligator 

River Refuge. 

Recruit, hire, train new maintenance worker (RONS 

00092). 

Enforce regulations. Use existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, deputy manager, 

assistant manager, and office assistants. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge manager 

(refuge operations specialist) (RONS 97039). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Use existing park rangers. 

Recruit, hire, train new park ranger (RONS 00099). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment as necessary. Replace John Deere 4240 Tractor 

(MMS 98014). 

Replace vehicles (MMS 01030, 02015, 02016, 

03006). 

Replace equipment shared by Alligator River 

Refuge. 

Facility Projects 

Replace facilities as necessary. Replace parking lots, kiosks, and office (various 

MMS projects). 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Table 14. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies 

Strategy Projects 

Personnel Projects 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Use existing refuge manager, deputy manager, 

assistant manager, and office assistants. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant refuge manager 

(refuge operations specialist) (RONS 97039). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Use existing volunteers and staff from Alligator 

River Refuge. 

Recruit, hire, train, new maintenance worker (RONS 

00092). 

Equipment Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace equipment as 

necessary. 

Replace John Deere 4240 Tractor 

(MMS 98014). 

Replace vehicles (MMS 01030, 02015, 02016, 

03006). 

Replace equipment shared by Alligator River 

Refuge. 

Facility Projects 

Maintain, repair, and replace facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace bulkheads, water control structures, 

pumping stations, parking lots, kiosks, office, shop, 

garage, and residence (various MMS projects). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

The Service administers Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge from an office in Manteo, North Carolina, 

15 miles northwest of the refuge’s northern boundary. Construction on the refuge is not practical 

because almost the entire refuge is wetland or actively eroding sand dunes. The staff stores its 

refuge equipment on Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, 25 miles northwest of Pea Island 

Refuge. The Service uses staff from the Manteo office and the shop at Alligator River Refuge to 

manage the Pea Island Refuge. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Currently, the Service has approved a staff of 23 permanent positions to serve the Alligator River 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex (which includes Pea Island Refuge) headquartered in Manteo; the 

manager has stationed one position from the Alligator River Refuge on Pea Island Refuge. Of the 23 
84 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

positions, 6.3 full-time equivalents (5.4 non-fire and 0.9 fire) are spent on Pea Island Refuge. Of 

the 23 positions, 9 are funded for fire management. 

To complete the extensive wildlife habitat management and restoration projects and conduct 

the necessary inventorying, monitoring, and mapping activities, resources are needed to 

maintain and replace equipment and facilities, perform studies, and provide more staff to 

administer refuge programs. The proposed public use facilities are shown in Figure 8. The 

proposed staffing plan (Table 15) outlines a staff of 39 employees (12.25 full-time equivalent 

positions dedicated to Pea Island Refuge) that would enable the refuge to achieve its objectives 

and strategies within a reasonable time. The annual cost of implementing the plan (including 

salaries and benefits) would be $706,100. The cost of replacing equipment and facilities and 

equipping new employees on Pea Island Refuge would be $3,592,500. The cost of replacing 

equipment on Alligator River Refuge that supports Pea Island Refuge would be $7,498,000. 

The rate at which this refuge realizes its full potential to contribute locally, regionally, and 

nationally to wildlife conservation and appropriate wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education is totally dependent upon adequate resources. 

VOLUNTEERS 

The refuge depends on volunteers extensively, especially for its visitor services programs. 

Volunteers currently contribute 25,000 staff hours; this plan anticipates contributions of 30,000 hours. 

The refuge utilizes volunteers from the community, college interns, and workkampers. College 

interns rotate through work assignments in the visitor services, biology, and maintenance programs. 

The staff recruits workkampers for the skills the refuge needs. The refuge provides quarters for 

college interns and pads for recreational vehicles for the workkampers. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the direction of the refuge. Before 

the staff implements some of the strategies and projects, it prepares or updates detailed step-down 

management plans. To assist in preparing and implementing the step-down plans, the staff often 

cooperates with federal, state, and local agencies and non-governmental organizations. The staff 

develops these plans in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The following are 

examples of step-down plans that may be developed for the refuge: 

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan (Update): This plan will describe inventory and monitoring 

techniques and time frames. The staff will inventory plant communities and associations in the refuge 

as well as all trust species (e.g., shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, songbirds, neotropical passerines, 

and waterfowl), listed species (e.g., federal and state threatened, endangered, and species of 

concern), key resident species, and monitor population trends. 

Habitat Management Plan (Update): This plan will describe the overall desired 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 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. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Figure 8. Future visitor facilities at Pea Island National Wildllife Refuge 

























NC−12

.

DARE CO.

NC 12



012 0.5

Miles

Proclamation Boundary

Refuge Ownership

Primary Roads

County Boundaries

Headquarters

Boardwalk

Trail

Open Water

Impoundments

Public Use Facilities

Parking Facilities

 Visitor Center

Refuge Signs

Kiosk

 Restrooms

 Boardwalk

 Observation Tower

 Overlook

 Photo Blind

 Unimproved Boat Ramp



	


Rodanthe

To Nags Head 



Eagles Nest

Point

Goat Island

Goose Island

Pea Island

Point

Terrapin Creek

Bay

Jack

Shoal

C

a

p

e

H

a t t e r a

s

N

a t i o

n

a l S

e

a

s

h

o r e







North

Pond

South

Pond

New

Field





South Point

Eagles Nest

Point









   











RE CO.

Rodanthe 

Rodanthe 

New Inlet

New Inlet

North

Pond

Salt

Flats

Salt

Flats

South Point

Cedar

Hammock

Round Hammock Point

Eagle Nest Bay
86 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 15. Proposed staffing plan for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Position Status Percent 

of Time on Pea Island 

Management Staff 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-14* PFT 60 

Deputy Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13* PFT 40 

Assistant Refuge Manager, GS-0485-12* PFT 25 

Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-0485-09** PFT 50 

Refuge Operations Specialist, GS-0485-07** PFT 100 

Computer Specialist, GS-11** PFT 10 

Administrative Officer, GS-0341-09* PFT 25 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-07* PPT 25 

Biological Staff 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-12* PFT 60 

Forester, GS-0460-11** PFT 20 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09** PFT 100 

Biologist, GS-0486-07** PFT 45 

Biological Science Technician, GS-0404-07* PFT 50 

Forestry Technician, GS-0462-07* PFT 10 

Interpretive Staff 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-12* PFT 60 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-09* PFT 90 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-09** PFT 100 

Park Ranger (Volunteer Coordinator), GS-0025-09** PFT 60 

Park Ranger (Interpretation), GS-0025-05* TERM 90 

Law Enforcement Staff 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-09* PFT 30 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-07** PFT 50 

Maintenance Staff 

Engineering Equipment. Operator Supervisor, WS-5716-09* PFT 25 

Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanic, WG-5716-10** PFT 10 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

Position Status Percent 

of Time on Pea Island 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-10* PFT 10 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-09* PFT 10 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-08* PFT 10 

Automotive Worker, WG-5823-08* PFT 10 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-08** PFT 100 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-05** PFT 0 

Fire Management Program 

Fire Management Officer, GS-0460-12* PFT 10 

Fire Management Officer (Wildland Urban Interface), GS-0401-

11* 

PFT 10 

Fire Management Specialist, GS-0401-09* PFT 10 

Forestry Technician, (Fire Program Technician) GS-0462-08* PFT 10 

Forestry Technician, (Fire) GS-0462-08* PFT 10 

Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-06* PFT 10 

Forestry Technician, (Fire) GS-0462-06* PFT 10 

Forestry Technician (Fire) GS-0462-07* PFT 10 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08* PFT 10 

Engineering Equipment Operator, (Fire) WG-5716-08* PFT 10 

PFT = Permanent Full Time employee 

TERM = Term Employee (up to four years) 

* = Existing Staff, ** = New Staff

Marsh Management Plan (Update): This plan will describe strategies for meeting refuge marsh 

management objectives. Also, the plan will address scrub/shrub habitat management. 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (Develop): This plan will address the complex issue of bringing 

exotic and nuisance plants and animals to a maintenance control level on the refuge. It will cover 

chemical pesticide use (e.g., 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. 
88 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Nuisance/Exotic Plant 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 plants. 

Fire Management Plan (Update): This plan will describe wild and prescribed fire management 

techniques that the staff will employ on the refuge. 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 handicapped accessibility. 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, 

handicapped accessibility, 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 

The staff will review this comprehensive conservation plan annually to determine the need for 

revision. A revision will occur if and when substantial information becomes available, such as a 

change in ecological conditions. The staff will augment this 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 plan and the step-down management plans will be subject to public review and 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 
Appendices 89

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 they should modify it to achieve the 

desired conditions. 

Alternative Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge 

purposes, goals, and objectives and contributing to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. An alternative is 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 refer to mid- or understory vegetation in 

multilayered stands. Canopy closure is an estimate of the 

amount of overhead tree cover (also called 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. 
90 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge 

manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the 

fulfillment of the mission or the purposes of the refuge. A 

compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible 

uses and identifies stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan A document that describes the desired conditions of the refuge; 

provides long-range guidance and management direction for the 

refuge manager to accomplish the purposes, goals, and 

objectives of the refuge; and contributes to the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and meets relevant mandates. 

Conservation Easement A legal document that provides specific land-use rights to a 

secondary party. A perpetual conservation easement usually 

grants conservation and management rights to a party in 

perpetuity. 

Cooperative Agreement A simple habitat protection action in which no property rights are 

acquired. An agreement is usually long-term and either party 

can modify it. 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 A vegetation type found in low-lying areas, swales, and open 

ponds that holds 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 some time 

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 nonliving 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 their native habitats, and that basic ecosystem 

processes are perpetuated indefinitely. 
Appendices 91

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 and animals that occur naturally in a certain region and 

whose distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environmental Assessment A concise document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and 

need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether 

to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no 

significant impact. 

Fauna All the vertebrate or invertebrate animals of an area. 

Federal Trust Species All species in which the Federal Government has primary 

jurisdiction, including federally listed 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, the seller may reserve certain rights or sell 

them, including water rights, mineral rights, or use reservations 

(the ability to continue using the land for a specified time period, 

or the reminder of the seller’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 the 

agency will not prepare an environmental impact statement. 

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 are subject to 

flooding. Species include overcup, willow, and water oaks, 

sweetgum, and green ash. Old-growth trees typically exceed 

120 years of age. Red oaks were removed in the 1940s. 

Midsuccession-logged timber that may need restoration to 

improve wildlife habitat. Missing several key oak species. 
92 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Fragmentation The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat 

patches. The disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and 

small patches. 

Goal Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired 

future conditions that convey a purpose but do 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 An area of land that is 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, based on sound 

professional judgment, were present prior to substantial humanrelated 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 Policy Act A federal law that requires all agencies, including the Service, to 

examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the 

planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate this Act with other planning requirements, and 

prepare appropriate policy documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision-making. 

National Wildlife Refuge A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Appendices 93

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; and 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 

a plan will achieve. The planners derive objectives from goals 

and they 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 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 that best 

achieves the refuge’s purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to 

the Refuge System mission; addresses the significant issues; 

and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. 

Purpose(s) of the Refuge The purpose(s) 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 subunit. 

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. 

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. 
94 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

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 the habitat 

elements required by migrants for long-term survival or 

reproduction. 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are the six priority 

general public uses of the system 

. 
Appendices 95

Appendix II. References and Literature Cited 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Stackhole Books, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. 544 pp. 

Bookhout, T.A. 1994. Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats. Fifth 

edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 740 pp. 

Boss, S.K. and C.W. Hoffman. 2000a. Relationship of stratigraphy, geomorphology, and sediment 

texture on coastal erosion, Pea Island, North Carolina. 2000 Geological Society of America, 

Southeastern Section Meeting, Abstracts with Programs 32(2): A-7. 

Boss, S.K. and C.W. Hoffman. 2000b. Sand Resources of the North Carolina Outer Banks, 4th 

Interim Report: Assessment of Pea Island Study Area. Draft Report submitted to the Outer 

Banks Task Force, North Carolina Department of Transportation, February 8, 2000. 

Carroll, A. 1999. Analysis of the Shell Mat of the Northern Outer Banks in Relation to the Underlying 

Geologic Framework and Relative Strength of the Alongshore Current. Senior Thesis. Duke 

University, Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences. 20 pp. + figures. 

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C, Golet and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. 

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 82 pp. 

Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating shorebirds in the Midwest. In 

M.K. Laubhan and D. Hamilton, eds., Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Eubanks, Ted, Paul Kerlinger and R.H. Payne. 1993. High Island, Texas: A case study in avitourism. 

Birding 25(6):415-420. 

Eubanks, Ted, and John Stoll. 1999. Avitourism in Texas: Two Studies of Birders in Texas and Their 

Potential Support for the Proposed World Birding Center. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Contract 

No. 44467. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1988. Waterfowl use of forested wetlands of the southern 

United States: an overview. Pages 307-323 in M.W. Weller, ed., Waterfowl in Winter. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and F. A. Reid. 1988. Nutritional value of waterfowl foods. In M.K. Laubhan and D. 

Hamilton, eds., Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Strategies for water level manipulation in moist soil systems. In M.K. Laubhan 

and D. Hamilton, eds., Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 
96 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Frost, C. 1995. Presettlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. 

Pages 39-60 in Susan I. Cerulean and R. Todd Engstrom, eds., Fire in Wetlands: A 

Management Perspective. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 19. 

Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Frost, C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes in the United States: a first approximation. Pages 

70-81 in Teresa L. Pruden and Leonard A. Brennan, eds., Fire in Ecosystem Management: 

Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire 

Ecology Conference, No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Haag, W.G. 1958. The Archeology of Coastal North Carolina. Louisiana State University, Coastal 

Study Series 2. 

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. 

Hefner, J.H. and J.D. Brown. 1984. Wetland trends in the southeastern United States. Wetlands 4:1-11. 

Hunter, W.C., D.N. Pashley and R.E.F. Escano. 1992. Neotropical migratory landbirds 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. 

Hunter, W.C. 2004. Southeastern Coastal Plains – Caribbean Regional Shorebird Plan, U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Inman, D.L., and R. Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina: budget of sediment and inlet 

dynamics along a migrating barrier system. Journal of Coastal Research 5(2): 193-237. 

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. 

Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow, eds. 1983. The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archeological 

Symposium. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Division of Archives and History. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New 

York, New York. 722 pp. 

National Audubon Society. 1998. Campaign on HR 3267. National Audubon Society, New York, 

New York. 

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. 

North Carolina Employment Security Commission. 1999. Largest Employers by County. 

www.ncesc.com. 
Appendices 97

North Carolina Employment Security Commission. 2002. 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. 

Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce. 2003. History of Dare County. 5 pp. Outer Banks Chamber of 

Commerce, Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. 

Perry, M.C., P.C. Osenton, G.A. Gough, J.S. Hatfield and E.J. Lohnes. 1999. Moist Soil 

Management of Wetland Impoundments for Plants and Invertebrates. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Geological Survey, Biological Research Division. 

Pierce, J.W. and D.J. Colquhoun. 1970. Holocene evolution of a portion of the North Carolina coast. 

Geological Society of America Bulletin 81: 3697-3714. 

Pilkey, O.H., W.J. Neal, S.R. Riggs, C.A. Webb, D.M. Bush, D.F. Pilkey, J. Bullock and B.A. Cowan. 

1998. The North Carolina Shore and its Barrier Islands: Restless Ribbons of Sand. Durham, 

North Carolina: Duke University Press. 318 p. 

Reinecke, K.J. and C.K. Baxter. 1996. Waterfowl habitat management in the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley. Pages 159–167 in J.T. Ratti, ed., Seventh International Waterfowl Symposium. Ducks 

Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee. 

Riggs, S.R., W.J. Cleary and S.W. Snyder. 1995. Influence of inherited geologic framework on 

barrier shoreface morphology and dynamics. Marine Geology 126: 213-234. 

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. 

Schmidt, P.R. 1993. Memorandum - Information request regarding impacts of hunting on national 

wildlife refuges. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory 

Bird Management, Washington, DC. 7 pp. 

Sharpe, Bill. 1954. A New Geography of North Carolina. Volume 1, 533 pp., illustrated. Raleigh, 

North Carolina: Sharpe Publishing Company. 

Stick, D. 1958. The Outer Banks of North Carolina: 1584-1958. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The 

University of North Carolina Press. 352 pp. 

Thompson, T.A. and W.M. Gardner. 1979. A Cultural Resources and Impact Area Assessment of 

the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, Dare County, North Carolina. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 1997. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Forest Statistics for North Carolina Counties - 

1991. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
98 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Soil Survey of Dare County, North 

Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

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 Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric Soils of the State of North 

Carolina, 1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with 

the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington, DC. Unpaginated. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 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. County Business Patterns, Dare 

County, North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000c. 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 Interior. 1981. Report on Fisheries of the South Atlantic States. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Volume 11, 285 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Nature-Based Tourism. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. Birds of the Outer Banks. Leaflet published in cooperation with 

the Eastern National & Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society, Manteo, North Carolina. 

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. 1983. Distribution of Waterfowl Secies Harvested in States and 

Counties during 1971–1980 Hunting Seasons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special 

Scientific Report No. 254, Washington, DC. 114 pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. 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. 
Appendices 99

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. The Service shares this responsibility to conserve our 

Nation’s fish and wildlife resources 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. 

The staff manages Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 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 AND POLICIES FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

The Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes and illustrates 

management area projects with standards and guidelines for future decision-making and the Service 

may adjust it 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. Compatible recreation uses specific to the refuge have been identified 

and approved by the refuge manager. This plan provides for systematic stepping down from the 

overall direction as outlined when making project- or activity-level decisions. This level involves sitespecific analysis (e.g., Forest Habitat Management Plan) to meet National Environmental Policy Act 

requirements for decision-making. 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, federal or non-federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, 

or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. 
100 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the uses. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, 

outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several authorities. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee. (Refuge Administration Act): 

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any 

use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the Service 

established the refuge. 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 the federal government make any facility funded by the 

federal government programmatically and physically accessible, 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.” 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or 

contain undesirable plant species; and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other 

federal and state agencies. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations 

and services. 
Appendices 101

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 thereunder. 

 

Environmental Education Act of 1990(20 USC 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law 101-619, 

signed November 16,1990, established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a federal environmental education 

program. Responsibilities of the Office include developing and supporting programs to improve 

understanding of the natural and developed environment, and the relationships between humans and 

their environment; supporting the dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education seminars; managing a federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. The Act requires the Office to 

develop and support environmental programs in consultation with other federal natural resource 

management agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 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: Congress passed this act to improve the administration 

of fish and wildlife programs and amend several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It 
102 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

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 

applicants obtain a permit for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the 

gathering of objects of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture, and Army, and provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 47011)--Public Law 96-95, approved 

October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721): This act largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the 

Antiquities Act for archaeological items. It established detailed requirements for issuance of permits 

for any excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from Federal and Indian lands. It also 

established civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any 

such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal and Indian lands in 

violation of any provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such resources 

acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold value of 

artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act from $5,000 to $500, made attempting to commit 

an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the land managing agencies to establish 

public awareness programs regarding the value of archaeological resources to the nation. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c)--Public Law 86-523, approved 

June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220), and amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 

174): This act directed federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever a federal, 

federally assisted, or licensed or permitted project may cause loss or destruction of significant 

scientific, prehistoric or archaeological data. The Act authorized use of appropriated, donated and/or 

transferred funds for the recovery, protection and preservation of such data. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467)--The Act of 

August 21,1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 

89-249, approved October 9,1965, (79 Stat. 971): This act declared it a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection of such sites. Among other 

things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of this Act. As of 

January, 1989, thirty-one national wildlife refuges contained such sites. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n)--Public Law 89-665, 

approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended: This act provided for 

preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid 

program to the states. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of 

matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which became 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, 91 such sites on national wildlife refuges are listed in this Register. 
Appendices 103

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. Agencies may use appropriations 

from the fund 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. Agencies will pay a stipend of not more than 100 percent of the poverty level to participants. 

A Commission established to administer the Youth Service Corps will make grants to States, the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 

852) as amended by Public Law 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and Public Law 94-83, August 

9,1975, 89 Stat. 424): Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act requires that all federal 

agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for “every recommendation or report on 

proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment.” The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in environmental impact 

statements, and required that federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related decisionmaking and develop means to ensure that unquantified environmental values are given appropriate 

consideration, along with economic and technical considerations. Title II of this statute requires annual 

reports on environmental quality from the President to the Congress, and established a Council on 

Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President with specific duties and functions. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Public Law 105-57, amended the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), and provided guidance for 

management and public use of the Refuge System. The Act mandates that the Service 

consistently direct and manage the Refuge System 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. The Service will promote these activities in the Refuge System, 

while all nonwildlife-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 
104 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

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 the 

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. The Service may spend available funds, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States’ share of the cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of 

projects on federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds received are 

to go to Canada and Mexico each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1952: This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not 

interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented 

recreational development or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of 

fees for public uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s): Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49 

Stat. 383) provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the 

sale of products from refuges. Public Law 88-523, approved August 30,1964, (78 Stat. 701) 

made major revisions by requiring that all revenues received from refuge products, such as 

animals, timber and minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be deposited in a special 

Treasury account and net receipts distributed to counties for public schools and roads. Public 

Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys remaining in 

the fund after payments be transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land 

acquisition under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Public Law 95-469, 

approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the revenue-sharing system to include 

national fish hatcheries and Service research stations. It also included in the Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. Payments to counties were 

established as follows: on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 

cents per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net 

receipts produced from the land; and on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of 

net receipts and basic payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 

2662). This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference between the 

amount in the fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any year. Congress removed the 

stipulation that payments be used for schools and roads, but required counties 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. 
Appendices 105

Wilderness Act of 1964: 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 the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

the National Park System for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA): The act was enacted on October 27, 1972 to 

encourage coastal States, Great Lake States, and United States Territories and Commonwealths to 

develop comprehensive programs for managing and balancing competing uses of coastal resources. 

Federal Consistency is the CZMA requirement that Federal agency activities with reasonably 

predictable effects on any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be 

consistent with the enforceable policies of a coastal State's federally approved Coastal Management 

Program (CMP). Federal Consistency reviews are the responsibility of the lead State agency that 

implements or coordinates the State's federally approved CMP. At the federal level, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Ocean Service administers the CZMA 

and oversees application of Federal Consistency; provides management and legal assistance to 

coastal States, Federal agencies, Tribes and others; and mediates CZMA related disputes. 

Coastal Area Management Act of 1974: In 1972, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management 

Act, legislation intended to encourage states to keep coastal areas healthy by establishing programs 

to manage, protect, and promote our country's fragile coastal resources. In 1974, the North Carolina 

General Assembly passed the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 (CAMA). CAMA established 

the Coastal Resources Commission, required local land use planning in 20 coastal counties, and 

provided for a permitting program to regulate development. The North Carolina Coastal Management 

Program was federally approved in 1978. 
106 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Appendices 107

Appendix IV. Public Involvement 

Part 1 – Summary of Public Scoping Meeting Comments 

At initial planning meetings, the refuge and planning staff discussed strategies for completing the 

plan, identified their issues and concerns, and compiled a mailing list of likely interested government 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individual citizens. The Service invited 

these agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in four public scoping meetings 

on June 26 and 27, 2000, in Rodanthe and Manteo, North Carolina. The staff introduced them to the 

refuge and its planning process and asked them to identify their issues and concerns. The staff 

published announcements giving the location, date, and time for the public meeting in the Federal 

Register and legal notices in local newspapers. The staff also sent the announcements as press 

releases to local newspapers and as public service announcements to television and radio stations. 

The planning staff placed fifty posters announcing the meeting 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 of four public meetings on 

September 25 and 26, 2000, in Rodanthe and Manteo, 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 seventy-five posters announcing 

the meeting in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

At the second round of public meeting, members of the public expressed concern that the three 

alternatives being considered did not represent a wide enough range of alternatives. The refuge staff 

developed Alternatives 4 and 5 in response to those concerns. Alternative 4 assumes that natural forces 

will dominate the landscape except impoundments north of the Visitor Center. Alternative 5 assumes that 

natural forces will dominate the landscape except impoundments throughout the refuge. 
108 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

PEA ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PLANNING SCOPING ISSUES WORKSHEET 

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO? 

ACTIVITY (% of 12 Responses) 

Keep the Same Eliminate Increase Decrease 

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES 

Wildlife Education (School Students) 25 0 67 8

Wildlife Education (School Teachers) 25 0 67 8

Wildlife Interpretation (Formal Programs) 42 0 50 8

Wildlife Interpretation (Printed Material) 67 8 25 0

Wildlife Interpretation (Facilities) 50 0 42 8

Wildlife Photography Opportunities 50 0 42 8

Wildlife Observation Opportunities 50 0 42 8

Fishing 50 25 25 0

Pedestrian Access to Pond Area 67 8 25 0

Pedestrian Access to Beach 68 16 16 0

Vehicle Parking Lots 50 8 42 0

Access to Sound for Boating, Canoeing 68 16 16 0

Planting, Seeding for Facility Aesthetics 84 0 0 16

HABITAT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Prescribed Burning 84 0 0 16

Water Management in Ponds 84 0 8 8

Mechanical Vegetation Management 84 0 8 8

Chemical Vegetation Management 67 25 0 8

Dune/Beach Maintenance 49 17 17 17

Planting, Seeding, Clearing for Habitat 76 0 16 8

Candidate Wilderness (Sound-Islands) 51 8 33 8

LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Visitor Protection 84 0 8 8

Wildlife Protection 42 0 50 8

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 

Dike and Trail Maintenance 59 0 33 8

Facilities Maintenance (Signs, Buildings) 59 0 33 8

North Carolina Highway 12 33 8 43 16
Appendices 109

PEA ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PLANNING ALTERNATIVES WORKSHEET 

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO? 

(% of 8 Responses) ACTIVITY 

Alternative 1 Alternative 

2 Alternative 3 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Waterfowl 17 0 83

Wading Birds 17 0 83

Shorebirds 17 0 83

All Water Birds 17 0 83

Land Birds 17 0 83

Sea Turtles 17 0 83

HABITAT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Barrier Dunes 17 0 83

Estuarine Salt Flats and Ponds 17 0 83

Sound Island Shoals 17 0 83

Threatened and Endangered Plants 17 0 83

Impoundments 17 0 83

Salt Marsh 17 0 83

Maritime Scrub/Shrub 17 0 83

Grasslands and Sand Ridges 17 0 83

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES 

Environmental Education 17 0 83

Interpretation 17 0 83

Wildlife Observation 17 17 66

Wildlife Photography 17 17 66

RESOURCE PROTECTION ACTIVITIES 

Wilderness Areas 17 17 66 

Permits 17 17 66 

Law Enforcement 33 17 50 

Corridors and Communication Towers 33 0 67 

Cultural Resources 33 17 50 
110 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Issues raised at the June 2000 public forums 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Wildlife - Shorebirds Assess the impact of beach 

use on shorebirds. 

Shorebird survey in plan. 

Assistance with studies to 

correlate beach use to 

shorebird use in plan. 

Use public input for 

management (local oral history 

of land cover). 

Input solicited from agencies, 

organizations, and individuals 

as needed. 

Habitat - General 

Increase staff to survey and 

manage habitat. 

In plan. 

Habitat – Dunes Allow dunes to drift over the 

highway. 

Cooperation with NCDOT on 

maintenance in plan. 

Habitat – Maritime Shrub Maintain maritime shrubs for 

songbirds. 

In plan. 

Habitat – NC Highway 12 

Maintenance 

Use sand fence to trap sand. Dunes are too high and steep 

to build any more. 

Habitat – Prescribed Burning Maintain prescribed burning 

program. 

In plan. 

Public Use - General Increase staff to conduct public 

use. 

In plan. 

Provide access for surf fishing. Pedestrian access maintained 

in plan, no vehicular access to 

beach provided. 

Public Use - Fishing 

Eliminate commercial fishing. Refuge only controls fishing on 

the refuge. 

Develop education program on 

refuge plants. 

Public Use – Environmental In plan. 

Education 

Educate public on their role in 

the ecosystem. 

In plan. 

Public Use – Interpretation Enlarge Visitor Center. Not in plan. 
Appendices 111

Issues raised at the June 2000 public forums 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Provide access to 

impoundments for birders 

(boardwalks, towers, trails). 

Access to North Pond in plan, 

access to other ponds limited 

to reduce wildlife disturbance. 

Provide parking lots for better 

birder access. 

Not in plan. No parking lots will 

be added for any users. 

Provide wider boardwalks, 

wide railings on observation 

platforms on which to place 

books. 

Will be considered in stepdown plan. 

Add observation platform on 

north side of New Field Pond. 

Completed. 

Public Use – Wildlife 

Observation 

Add observation platforms on 

east side of New Field Pond 

and South Pond. 

Not in plan. Biologists want to 

minimize disturbance in two 

ponds. 

Public Use – Wildlife 

Photography 

Add photo blinds. One completed. 

Public Use – Outreach Practice outreach on 

management issues. 

In plan. 

Provide beach access for 

vehicles. 

Not in plan. Vehicular access 

on NC12 very close to beach. 

Provide beach access at night. In plan. Night fishing allowed 

with a permit. 

Provide better beach access 

(walkovers, paths through 

dunes). 

Not in plan. Walkovers require 

extensive maintenance. 

Seventy to eighty paths already 

exist. 

Maintain NC Highway 12. Cooperation with NCDOT on 

maintenance in plan. 

Develop NC Highway 12 

emergency contingency plans. 

Cooperation with NCDOT on 

maintenance in plan. 

Move NC Highway 12 into the 

sound. 

NCDOT decision. 

Public Use - Access 

Limit the numbers of visitors. Not in plan. 

Public Use – Commercial 

Ecotourism 

Allow one bidder to run canoe. 

kayak concession. 

Multiple contractors in plan. 
112 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Issues raised at the June 2000 public forums 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Public Use – Non Wildlife 

Dependent Use 

Provide access for surfers 

(parking lot, legal road 

shoulder parking). 

Not in plan. No parking lots will 

be added for any users. Road 

shoulder parking unsafe. 

Public Use - Signs Improve refuge entrance signs. Sign maintenance in plan. 

Resource Protection – 

Interagency Cooperation 

Support Oregon Inlet jetties. Jetties are not in plan. Council 

for Environmental Quality 

opposed the jetties. 

Post refuge rules. Proactive law enforcement 

outreach in plan. 

Enforce refuge rules. Proactive law enforcement in 

plan. 

Practice outreach about refuge 

rules with realtors, tourist 

bureau, etc. 

Proactive law enforcement 

outreach in plan. 

Increase staff for law 

enforcement. 

In plan. 

Resource Protection – Law 

Enforcement 

Limit the numbers of 

pedestrian beach access 

points. 

Not practical. 

Resource Protection – Pest 

Animals 

Remove cats. In plan. 

Resource Protection – Pest 

Plants 

Control exotic plants. In plan. 

Monitor water quality and take 

measures to improve it. 

Monitoring and land 

management to insure water 

quality are in plan. 

Resource Protection – Water 

Quality 

Link water quality data to state 

monitoring network. 

Administration – General Increase staff for maintenance. In plan. 

Maintain highway. NCDOT responsible for 

maintenance. 

Administration – NC12 

Maintenance 

Replace highway with movable 

gravel road. 

Cooperation with NCDOT on 

maintenance in plan. 

Provide for utility right-of-way. Cooperation with utility 

companies in plan. 

Administration – Real Property 

Improve facilities maintenance. In plan. 
Appendices 113

Part 2 - Draft Plan Comments and Service Response 

Summary of and the Service’s response to public comments received on the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Introduction

In February 2006, the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft 

CCP/EA) for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge was completed. The Draft CCP/EA outlined five 

alternative scenarios for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. Alternative 2 was identified as 

the “Service’s Proposed Action” in this document. It is the alternative recommended to best achieve 

the Refuge System mission, and refuge purposes and goals. The Draft CCP/EA was released for 30 

days of public review, with the comment period ending on March 6, 2006. 

Notice of the comment period and the open houses was sent to the Virginia Pilot, Raleigh News and 

Observer, Coastland Times, Daily Advance, and the Outer Banks Sentinel. Flyers were also posted in 

all area post offices and in many tackle shops, grocery stores, and public areas. 

All written and oral comments received during the public comment period were evaluated. This 

section of the document is the Service’s response to the substantive comments that were received. 

Based on the analysis in the Draft CCP/EA, and evaluation of public comments, the proposed action 

was modified to include the following changes: 

1) During the internal review phase of planning, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission requested that the refuge leave the option of hunting for resident game 

species open for evaluation. The refuge agreed with the idea and incorporated language to 

that effect in the document. However, not all of the prohibitive language was removed prior 

to the Draft CCP/EA. It was removed prior to the printing of the final. 

2) Language was edited/added to clarify the treatment of the special use permit that allowed 

construction of the terminal groin. 

3) Two additional legal mandates were added (as suggested by the North Carolina Division of 

Coastal Management). 

Summary of Comments Received 

A total of 17 individuals, agencies, and organizations provided comments by way of verbal comments 

at open houses or through submission of written or electronic documents. 

Two public open house-type meetings were held to encourage public involvement: 

 February 18, 2006, 10:00 am – 2:00 pm at the Pea Island Refuge Headquarters on Hatteras Island 

 February 24, 2006, 5:00 – 9:00 pm at the Refuge Administrative Building in Manteo 

Four people called, emailed, or wrote letters requesting paper copies of the plan. These copies were 

mailed within 24 hours of receiving the requests. One email was received from one of these 

individuals. 

Several people at the open houses indicated they planned to send in written comments; however, 

none were received. Other written comments came in the form of letters and electronic mail. 
114 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

One written comment came from the North Carolina Department of Administration and advised that 

the North Carolina State Clearinghouse had received and distributed the document. A second letter 

was received which consolidated comments from state agencies. Responses to these comments are 

addressed as a separate group at the end of this section. 

In total, three written comments were received from individuals. Two were by email; one was a written 

letter. Many comments included in these letters were not relevant to the Pea Island Refuge Draft 

CCP/EA; therefore, those comments are not addressed in this response. Likewise, participants in the 

open houses discussed many topics with the staff; however, most discussions were not related to the 

Draft CCP/EA and are not included here. 

In the following discussions, issues and comments during the public comment period and the planning 

team’s responses to them are identified. 

Administration and Permits

Comment: A refuge patron questioned whether the table on page 108 meant that under Alternatives 1 

and 2, the refuge would not enforce the conditions of the permit for the groin. 

Response: The entries into the table were confusing. The conditions of the permit will be enforced in 

all alternatives. Changes were made to the plan. 

Comment: One refuge patron questioned the acquisition and disposal of property, as outlined by the plan. 

Response: Property is acquired and disposed of following federally approved guidelines and 

procedures. 

Comment: One refuge patrol questioned the need for outreach, cultural resources surveys, waterfowl 

production surveys, and bi-weekly wildlife monitoring. 

Response: These activities are necessary to accomplish the defined goals and objectives of the 

refuge. 

Wildlife

Comment: Two refuge patrons commented that the resource values, especially in relation to 

shorebirds, were understated in the plan. 

Response: Comment was noted; plan was not changed. 

Recreation/Public Use

Comment: A refuge patron commented that in one place Alternatives 2 and 3 allowed for hunting of 

resident game to be considered, but in the back of the plan, the compatibility determination said that 

hunting was incompatible. 

Response: The plan was changed. The compatibility determination was changed to be incompatible 

only for migratory bird hunting. 
Appendices 115

Comment: One refuge patron stated that he opposed killing animals on a refuge. He stated that was 

a contradiction of the word “refuge” and asked that the refuge be closed to all hunting activity. 

Response: Hunting is an approved wildlife-dependent recreational activity for national wildlife refuges. 

Refuges are places that provide for the needs of migratory birds and other wildlife, especially 

threatened and endangered species, in order to maintain healthy populations. Hunting is only allowed 

in cases where the populations are healthy and there is a harvestable surplus. Since Pea Island 

Refuge is closed to the hunting of migratory birds by Presidential Proclamation, only resident game 

and non-migratory bird hunting would be considered. 

Comment: Several participants at the open houses commented that they supported whatever public 

closures were necessary to protect wildlife, as determined by the managers and biologists of the refuge. 

Response: Comments were noted; plan was not changed. 

Access

Comment: Several participants at the open houses requested additional information and decisions 

relating to the type of public access that would be allowed if the Bonner Bridge Replacement Project 

chose the “Long Bridge Alternative.” 

Response: The CCP briefly addresses the future North Carolina Department of Transportation Bonner 

Bridge replacement project in the Section A: Background/Introduction. Once a final decision has 

been made by the Department of Transportation as to the bridge replacement, the refuge will begin a 

planning process to include public access. Public input will be sought as a part of this planning 

process. 

Habitat Management

Comment: A refuge patron sent a rather lengthy email questioning the safety of prescribed burning 

activities due to the release of harmful particulate matter into the air. He noted that it has been proven 

to cause a number of diseases and illnesses, especially in young children and older adults. 

Response: The refuge does prescribed burning to reduce fuel levels to help prevent catastrophic 

wildfires, which could threaten life and property and to manage habitat for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. The refuge burns only within a very narrow window of well-defined conditions. These 

conditions meet federal and state air quality requirements. Prescribed burns are always conducted 

under conditions when the least amount of particulate matter will be released and with wind directions 

and speeds that will allow the least number of people impacted. 

Comment: The same refuge patron commented that the bibliography used a majority of very old 

reference sources. 

Response: Some wildlife research is timeless and would be applicable. Planners made every effort to 

find the most recent and applicable information available. 

Comment: The same refuge patron stated he opposed all trapping. 

Response: Trapping is proposed only as a means to control species that are causing damage to the 

habitat or species of higher priority. 
116 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Comments were received from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management through the State 

Clearinghouse. 

Comment 1: “The proposed action will be occurring within Dare County; a coastal county within the 

meaning to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA). The CZMA requires 

that federal agencies proposing activities within a state's coastal zone to provide the state, in this 

case, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, with a consistency determination prior to 

implementing the activity to document that the proposed activity would comply with the enforceable 

policies of North Carolina's approved coastal management program and would be conducted 

consistent with the State's coastal management program. Conformance of the proposed federal 

activity with the enforceable policies of the state's certified coastal management program was not 

evaluated in the Draft.”

Response: The refuge is aware of the need to comply with the Coastal Management Act of 1972, as 

amended, and the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act. Most of the projects that would 

trigger a need for coordination are currently unfunded and will only be done as resources become 

available. Management actions covered by the CCP and others that may arise would be coordinated 

with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management for a Consistency Determination as they are 

funded and finalized. Through a separate process, a general Consistency Determination will be 

requested for the refuge’s CCP, recognizing that specific determinations will be required when 

projects are ready to be implemented.

Comment 2: “Though not a requirement, 15 CFR 930.31 allows a rederal aency to use its NEPA 

documents as a vehicle for its consistency determination. Inclusion of the consistency analysis into 

the environmental documents simplifies the environmental review process and focuses the decisionmaking process by condensing the required analysis into one document. At this point in time, 

USFWS may either incorporate the consistency analysis into the final environmental document or it 

may prepare a stand-alone consistency determination.”

Response: Comment noted.

Comment 3: “Moreover, DCM recommends that Appendix II (Relevant Legal Mandates), the Land 

Use Section, and the Regulatory Effects Section be revised to incorporate a review of the proposed 

action with the Coastal Zone Management Act and North Carolina' s coastal management program.

Response: We have revised Appendix III in the CCP (Relevant Legal Mandates) to include the 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended and the North Carolina Coastal Area 

Management Act. We have revised the section entitled “Regulatory Effects Section” to include 

reference to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. We were unable to locate the “Land Use 

Section” in our document. 

However, the refuge understands and acknowledges the need for coordination under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972, as amended and the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act of 1974. 

Comment 4: “DCM also recommends that the USFWS review the applicability of 15 CFR 930.33(a)( 

4) and 15 CFR 930.36(c). Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.33(a)(4}, the USFWS may request that 

environmentally beneficial activities conducted in compliance with the Pea Island National Wildlife 

Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan be excluded from further consistency review.”

Response: Comment noted.
Appendices 117

Comment 5: “Furthermore, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.36(c), the USFWS may propose a general 

consistency determination when a federal agency proposes repeated activities other than 

development projects where the incremental actions do not affect any coastal use or coastal resource 

when performed separately. Prior to implementing the proposed CCP, the USFWS will need to 

submit to DCM a consistency determination and obtain the concurrence of DCM.”

Response: The response to Comment 1 addresses Comment 5.

Comment 6: “North Carolina's coastal zone management program consists of, but is not limited to, 

the Coastal Area Management Act, the State's Dredge and Fill Law, and the land use plan of the 

county and/or local municipality in which the proposed project is located. In preparing the 

consistency determination, the USFWS will need to review these documents and to evaluate the 

conformance of the proposed CCP with the state's coastal program. The website for the Division of 

Coastal Management can be found at: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/index.htm. The State's 

consistency webpage is located at: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Permits/consist.htm. Additionally, 

NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM) has a webpage on the 

consistency process at: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/federal_consistency.html.”

Response: Comment noted.

Comment 7: “Based on our review of the Draft CCP/EA, the broad goals, objectives, and strategies 

outlined in the Management Direction Section appear to be consistent with the state's coastaI 

program. Additionally, the Draft CCP/EA appears consistent with the Dare County land-use plan. 

However, it did not provide sufficient detail to determine whether individual projects that could be 

implemented would be consistent with the state's coastal management program. As noted above, 

development projects such as those listed in Tables 21-25 (replacement of pump stations, bulkheads, 

fuel tanks, and parking lots) will require review by DCM before they can be implemented.”

Response: The response to Comment 1 addresses Comment 7.

Comment 8: “Additional potential projects that would require review by DCM include proposed work 

on the Bonner Bridge, NC-12, and dredging activities.”

Response: The refuge does not conduct any management or maintenance activities associate with 

the Bonner Bridge, NC 12, or dredging activities in adjacent waters. However, when a Special Use 

Permit is issued by the refuge for another state or federal agency to conduct such activities, a 

condition of each permit requires the permittee to obtain any and all necessary permits and approvals 

required by other state and federal agencies.

Comment 9: “Furthermore. proposed management actions by the USFWS that would modify public 

coastal access opportunities would also subject to DCM review.”

Response: The refuge does not anticipate any management actions that would modify public coastal 

access except to the extent necessary to protect certain fish and wildlife species for achieving the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purpose for which the refuge was 

established.

Comment 10: “Should the USFWS have any questions on the consistency process relative to the 

proposed CCP, please give me a call. Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina 

Coastal Management Program.”
118 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Response: Comment noted.

Comment 11: During a phone conversation with Mr. Stephen Rynas, DCM Federal Consistency 

Coordinator, on March 16, 2006, an additional comment was made with regards to a desire by the 

Coastal Reserve Program to be considered as a partner as conservation plans are prepared and 

projects are implemented.

Response: The Fish and Wildlife Service in general and the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge staff 

in particular welcome the opportunity to partner with the North Carolina Coastal Reserve Program. 

Through such mutual cooperation, a better understanding of each agency’s mission and purpose will 

occur and the most important aspect is that our natural resources will realize greater benefits through 

a collaborative effort. 
Appendices 119

Appendix V. Decisions and Approvals 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

Originating Person: Mike Bryant 

Telephone Number: 252-473-1131, extension 222 

E-Mail: mike_bryant@fws.gov 

Date: 

Project Name: Pea Island 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: Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): Implementation of 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge by adopting the 

preferred alternative that will provide guidance, management direction, and operation plans for the 

next 15 years. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

 A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

Bald eagles are occasionally seen during winter months in the area. 

Loggerhead sea turtles nest on the refuge beaches. 

Piping plovers occasionally nest behind the groin at the north end of the refuge when habitat is 

suitable. 
120 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

 B. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Bald Eagle Threatened 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Threatened 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Endangered 

Green Sea Turtle Threatened 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Endangered 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Endangered 

American Alligator Threatened 

Piping Plover Endangered 

Roseate Tern Endangered 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered 

West Indian Manatee Endangered 

Seabeach Amaranth Threatened 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species 

VI. Location (attach map): 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear, Ecosystem No. 34 

B. County and State: Dare, North Carolina 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Ten miles south of Nags Head, North 

Carolina; immediately north of Rodanthe, North Carolina 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

 Bald Eagle - occasionally observed during winter. No active nests. 

 Loggerhead Sea Turtle – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

 Leatherback Sea Turtle – No record of occurrence. 

 Green Sea Turtle – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

 Hawksbill Sea Turtle – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle – No record of occurrence. 

 
Appendices 121

Piping Plover – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

 Roseate Tern – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

 Red-cockaded Woodpecker – No record of occurrence. 

 Roseate Tern – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

 West Indian Manatee - Incidental record of occurrence outside of its 

 normal range. 

 Seabeach Amaranth – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

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. 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Green Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Piping Plover Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Roseate Tern Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

West Indian Manatee Disturbance by boaters and anglers. Water quality degradation 

and lack of submerged aquatic vegetation. 

Seabeach Amaranth Trampling of plants by staff and visitors before seed maturation. 
122 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects. 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MIMIMIZE IMPACTS 

Bald Eagle Restrict access to nesting area. 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Restrict access to nesting area. Monitor nesting and 

emergence of hatchlings with volunteers. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Restrict access to nesting area. Monitor nesting and 

emergence of hatchlings with volunteers. 

Green Sea Turtle Restrict access to nesting area. Monitor nesting and 

emergence of hatchlings with volunteers. 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Restrict access to nesting area. Monitor nesting and 

emergence of hatchlings with volunteers. 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Restrict access to nesting area. Monitor nesting and 

emergence of hatchlings with volunteers. 

Piping Plover Restrict access to nesting area. 

Roseate Tern Restrict access to nesting area. 

West Indian Manatee Restrict access when manatees are in the area. 

Cooperate with state agencies to monitor and improve 

water quality. 

Seabeach Amaranth Restrict access to areas with plants until after seed 

maturation. 
Appendices 123

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT DETERMINATION1 

NE NA AA 

RESPONSE1 

REQUESTED 

Bald Eagle X 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle X 

Leatherback Sea Turtle X 

Green Sea Turtle X 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle X 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle X 

Piping Plover X 

Roseate Tern X 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker X 

West Indian Manatee X 

Seabeach Amaranth X 

1 DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed actions 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”. 
124 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Appendices 125

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. A description and anticipated 

biological impacts for each use are addressed separately in this Compatibility Determination. 

Refuge Name: Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: August 8, 1938. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929). 

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of Pea Island 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: 

...as a refuge and breeding ground for protection of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife... 

(Executive Order 7864, August 8, 1938) 

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds... 16 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

1997, is: 

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

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 
126 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

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. 

Description of Use: Fishing

Sport fishing is a common public use on the state waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the beaches 

located on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore immediately east of the Pea Island National Wildlife 

Refuge and in the Pamlico Sound west of the refuge. Fish creel limits, boating safety and license 

requirements are in accordance with State of North Carolina regulations. Access to the beach is only 

available by foot; no vehicles are allowed on the beach. A public boat ramp is located at New Inlet in 

the southern part of the refuge. As identified in the comprehensive conservation plan, the staff will 

conduct additional fishing events, fisheries surveys, and water quality analysis in order to provide a 

high quality fishing experience. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. There may 

be some limited disturbance to certain species of wildlife and some trampling of vegetation; however, 

in most situations this impact should be short-lived and relatively minor and would not negatively 

impact wildlife resources of the refuge. One exception is potential disturbance that may disrupt 

beach-nesting shore and colonial waterbirds at the northern end of the refuge. Nesting areas will be 

posted as closed to public access during critical nesting periods behind the groin on refuge lands and 

at the stable upper reaches of the mean high tide line. The actual area and timing of closure 

necessary to eliminate disturbances will be determined based on the best professional judgment of 

refuge staff. 

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. 

Public use of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge will increase with increased visitation to the Outer 

Banks and better outreach by the staff, but the staff estimates that the level of use would not cause 

detrimental wildlife disturbance. Law enforcement activities would control problems associated with 

littering and illegal take of fish. Providing information to refuge visitors about rules and regulations, along 

with increased law enforcement patrol, would keep these negative impacts to a minimum. 
Appendices 127

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on February 6, 

2006, and ended on March 8, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Public notice was posted at refuge headquarters and Refuge Visitor Center 

 Public notice was posted on the refuge web pages. 

 Public notice was posted in newspapers with wide local distribution (published in Virginia Pilot 

on February 17, 2006; The Coastland Times on February 5, 2006, and the Outer Banks 

Sentinel on February 5, 2006) 

 Public meetings (Open Houses) were held on February 16 & 22. 

No substantative comments were received relating to this use. 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Conflicts between fishermen or other visitors 

using the refuge for non-consumptive wildlife recreation have not been a problem in the past and are 

not expected to be a problem in the future. A continued law enforcement presence can minimize 

associated violations such as taking under size fish, open fires and littering. Following completion of 

the comprehensive conservation plan, the refuge staff will develop a Fishing Plan. 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 except with night fishing permit. 

 Public access to areas where shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, and sea turtles are nesting is 

prohibited. 

Justification: Refuge regulations permit fishing of ocean waters from the beach adjacent to the 

refuge under State regulations and access across refuge property from North Carolina Highway 12. 

Recreational fishing is providing a quality fishing experience on a sustainable basis. Fishing is a 

public use activity that, according to the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the 

Service should provide and expand where possible. The use is among the 6 priority wildlifedependent public uses authorized by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 08/02/21 
128 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Nonconsumptive wildlife observation uses such as birdwatching, hiking, and nature photography are 

a major attraction of the refuge due to the area’s proximity to bird migration routes and large 

metropolitan areas and the excellent access and facilities. There are estimates that 1.2 million 

visits/year are for wildlife observation and related activities. 

The staff anticipates that an increase in nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent uses will occur over the next 

few years as The Service provides facilities and programs and especially as the public and conservation 

groups become more aware of the excellent birding/wildlife viewing opportunities on the refuge 

There are no refuge roads maintained for public vehicle travel. The refuge has a trail around North 

Pond. There are 13 miles of North Carolina Highway 12 to gain visual access to the refuge and 

parking lots at which visitors can stop and proceed on foot to observe and photograph wildlife. 

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. The 

program functions well due to 30,000 annual volunteer hours and diligent training and supervision of 

the volunteers by staff. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography activities might result in 

some disturbance to wildlife, especially if visitors venture too close to a impoundment or marsh with 

resting waterbirds, shorebird nesting area, or a rookery. The staff will locate refuge 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 unacceptable levels of disturbance are 

identified at any time, the Service will close sensitive sites to public entry. Some minimal trampling of 

vegetation also may occur. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, and observation platforms will alter small portions of the 

natural environment. Proper planning prior to construction, sediment retention and grade stabilization 

features will reduce negative impacts to wetlands, threatened and endangered species and species 

of special concern. Impacts such as trampling vegetation and wildlife disturbance by refuge visitors 

do occur, but is presently not significant. Visitors cause other potential negative impacts, such as 

littering or illegally taking plants or animals, violating refuge regulations. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on February 6, 

2006, and ended on March 8, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Public notice was posted at refuge headquarters and Refuge Visitor Center 

 Public notice was posted on the refuge web pages. 

 Public notice was posted in newspapers with wide local distribution (published in Virginia Pilot 

on February 17, 2006; The Coastland Times on February 5, 2006, and the Outer Banks 

Sentinel on February 5, 2006) 

 Public meetings (Open Houses) were held on February 16 & 22. 

No substantative comments were received relating to these uses. 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 
Appendices 129

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Prior to construction of any additional facilities, 

the refuge staff would 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 would continue to minimize violations of refuge regulations. 

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 reduce or 

eliminate the effects on wildlife. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are an important and preferred public uses on 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 1997 National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified wildlife observation and photography as priority 

pubic recreational uses to be facilitated on refuges. It is through permitted, compatible public uses 

such as this, that the public becomes aware of and provides support for our national wildlife refuges. 

The uses are among the 6 priority wildlife-dependent public uses authorized by the National Wildlife 

Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 08/02/21 

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. If Service enacts the comprehensive 

conservation plan, the refuge will further develop its interpretation and environmental education 

programs. Environmental education and interpretation activities have been very popular in recent 

years. More than one million visitors come to the refuge for interpretation; more than 1,000 take part 

in a formal education program. The staff plans to develop these programs further and the 

development will usually be associated with structured activities conducted by refuge staff or trained 

volunteers. Refuge staff will also develop and provide curriculum and support materials to area 

teachers for use both on and off the refuge. They will develop additional informational kiosks and 

interpretive panels at key refuge entrance points, and wildlife observation platforms constructed as 

part of the environmental education and interpretation programs. 

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 or proposed 

levels. The program functions well due to 30,000 annual volunteer hours and diligent training and 

supervision of the volunteers by staff. The management of a volunteer program is essential to 

successfully implement the education and visitor use program. Refuge staff will continue to recruit 

and train volunteers to assist in developing and implementing environmental education and 

interpretive programs. 
130 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Construction of facilities such as board walks, kiosks and 

observation platforms will alter small portions of the natural environment on the refuge. Proper 

planning and placement of facilities will ensure that wetlands, threatened or endangered species, or 

species of special concern are not negatively impacted. The refuge staff will obtain proper permits 

through the county, state and federal regulatory agencies prior to construction to ensure resource 

protection. The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities to accomplish environmental 

education and interpretive tours may impose a low-level impact on the sites used for these activities. 

These low-level impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife 

species in the immediate area. Educational activities held off-refuge will not create any biological 

impacts on the resource. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on February 6, 

2006, and ended on March 8, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Public notice was posted at refuge headquarters and Refuge Visitor Center 

 Public notice was posted on the refuge web pages. 

 Public notice was posted in newspapers with wide local distribution (published in Virginia Pilot 

on February 17, 2006; The Coastland Times on February 5, 2006, and the Outer Banks 

Sentinel on February 5, 2006) 

 Public meetings (Open Houses) were held on February 16 & 22. 

No substantative comments were received relating to this use. 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

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 future human impacts are determined through evaluation to be detrimental to 

important natural resources, the refuge will take actions to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The 

majority portions of the refuge will remain undeveloped, without public interpretive facilities. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identifies interpretation 

and environmental education as activities that the Service should provide and expand on refuges. 

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. 

The uses are among the 6 priority wildlife-dependent public uses authorized by the National Wildlife 

Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.

 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 08/02/21 
Appendices 131

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. 
132 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Appendices 133

Appendix VI. Refuge Biota 

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Avocet, American Recurvirostra americana 

Bittern, American Botaurus lentiginosus 

Bittern, Least Ixobrychus exilis 

Blackbird, Red-winged Agelaius phoeniceus 

Blackbird, Rusty Euphagus carolinus 

Bluebird, Eastern Sialia sialis 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Bobwhite, Northern Colinus virginianus 

Brant, Atlantic Brant bernicla 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Bunting, Indigo Passerina cyanea 

Bunting, Painted Passerina ciris 

Bunting, Snow Plectrophenax nivalis 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Cardinal, Northern Cardinalis cardinalis 

Chat, Yellow-breasted Icteria virens 

Chickadee, Carolina Parus carolinensis 

Chuck-will’s-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Coot, American Fulica americana 

Cormorant, Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritis 

Cormorant, Great Phalacrocorax carbo 

Cowbird, Brown-headed Molothrus ater 

Creeper, Brown Certhia Americana 

Crow, American Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Crow, Fish Corvus ossifragus 
134 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus 

Curlew, Long-billed Numenius americanus 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Dove, Mourning Zenaida macroura 

Dove, Rock Columba livia 

Dowitcher, Long-billed Limnodromus scolopaceous 

Dowitcher, Short-billed Limnodromus griseus 

Duck, American Black Anas rubripes 

Duck, Ring-necked Aythya collaris 

Duck, Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis 

Duck, Wood Aix sponsa 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis 

Egret, Great Casmerodius albus 

Egret, Reddish Egretta rufescens 

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, Great-crested Myiarchus crinitus 

Flycatcher, Least Empidonax minimus 

Flycatcher, Scissor-tailed Tyrannus forficatus 

Flycatcher, Willow/alder Empidonax traillii 

Flycatcher, Yellow-bellied Empidonax flaviventris 
Appendices 135

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Frigatebird, Magnificent Fregata magnificens 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Gallinule, Purple Porphyrula martinica 

Gannet, Northern Morus bassanus 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray Polioptila caerulea 

Godwit, Hudsonian Limosa haemastica 

Godwit, Marbled Limosa fedoa 

Goldeneye, Common Bucephala clangula 

Goldfinch, American Carduelis tristis 

Goose, “Blue” Chen caerulescens 

Goose, Canada Branta canadensis 

Goose, Greater Snow Chen caerulescens 

Goose, Lesser Snow Chen caerulescens 

Goose, Ross' Chen rossi 

Grackle, Boat-tailed Quiscalus major 

Grackle, Common Quiscalus quiscula 

Grebe, Eared Podiceps nigricollis 

Grebe, Horned Podiceps auritus 

Grebe, Pied-billed Podilymbus podiceps 

Grebe, Red-necked Podiceps grisegena 

Grosbeak, Blue Guiraca caerulea 

Grosbeak, Evening Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Grosbeak, Rose-breasted Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Gull, Black-headed Larus ridibundus 

Gull, Bonaparte’s Larus philadelphia 

Gull, California Larus californicus 

Gull, Glaucous Larus hyperboreus 
136 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Gull, Greater Black-backed Larus marinus 

Gull, Herring Larus argentatus 

Guli, Iceland Larus glaucoides 

Gull, Laughing Larus atricilla 

Gull, Lesser Black-backed Larus fuscus 

Gull, Little Larus minutus 

Gull, Ring-billed Larus delawarensis 

Gull, Thayer’s Larus thayeri 

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 striatus 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated Archilochus colubris 

Ibis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellus 

Ibis, White Eudocimus albus 

Jaeger, Parasitic Stercorarius parasiticus 

Jaeger, Pomarine Stercorarius pomarinus 

Jay, Blue Cyanocitta cristata 

Junco, Dark-eyed Junco hyemalis 

Kestrel, American Falco sparverius 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

Kingbird, Eastern Tyrannus tyrannus 

Kingbird, Gray Tyrannus dominicensis 

Kingbird, Western Tyrannus verticalis 
Appendices 137

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Kingfisher, Belted Ceryle alcyon 

Kinglet, Golden-crowned Regulus satrapa 

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned Regulus calendula 

Kittiwake, Black-legged Rissa tridactyla 

Knot, Red Calidris canutus 

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 Sturnella magna 

Merganser, Common Mergus merganser 

Merganser, Hooded Lophodytes cucullatus 

Merganser, Red-breasted Mergus serrator 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Moorhen, Common Gallinula chloropus 

Nighthawk, Common Chordeiles minor 

Nuthatch, Brown-headed Sitta pusilla 

Nuthatch, Red-breasted Sitta Canadensis 

Oriole, Northern (Baltimore) Icterus galbula 

Oriole, Orchard Icterus spurius 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 

Owl, Barn Tyto alba 

Owl, Eastern screech Otus asio 

Owl, Great-horned Bubo virginianus 
138 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Owl, Northern saw-whet Aegolius acadicus 

Owl, Short-eared Asio flammeus 

Oystercatcher, American Haematopus palliatus 

Parula, Northern Parula Americana 

Pelican, American White Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Pelican, Brown Pelecanus occidentalis 

Petrel, Leach’s Storm Oceanodroma leucorhoa 

Petrel, Wilson’s Storm Oceanites oceanicus 

Pewee, Eastern Wood Contopus virens 

Phalarope, Red Phalaropus fulicaria 

Phalarope, Red-necked Phalaropus lobatus 

Phalarope, Wilson’s Phalaropus tricolor 

Pheasant, Ring-necked (Exotic) Phasianus colchicus 

Phoebe, Eastern Sayornis phoebe 

Pintail, Northern Anas acuta 

Pipit, American Anthus rubescens 

Plover, Black-bellied Pluvialis squatarola 

Plover, Lesser Golden Pluvialis dominica 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Plover, Semipalmated Charadrius semipalmatus 

Plover, Wilson's Charadrius wilsonia 

Rail, Black Laterallus jamaicensis 

Rail, Clapper Rallus longirostris 

Rail, King Rallus elegans 

Rail, Virginia Rallus limicola 

Rail, Yellow Coturnicops noveboracensis 

Redhead Aythya americana 
Appendices 139

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Redstart, American Setophaga ruticilla 

Ruff Philomachus pugnax 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Sandpiper, Baird’s Calidris bairdii 

Sandpiper, Buff-breasted Tryngites subruficollis 

Sandpiper, Curlew Calidris ferruginea 

Sandpiper, Least Calidris minutilla 

Sandpiper, Pectoral Calidris melanotos 

Sandpiper, Purple Calidris maritima 

Sandpiper, Semipalmated Calidris pusilla 

Sandpiper, Solitary Tringa solitaria 

Sandpiper, Spotted Actitis macularia 

Sandpiper, Stilt Calidris himantopus 

Sandpiper, Upland Bartramia longicauda 

Sandpiper, Western Calidris mauri 

Sandpiper, White-rumped Calidris fuscicollis 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus rubber 

Scaup, Greater Aythya marila 

Scaup, Lesser Aythya affinis 

Scoter, Black Melanitta nigra 

Scoter, Surf Melanitta perspicillata 

Scoter, White-winged Melanitta deglandi 

Shearwater, Audubon’s Puffinus lherminieri 

Shearwater, Cory’s Calonectris diomedea 

Shearwater, Greater Puffinus gravis 

Shearwater, Manx Puffinus puffinus 

Shearwater, Sooty Puffinus griseus 
140 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Shoveler, Northern Anas clypeata 

Siskin, Pine Carduelis pinus 

Skimmer, Black Rynchops niger 

Snipe, Common (Wilson’s snipe) Gallinago gallinago 

Sora Porzana carolina 

Sparrow, Chipping Spizella passerina 

Sparrow, Clay-colored Spizella pallida 

Sparrow, Field Spizella pusilla 

Sparrow, Fox Passerella iliaca 

Sparrow, Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum 

Sparrow, House Passer domesticus 

Sparrow, “Ipswich” Passerculus sandwichensis princeps 

Sparrow, Vesper Pooecetes gramineus 

Sparrow, Lark Chondestes grammacus 

Sparrow, Lincoln’s Melospiza lincolnii 

Sparrow, Nelson’s sharp-tailed Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni 

Sparrow, Saltmarsh sharp-tailed Ammodramus caudacutus caudacutus 

Sparrow, Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis 

Sparrow, Seaside Ammodramus maritimus 

Sparrow, Song Melospiza melodia 

Sparrow, Swamp Melospiza georgiana 

Sparrow, White-crowned Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Sparrow, White-throated Zonotrichia albicollis 

Stilt, Black-necked Himantopus mexicanus 

Swallow, Bank Riparia riparia 

Swallow, Barn Hirundo rustica 

Swallow, Cliff Hirundo pyrrhonota 
Appendices 141

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Swallow, Northern rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Swallow, Tree Tachycineta bicolor 

Swan, Mute Cygnus olor 

Swan, Tundra Cygnus columbianus 

Swift, Chimney Chaetura pelagica 

Tanager, Scarlet Piranga olivacea 

Tanager, Summer Piranga rubra 

Teal, Blue-winged Anas discors 

Teal, Green-winged Anas crecca 

Tern, Black Chlidonias niger 

Tern, Caspian Sterna caspia 

Tern, Common Sterna hirundo 

Tern, Forster's Sterna forsteri 

Tern, Gull-billed Sterna nilotica 

Tern, Least Sterna antillarum 

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii 

Tern, Royal Sterna maxima 

Tern, Sandwich Sterna sandvicensis 

Tern, Sooty Sterna fuscata 

Thrush, Gray-cheeked Catharus minimus 

Thrush, Hermit Catharus guttatus 

Thrush, Swainson’s Catharus ustulatus 

Thrush, Wood Hylocichla mustelina 

Titmouse, Tufted Parus bicolor 

Towhee, Rufus-sided (eastern) Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Turnstone, Ruddy Arenaria interpres 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 
142 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Vireo, Blue-headed (solitary) 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, Turkey Cathartes aura 

Warbler, Bay-breasted Dendroica castanea 

Warbler, Blackburnian Dendroica fusca 

Warbler, Blackpoll Dendroica striata 

Warbler, Black-and-white Mniotilta varia 

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 pennsylvanica 

Warbler, Connecticut Oporornis agilis 

Warbler, Golden-winged Vermivora chrysoptera 

Warbler, Hooded Wilsonia citrina 

Warbler, Kentucky Oporornis formosus 

Warbler, Magnolia Dendroica magnolia 

Warbler, Mourning Oporornis philadelphia 

Warbler, Nashville Vermivora ruficapilla 

Warbler, Orange-crowned Vermivora celata 

Warbler, Palm Dendroica palmarum 

Warbler, Pine Dendroica pinus 
Appendices 143

ANIMALS 

BIRDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Warbler, Prairie Dendroica discolor 

Warbler, Prothonotary Protonotaria citrea 

Warbler, Tennessee Vermivora peregrina 

Warbler, Yellow Dendroica petechia 

Warbler, Wilson’s Wilsonia pusilla 

Warbler, Worm-eating Helmitheros vermivorus 

Warbler, Yellow-rumped Dendroica coronata 

Warbler, Yellow-throated Dendroica dominica 

Waterthrush, Northern Seiurus noveboracensis 

Waxwing, Cedar Bombycilla cedrorum 

Yellowthroat, Common Geothlypis trichas 

ANIMALS 

MAMMALS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Bat, Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus* 

Bat, Evening Nycticeius humeralis* 

Bat, Hoary Lasiurus cinereus* 

Bat, Red Lasiurus borealis* 

Bat, Silver-haired Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Deer, White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus 

Fox, Gray Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Mink Mustela vison 

Mole, Eastern Scalopus aquaticus* 

Mouse, House Mus musculus 

Mouse, Eastern Harvest Reithrodontomys humilis* 

Mouse, White-footed Peromyscus leucopus* 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethica 
144 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

ANIMALS 

MAMMALS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Nutria (Exotic) Myocastor coypu 

Opossum Didelphis marsupialis 

Otter, River Lutra canadensis 

Rabbit, Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Rabbit, Marsh Sylvilagus palustris 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Rat, Hispid cotton Sigmodon hispidus* 

Rat, Norway (Exotic) Rattus norvegicus 

Shrew, Least Cryptotis parva* 

Shrrew, Short-tailed Blarina brevicauda* 

Shrew, Southeastern Sorex longirostris 

Vole, Meadow Microtus pennsylvanicus 

ANIMALS 

AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Frog, Bull Rana catesbeiana* 

Frog, Green Tree Hyla gratiosa 

Frog, Southern Leopard Rana utricularia 

Frog, Squirrel Tree Hyla squirella 

Lizard, Glass Ophisaures attenuatus 

Racerunner, Six-line Cnemidophorus sexlineatus* 

Skink, Ground Leiolopisma laterale* 

Skink, Five-lined Eumeces fasciatus* 

Snake, Green anole (Carolina) anole) Anolis carolinensis* 

Snake, Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix* 

Snake, Eastern Cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus* 

Snake, Canebrake Rattle Crotalus horridus atricaudatus* 

Snake, Black Racer Coluber constrictor constrictor 
Appendices 145

ANIMALS 

AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Snake, Black Rat Elaphe merican merican* 

Snake, Corn Elaphe guttata guttata 

Snake, Eastern Garter Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis* 

Snake, Eastern Hognose Heterdon platyrhinos 

Snake, Eastern King Lampropeltis getulus getulus* 

Snake, Eastern Ribbon Thamnophis sauritus sauritus* 

Snake, Rough Green Opheodrys aestivus* 

Snake, Brown Storeria dekayi 

Snake, Carolina Salt Marsh Nerodia sipedon williamengelsi 

Toad, Fowler’s Bufo woodhousei fowleri 

Turtle, Yellow-bellied Slider Chrysemys scripta 

Turtle, Eastern Mud Kinosternon subrubrum 

Turtle, Common Snapping Chelydra serpentina 

Turtle, Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin 

Turtle, Loggerhead Sea Caretta caretta 

Turtle, Green Sea Chelonia mydas 

Turtle, Hawksbill Sea Eretmochelys imbricata 

Turtle, Kemp’s-ridleys Sea Lepidochelys kempii 

Turtle, Leatherback Sea Dermochelys coriacea 

ANIMALS 

FISH 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 

Anchovy, Bay Anchoa mitchilli 

Bass, Striped Morone saxatilis 

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 
146 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

ANIMALS 

FISH 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus 

Drum, Red Sciaenops ocellatus 

Eel, American Anguilla rostrata 

Flounder, Southern Paralichthys lethostigma 

Flounder, Summer Paralichthys dentatus 

Gar, Longnose Lepisosteus osseus 

Goby, Darter Gobionellus boleosoma 

Goby, Naked Gobiosoma bosci 

Herring, Blueback Alosa aestivalis 

Killifish, Banded Fundulus diaphanus 

Killifish, Marsh Fundulus confluentus 

Menhaden, Atlantic Brevoortia tyrannus 

Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 

Minnow, Sheepshead Cyprinodon variegates 

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Mullet, Striped Mugil cephalus 

Mullet, White Mugil curema 

Perch, White Morone mericana 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 

Pipefish, Gulf Syngnathus scovelli 

Seatrout, Spotted Cynoscion nebulosus 

Seatrout, Gray Cynoscion regalis 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 
Appendices 147

ANIMALS 

FISH 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Shad, American Alosa sapidissima 

Shad, Gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum 

Shad, Hickory Alosa mediocris 

Silverside, Tidewater Menidia peninsulae 

Snapper, Gray Lutjanus griseus 

Shark, Sandbar Carcharhinus plumbeus 

Shark, Dogfish Mustelus canis 

ANIMALS 

OTHER AQUATIC SPECIES 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Clam, Coquina Donax variabilis 

Clam, Hard-shelled (Quahog) Mercenaria mercenaria 

Crab, Blue Callinectes sapidus 

Crab, Brackish-Water Fiddler Uca minax 

Crab, Ghost Ocypode quadrata 

Crab, Mole Emerita talpoida 

Crab, Marsh Sesarma reticulatum 

Crab, Mud Fiddler Uca pugnax 

Crab, Sand Fiddler Uca pugilator 

Jellyfish, Cannonball Stomolophus meleagris 

Oyster, Common Crassostrea virginica 

Periwinkle, Marsh Littorina irrorata 

Scallop, Bay Aequipecten irradians 
148 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

ANIMALS 

OTHER AQUATIC SPECIES 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Sea Squirt Styela spp. 

Sea Grape Molgula spp. 

Sea Pork Amaroucium spp 

Shrimp, Pink Penaeus duorarum 

Shrimp, White Penaeus setiferus 

Shrimp, Brown Penaeus aztecus 

Star, Common Sea Asterias forbesi 

* Denotes species that have not been documented on the refuge but are expected to occur. 
Appendices 149

Appendix VII. Priority Bird Species and their 

Habitats 

Species Status Brackish 

Marsh 

Maritime 

Shrub 

Beach, 

Dune, 

Grass and 

Dry 

Grassland 

Managed 

Wetlands 

(Moist-soil 

Units) 

Piping Plover FL X 

Bald Eagle FL X 

Seabeach Amaranth FL X 

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow FSC X 

Seaside Sparrow FSC X 

Black Rail FSC X 

Yellow Rail FSC X 

King Rail FSC X 

Sedge Wren FSC X X 

Prairie Warbler FSC X 

Yellow-throated Warbler FSC X 

Northern Parula FSC X 

Red Knot FSC X 

Wilson’s Plover FSC X 

Least Tern FSC X 

Black Skimmer FSC X 

American Oystercatcher FSC X 

Canada Goose SMC X 

Snow Goose SMC X 

Tundra Swan SMC X 

American Black Duck SMC X X 

Mallard SMC X 

American Widgeon SMC X 

Blue-winged Teal SMC X 

Green-winged Teal SMC X 

Ruddy Duck SMC X 

Ringneck Duck SMC X 

Northern Pintail SMC X 

Greater Scaup SMC X 

Lesser Scaup SMC X 

Gull-billed Tern SMC X 

Common Tern SMC X 

(FL=Federally-listed, FSC=Federal Species of Concern, 

SMC=Species of Management Concern on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge) 
150 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Appendices 151

Appendix VIII. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATION NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) PROJECTS

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is managed as a part of the Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Many projects, staff positions, etc., listed here are proposed as Alligator River 

National Wildlife Refuge projects. They are included here because they will affect management of 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. Projects are ordered by the first two digits of the project number, 

which stand for the fiscal year the refuge developed the project to facilitate finding the projects listed 

in the management alternatives. 

Projects are listed as Tier 1 projects that support approved critical mission or approved minimum staff 

or Tier 2 projects that do not. 

Project 97001 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $32,500, Recurring Request $25,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) – 28 

This project will provide the funding to hire a half-time GS-5 biological technician to perform 

threatened and endangered species surveys. Two endangered species are found on the refuge: redcockaded woodpecker and red wolf. One threatened species is found on the refuge: American 

alligator. Most of the 152,000-acre refuge is comprised of impenetrable, upland forested swamp, 

which is very difficult to survey by traditional ground surveys. Additional helicopter surveys are 

needed to properly survey more than 40,000 acres of suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat to 

locate and evaluate new colony sites. Alligator surveys will be reinitiated to monitor an expanding 

population. Red wolf aerial surveys will be augmented to better document wolf locations, den sites, 

mortality, and habitat use. 

Project 97002 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $32,500, Recurring Request $30,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 31 

This project will provide the funding to hire a half-time GS-7 biological technician to perform surveys 

of neotropical migratory songbirds. These songbirds have drastically declined both regionally and 

nationally over the last 20 years. Since no comprehensive surveys have been conducted on the 

refuge, very little is known about the use or the importance of refuge habitat by migrating songbirds. 

The project will determine seasonal land use and habitat use by bird species. Standard neotropical 

bird surveys will be conducted each month along four established survey routes through all major 

habitat types on the refuge. These surveys are essential to determine the effects of management 

activities on migratory birds; thereby improving management decisions. 

Project 97003 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $32,500, Recurring Request $35,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 21 

This project will provide the funding to hire a half-time GS-9 wildlife biologist to perform surveys of wildlife 

species on the refuge. The refuge contains much of the suitable wildlife habitat on the mainland portion of 

Dare County. The project is the best way to gauge the effects of the management activities on the 

refuge’s wildlife and plant communities. The project will improve conservation of these resources. Aerial 
152 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

waterfowl surveys will be conducted biweekly from September through March. Other wildlife and plant 

surveys (e.g., black bear, white-tailed deer, woodcock, rail, mourning dove, and moist-soil unit production) 

will be conducted using standard census techniques along established routes. A Wildlife Inventory Plan 

will also be developed, approved, and implemented. 

Project 97004 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $595,000, Recurring Request $551,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 4 

This project will provide the funding to hire nine full-time permanent employees (three GS-9 resource 

specialists, two GS-6 clerical employees, and four WG-8 equipment operators) to conduct prescribed 

burning. Fire in eastern North Carolina has been aggressively suppressed for the past 50 years. As 

a result, fire-dependent habitats (e.g., pond pine woodlands and cane brake swamps) have 

deteriorated. Unique wildlife populations (e.g., black bear, red-cockaded woodpeckers, neotropical 

migrant songbirds, and red wolves) that are associated with these diverse habitat types have been 

negatively impacted. A minimum of fourteen sites totaling about 20,000 acres will be prescribed 

burned on an annual basis to create or improve a diversity of habitat types. An active wildfire 

detection and suppression program will be improved to protect all refuge resources. 

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 97006 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $40,000, Recurring Request $49,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 7 

This project will provide the funding to hire a full-time permanent GS-5 biological technician to monitor 

water control structures used to restore hydrology on the refuge. The refuge contains 70,000 acres 

of forested wetland habitat that has been severely impacted from ditching by prior owners. To restore 

natural habitats, natural hydrology (water flow and levels) in these wetlands, more than 50 water 

control structures have been installed at various locations. However, these structures must be 

frequently monitored and adjusted to prevent timber loss and other impacts from prolonged flooding. 

To ensure proper monitoring, permanent staff gauges will be installed at each water control structure, 

along with 20 monitoring wells at various locations. 
Appendices 153

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 12 water quality monitoring stations will be installed, with at least 1 each in all refuge 

impoundments, lakes, streams, moist-soil units, 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. 

Project 97011 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 30 

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-ime 

WG-5 equipment operator. Within the refuge’s 4,500-acre farm unit, about 2,000 acres are diked and 

managed as moist-oil 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. 
154 Pea Island National Wildlife 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 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 common reed 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, thereby reducing the refuge’s ability to provide suitable habitat for waterfowl 

and other wildlife species. Common reed 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. 

Project 97023 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $130,000, Recurring Request $99,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 20 

This project will provide the funding to purchase equipment and hire a permanent half-time GS-9 

forester and a permanent full-time WG-8 equipment operator to restore bottomland hardwood habitat 

on 500 acres over a 5-year period. Most of the refuge’s bottomland hardwood sites were harvested 

and planted with pine by prior owners. This project will restore bottomland hardwood habitat by 

harvesting the pine stands, conducting site preparation, and planting with suitable bottomland 

hardwood species (e.g., oaks, black gum, and hickories). Once established, these sites will improve 

wildlife diversity and quality for black bear, tree squirrels, migratory birds, white-tailed deer, and other 

resident wildlife species. This project will also benefit the refuge’s hydrology restoration project. 

Project 97025 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $38,000, Recurring Request $3,200 

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, and 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. 
Appendices 155

Project 97028 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $130,000, Recurring Request $98,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 19 

This project will provide the funding to hire two permanent full-time WG-5 maintenance workers to 

operate pump stations and water control structures to prevent flooding and properly manage water. 

Roads and dikes fragment the refuge’s 4,500-acre farm unit into a number of smaller fields and moistsoil units. Due to past land clearing practices, the farm unit’s elevation is about 1.5 to 2 feet below 

the surrounding woodlands. During any major storm event, such as hurricanes, or any other period 

of prolonged rainfall, the farm unit readily floods. Farming and moist-soil management activities, 

which are ongoing, require a timely response (operation of two large pump stations) to those events. 

Often, these events are outside the normal working hours and occur over an extended period of time, 

requiring overtime pay for refuge staff. 

Project 97030 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $32,500, Recurring Request $25,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 33 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent half-time GS-5 biological technician to 

develop and conduct a 3-year study to document white-tailed deer mortality causes. Deer/red wolf 

interactions are a major concern of the local public. Many hunters and non-hunters are concerned 

that red wolves are taking a significant portion of the healthy deer population in the area. The study 

will involve the placement of satellite transmitters on deer to document deer mortality causes and the 

operation of deer check stations to determine the overall health and condition of the deer herd. 

Findings will be used to present objective information in order to gain public acceptance of the red 

wolf project. 

Project 97031 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $32,500, Recurring Request $30,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 34 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent half-time GS-7 biologist to coordinate with 

other agencies on refuge activities. Improved coordination is needed with the following agencies: (1) 

North Carolina Forest Service on wildfire suppression activities in eastern north Carolina via a 

cooperative agreement; (2) U.S. Department of Defense on red wolf management, red-cockaded 

woodpecker management, hydrology restoration, and fire research on the 46,000-acre Dare County 

Bombing Range (an inholding within the refuge); and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission on law enforcement activities. All of these activities affect the day-to-day operation of 

the refuge. 

Project 97033 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 23 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 park ranger to educate Service 

personnel and the public on the concept of ecosystem management. The refuge’s wildlife interpretive 

specialist developed an outreach plan for the Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear Ecosystem Team. 

The interpretative specialist will be heavily involved in the training aspect of the plan. 
156 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

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. 

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, and neotropical songbird) will use standard census techniques. The project is the only way 

to gauge the effects of high public use and other refuge management programs on the refuge’s 

wildlife resources. The project will improve management of these resources. The Wildlife Census 

Plan will be updated and implemented. Pea Island Refuge is a 5,800-acre refuge located on a 

coastal barrier island that has high public use (2 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 Pea Island Refuge. However, 

these habitats have started to succeed to more woody and brushy plant communities. 
Appendices 157

Project 97045 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $195,000, Recurring Request $213,000 

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 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 2 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 97046 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $130,000, Recurring Request $92,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 17 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 forester to develop a 

comprehensive forest management program and improve forest health on the refuge. At present, 

most of the refuge’s forests are in poor health. Exploitive logging, lack of basic forest management, 

and altered hydrology have resulted in undesirable stages of development. A forest ecologist is 

needed to prepare and implement the plan to correct these problems. The ecologist will also develop 

plans for the surrounding refuges (Pocosin Lakes and Roanoke River) with similar forest health 

problems and will develop partnerships with other local agencies (Department of Defense, North 

Carolina Forest Service, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 

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 (e.g., color printers and modems) at each employee’s workstation. 

Project 97048 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $210,000, Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (combined Alligator River and Pea Island) - 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. 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. 
158 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Project 98001 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $95,000, Recurring Request $79,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 8 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 biologist to guide management 

of prescribed burning in a 1,000-acre prime red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and thousands of 

acres of other woodpecker habitat. Over the past 4 years, the refuge has struggled with a southern 

pine beetle infestation of epidemic proportion. Due primarily to the overstocking of most of the pond 

pine stands and overall poor health of these stands, much of the infestation occurred in endangered 

red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Several hundred acres of forest has been killed while thousands 

more are in need of active management. Burning will not only promote natural regeneration of pond 

pine in the dead areas, but will also reduce competition from other species. 

Project 98002 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $85,000, Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 5 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 entomologist to monitor 

southern pine beetle populations. As a direct result of poor forest health, the refuge has struggled 

with a southern pine beetle infestation of epidemic proportions for the past 5 years. Many infestations 

are still spreading at accelerated rates and need control buffers installed to stop the spread and to 

protect forest resources. The buffers will also spread as firelanes, which are needed to conduct 

prescribed burns in these areas in order to promote natural regeneration of the pond pine stands. 

Project 98004 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $80,000, Recurring Request $80,000 

Station Rank (combined Alligator River and Pea Island) - 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 5-year contract to 

include new office space. The refuge staff has increased to more than 35 full-time employees (both 

permanent and seasonal) and increase seasonally with summer interns and researchers. Increased 

office space will enhance safety, staff efficiency, and morale. 

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 

European 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. 
Appendices 159

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 

Army Corps of Engineers dredging operations and their effects on beach-dependent wildlife (e.g., 

shorebirds and sea turtles). Oregon Inlet is located at the north end of the refuge, which is a coastal 

barrier island. This inlet is the only passage through the barrier islands from the Pamlico Sound to 

the Atlantic Ocean and is used heavily by recreational and commercial fishing boats. The Corps of 

Engineers conducts intensive dredging operations to maintain the inlet’s opening. This has disrupted 

natural coastal processes, resulting in beach erosion on the refuge. Changes in dredging operations 

will be recommended, as needed, to protect wildlife resources. 

Project 98006 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $40,000, Recurring Request $5,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 12 

This project will provide the funding to conduct a comprehensive fisheries survey of refuge lakes, 

streams, and other water bodies (e.g., canals, ditches, and ponds) to help develop a Fishery 

Management Plan. The survey will include an evaluation of each aquatic habitat and its ability to 

support fish populations. Service 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 98007 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $130,000, Recurring Request $127,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 3 

This project will provide the funding to equip and hire three permanent full-time employees (two GS-5 

biological technicians and a WG-8 equipment operator) to properly manage and restore 70,000 acres 

of forested wetlands, maintain 80 to 90 miles of refuge roads, and manipulate associated canals, 

sometimes on a daily basis. Engineering equipment, tractors, and other equipment are critically 

needed to ensure reliable operations of water control structures, pump stations, and other facilities. 

Project 98008 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $235,000, Recurring Request $10,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - None 

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 80 to 90 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. 
160 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Project 98009 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $59,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 26 

This project will provide the funding to buy a motor-grader and hire a permanent full-time WG-8 

equipment operator. A large grader is needed to support all aspects of the refuge’s management and 

maintenance programs. The refuge has 150 miles of primary and secondary roads. Some of the 

roads need to be maintained on a daily basis so that refuge operations and public use activities can 

continue unimpeded. The refuge has an insufficient number of motor-graders to meet the daily road 

maintenance needs. An additional motor-grader will allow public use, fire management, endangered 

species management, and biological program activities to be conducted in a more efficient manner. 

Project 98010 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $200,000, Recurring Request $3,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - None 

This project will provide the funding to purchase 6 new vehicles to meet the needs of new staff 

members. New staff members (both permanent and seasonal) have been added in recent years; 

however, no additional vehicles have been purchased. At least 6 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 in support of the biological, maintenance, management, and administrative 

programs. Adding a volunteer coordinator will meet both the current need and assist in securing 

additional volunteer services on the refuge. Volunteers perform tasks such as sea turtle patrol, visitor 

contact duties, environmental talks at schools, boundary signing, and clerical duties. 

Project 99001 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $130,000, Recurring Request $118,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 27 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 refuge operations specialist 

and a GS-5 administrative assistant to meet the administrative needs of increased activities. 

Expanded refuge operations and activities in program areas, such as endangered species 

management, fire management, biological, public use, visitor services, etc., along with increased 

administrative tasks, have 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. 
Appendices 161

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 

8 types of forested habitats found on 5 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 songbirds, 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. The refuge 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 2- to 4-state radius travel here for school field trips in the spring 

and fall. During the summer months, more than 7 million people visit the Outer Banks. Families seek 

and attend educational programs that will entertain and educate their children. There are many 

opportunities for the Fish and Wildlife Service to be involved with these activities, and get the 

Service’s message to the public. 

Project 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 (e.g., red-cockaded woodpecker), migratory birds (e.g., 

waterfowl and songbirds), and important resident wildlife (e.g., 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. 
162 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

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 impoundments 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, and monitor endangered sea 

turtle nesting activities and marine mammal strandings. The effects of Army Corps of Engineers 

dredging and disposal activities on Pea Island Refuge would be monitored to compile biological 

information needed for management decisions concerning controversial issues associated with beach 

nourishment and shorebird feeding and nesting habitat. 

Project 00010 (Alligator River) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $85,000, Recurring Request $830,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 9 

This project will provide the funding to hire 13 permanent full-time employees (2 GS-9 refuge 

operations specialists; 1 GS-11 biologist; 4 GS-9 resource specialists; 4 GS-7 park rangers; and 2 

GS-7 administrative assistants) to meet the needs of activities identified in the comprehensive 

conservation plan. The planning process will be completed for 11 refuges on northeastern North 

Carolina. The completed plans will be implemented and require a cadre of talented staff: 

ascertainment biologist, realty specialist, personnel specialist, technical writer, engineering 

technician, and management and various administrative support personnel. The legally mandated 

plan and staff support will help conserve wildlife and provide wildlife-dependent recreation for the 

public. Approximately 40,000 acres have been designated as a Wilderness Study Area. 

Project 00011 (Pea Island) 

Tier 2 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $54,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 5 

This project will provide the funding to hire two permanent half-time employees (a GS-7 biological 

technician and a WG-5 maintenance worker) to survey and post the islands in Pamlico Sound 

adjacent to Pea Island Refuge. Approximately 180 acres of roadless islands are proposed for 

wilderness designation and need to be adequately surveyed or posted. These islands are fragile 

components of the barrier island refuge. Major legal issues have never been addressed and with the 

controversy surrounding the Oregon Inlet, Bonner Bridge, and North Carolina Highway 12, these 

islands will be even more controversial in the future. These islands are extremely important to a 

myriad of migratory birds and serve as a nursery area for many aquatic species. 
Appendices 163

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 4 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 3 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 life-span and efficiency of all refuge operations. 

Project 00094 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - 6 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 computer specialist to 

improve automated data processing and geographic information system operations on two refuges: 

Alligator River and Pea Island. Refuge operations and maintenance decisions must be based on the 

most reliable, up-to-date information available. The use of modern automated data processing and 

geographic information system technology will allow the two refuges’ staff (about 30 employees at 

present) to obtain the latest biological information, analyze data, transmit information, respond to 

inquiries, and communicate with partners. A computer specialist would administer and maintain the 

program. As fast as computer technology is advancing, the ability to efficiently gather, analyze, and 

disseminate information and data increases staff efficiency and fosters professional operations. 

Project 00095 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (Pea Island) - 3 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-11 wildlife biologist to expand 

and enhance the biological monitoring program on the 5,800-acre Pea Island Refuge and the 
164 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

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, songbirds, 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 

biologists 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 with 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 preventive and cyclic maintenance program 

conducted by this mechanic. 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, 4 dual purpose 

officers provide reactive visitor safety and resource protection on this refuge and the nearby 152,000-

acre Alligator River Refuge. These two refuges host more than 2 million annual visitors, with most 

visiting 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 refuge’s significant wildlife 

resources, such as black bear (the largest concentration of black bears on the mid-Atlantic coast) and 

the endangered red wolf on Alligator River Refuge, and endangered sea turtles and piping plovers 

that nest on Pea Island Refuge. The poaching of other important wildlife (e.g., diamond-backed 

turtle, white-tailed deer, timber rattlesnake, and yellow-spotted turtle), illegal collecting of cultural and 

historic resources (e.g., Native American artifacts), 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. 
Appendices 165

Project 00099 (Pea Island) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank (combined Alligator River and 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 2 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 (e.g., regular volunteers from the community, college interns, 

and 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 will 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 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 03000 (Alligator River) 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $71,000 

Station Rank (Alligator River) - None 

This project will provide the funding to hire a permanent full-time GS-9 park ranger to serve as a law 

enforcement officer. With the Department’s mandated reduction in dual purpose law enforcement 

officers, this refuge will have a lack of law enforcement presence. By providing an additional refuge 

officer to fill the void, the safety of the visiting public will be increased, as well as our ability to provide 

much needed protection for refuge natural resources and facilities. The addition of a full-time officer will 

provide a position whose primary responsibility is protecting the resource. Officer presence, surveillance, 

and visitor contacts are important to visitor safety and are critical to reducing crime on the refuge. 
166 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

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 (e.g., rentals and sales) 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). 
Appendices 167

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 

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 ranger-interpretation). 

PINWR 00094 6 65K,74K,139K 1.0 Provide improved computer support 

(computer specialist). 

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 = 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.
168 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Tier 2 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 

PINWR 97045 1 195K,213K,408K 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). 

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,76.5K 1.0 Improve waterfowl nesting and 

production surveys (biological 

technician). 

PINWR 00011 5 65K,54K,119K 1.0 Roadless proposed wilderness 

designations (biological technician, 

maintenance worker). 

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). 

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 managerfacilities) 

ARNWR 98007 3 130K,127K,257K 3.0 Improve wetland management and 

restoration capabilities. 

ARNWR 97004 4 595K,551K,1146K 9.0 Improve protection and 

management of refuge resources 

with fire management 

ARNWR 98002 5 85K,69K,154K 1.0 Control southern pine beetle 

infestations (entomologist). 

ARNWR 97021 6 100K,138K,238K 2.0 Restore hydrology on forested 

wetlands 

PINWR = Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ARNWR = Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project numbers have the fiscal year the project was developed as the first two numbers.
Appendices 169

Tier 2 Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects (continued) 

(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 97006 7 40K,49K,89K 1.0 Improve water level management 

on forested wetlands (biological 

technician). 

ARNWR 98001 8 95K,79K,174K 1.0 Restore red-cockaded woodpecker 

habitat in pond pine stands 

(biologist). 

ARNWR 00010 9 85K,830K,915K 13.0 Implement comprehensive 

conservation planning. 

ARNWR 98011 10 65K,69K,134K 1.0 Improve volunteer coordination 

(park ranger). 

ARNWR 97025 11 38K,3.2K,43.2K 0.0 Improve resource management 

data collection 

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 Improve water quality monitoring 

capabilities 

ARNWR 97046 17 130,92K,223K 1.0 Improve health of forest resources 

(forester). 

ARNWR 97005 18 162.5K,182K, 

344.5K 

3.0 Enhance natural regeneration of 

Atlantic white cedar 

ARNWR 97028 19 130K,98K,228K 2.0 Improve water level management 

during flood events (maintenance 

workers). 

ARNWR 97023 20 130K,99K,229K 1.5 Restore bottomland hardwoods 

ARNWR 97003 21 32.5K,35K,67.5K 0.5 Expand wildlife and plant 

monitoring surveys (wildlife 

biologist). 

ARNWR 99003 22 65K,82K,147K 1.0 Improve public outreach and 

education activities (park ranger). 

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.
170 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Tier 2 Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects (continued) 

(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 97033 23 65K,69K,134K 1.0 Improve public outreach on 

ecosystem management (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 98009 26 65K,59K,124K 1.0 Improve resource management 

and maintenance operations 

(motor-grader)(equipment 

operator). 

ARNWR 99001 27 130K,118K,248K 2.0 Improve administrative support 

(refuge operations specialist), 

administrative assistant). 

ARNWR 97001 28 32.5K,25K,57.5K 0.5 Improve endangered species 

monitoring program (biological 

technician). 

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 (equipment operator). 

ARNWR 97002 31 32.5K,30K,62.5K 0.5 Monitor neotropical bird 

populations (biological technician). 

ARNWR 98004 32 80K,80K,160K 0.0 Increase refuge office space. 

ARNWR 97030 33 32.5K,25K,57.5K 0.5 Conduct deer mortality study 

relative to the reintroduction of the 

red wolf (biological technician). 

ARNWR 97031 34 32.5K,30K,62.5K 0.5 Improve coordination with other 

resource agencies (biological 

technician). 

ARNWR 03000 99 65K,71K,136K 1.0 Provide refuge officer (park 

ranger). 

PINWR = Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ARNWR = Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Project numbers have the fiscal year the project was developed as the first two numbers.
Appendices 171

Tier 2 Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects (continued) 

(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 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 = 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.
172 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MMS) PROJECTS

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station 

Rank 

(Pea Island 

Rank) 

Station 

Name 

Pea Island Projects 

98014 Replace John 

Deere 4240 Tractor 

$164,000 8(2) Pea Island 

98021 Replace South 

Pond Pumping 

Station 

2008 $388,000 39(7) Pea Island 

98057 Replace 1960 

Office, Shop, 

Garage, and 

Residence 

2010 $800,000 20(4) Pea Island 

00007 Replace Storm 

Damaged Water 

Control Structure 

2009 $301,000 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 

Impoundments 

(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 

$194,000 Pea Island 

04092 Repair/ 

Rehabilitate Pea 

Island Parking #2 

$131,000 Pea Island 
Appendices 173

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station 

Rank 

(Pea Island 

Rank) 

Station 

Name 

Pea Island Projects 

04093 Repair/ 

Rehabilitate Pea 

Island (Salt Flats) 

Parking #5 

$66,000 Pea Island 

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 

$34,000 Pea Island 

04096 Repair/ 

Rehabilitate Pea 

Island Parking #8 

(Oregon Inlet) 

 $57,000 Pea Island 

97008 Construct Visitor 

Center and 

Administrative 

Office Complex 

2011 $3,724,000 9(7) Alligator River 

98007 Replace Worn Shaft 

Bearings on Laurel 

Bay Waterfowl 

Pumps 

2008 $50,000 60(52) Alligator River 

98010 Replace Military 

Truck Tractor 

 $104,000 Alligator River 

98011 Replace Ford 545 

Mowing Tractor 

 $55,000 41(34) Alligator River 

98012 Replace Secondary 

Refuge Road 

System 

2008 $125,000 34(29) Alligator River 

98013 Replace Timer 

Equipment Trailer 

 $53,000 36(30) 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 $164,000 30(25) Alligator River 
174 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station 

Rank 

(Pea Island 

Rank) 

Station 

Name 

Pea Island Projects 

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 

98041 Replace Workhorse 

Equipment 

Transport Trailer 

 $71,000 57(49) Alligator River 

98042 Replace John 

Deere 644G Frontend Loader 

 $186,000 Alligator River 

98044 Replace Catepillar 

D6H Crawler 

Tractor 

 $235,000 Alligator River 

98045 Replace Catepillar 

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 

98065 Replace Worn Shaft 

Bearings on Creek 

Waterfowl 

Impoundment 

Pumps 

2008 $32,000 59(51) Alligator River 

99001 Replace Nodwell 

Flex Tracked 

Vehicle 

 $82,000 44(37) Alligator River 

99002 Replace Refuge 

Radio System 

2002 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 
Appendices 175

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station 

Rank 

(Pea Island 

Rank) 

Station 

Name 

Pea Island Projects 

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 

01010 Replace 1996 Ford 

L9000 Truck 

Tractor Hauling Unit 

 $105,000 Alligator River 

01024 Replace 1997 Ford 

F350 Crewcab 

Pickup (Fire) 

 $38,000 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 

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 
176 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station 

Rank 

(Pea Island 

Rank) 

Station 

Name 

Pea Island Projects 

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 

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 

02003 Replace 1999 Ford 

F-150 

 $29,000 Alligator River 

02004 Replace 1999 Ford 

F-150 

 $29,000 Alligator River 

02005 Replace 1999 

Chevy C-7500 

Dump Truck 

 $42,000 Alligator River 

02006 Replace 2001 

Dodge 2500 

 $29,000 Alligator River 
Appendices 177

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station 

Rank 

(Pea Island 

Rank) 

Station 

Name 

Pea Island Projects 

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 

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 L-9500 

 $99,000 Alligator River 

02020 Replace 2002 LE 

Dodge LE 1500 

 $29,000 Alligator River 

02021 Replace 2002 Ford 

Expedition 

 $31,000 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 Catepillar 

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 
178 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station 

Rank 

(Pea Island 

Rank) 

Station 

Name 

Pea Island Projects 

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 

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 

03 Replace Worn/ 

Deteriorated 2002 

Ford F-250 

 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 

03005 Replace Worn 2003 

F-150 

 $31,000 Alligator River 

03008 Replace 21’ Boston 

Whaler 

 $63,000 Alligator River 

03009 Replace Water 

Tender Truck 

(Tanker) 

 $73,000 Alligator River 

03011 Replace 2 Worn 

Creef Pump 

Engines 

 $94,000 27(22) Alligator River 

03012 Replace 2 Worn 

Laurel Bay Pump 

Engines 

 $94,000 28(23) Alligator River 
Appendices 179

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost 

Combined 

Station 

Rank 

(Pea Island 

Rank) 

Station 

Name 

Pea Island Projects 

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 

Catepillar 420D 

Backhoe/Loader 

 $84,000 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 

04011 Replace Worn CAT 

320 Long Reach 

Excavator 

 $180,000 Alligator River 

04097 Replace 2004 Ford 

F150 Pickup 

 $30,000 Alligator River 

04098 Replace 2004 Ford 

F150 Pickup 

 $30,000 Alligator River 
180 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Appendices 181

Appendix IX. 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. The 

members of this planning core team are identified in the following table. Initially, the team focused on 

identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to refuge management. The team met on several 

occasions from March to June 2000. 

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. 

The second table lists the members of this biological review team. 

Throughout the planning process, the core team also sought the contributions of experts from various 

fields (third table). 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge Planning Core Team members 

Member Affiliation 

Mike Bryant, Project Leader 

Scott Lanier, Deputy Project Leader 

Kathy Whaley, Former Deputy Project Leader 

John Wallace, Former Deputy Project Leader 

Jim Wigginton, Assistant Manager 

Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Biologist 

Thomas Crews, Fire Management Officer 

Bonnie Strawser, Supervisory Interpretive Specialist 

Ann Marie Salewski, Wildlife Interpretive Specialist 

Kim King-Wrenn, Former Wildlife Interpretive Specialist 

Pea Island 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 
182 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Biological Review Team members, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 
Appendices 183

Expert contributors to the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and their area(s) of expertise 

Name Field of Expertise 

Bill Grabill, Former Refuge Supervisor 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuges 

Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Refuge Management 

Bruce Bell, Former NEPA Specialist 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuges 

Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Requirements 

John Ann Shearer, Private Lands Biologist 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Raleigh, 

North Carolina 

Waterfowl Management, Refuge 

Management 

Richard Kanaski, Regional Archeologist 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Savannah, Georgia 

Cultural Resources 
184 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Appendices 185

Appendix X. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

in Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina, within the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. An 

Environmental Assessment has been prepared to inform the public of the possible environmental 

consequences of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pea Island National 

Wildlife Refuge. A description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting the preferred alternative, 

the environmental effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse effects of the action, and 

a declaration concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting information can be 

found in the Environmental Assessment. 

Alternatives 

In developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service evaluated five alternatives: 

The Service adopted Alternative 2, the “Preferred Alternative,” as the comprehensive conservation 

plan for guiding the direction of the refuge for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in 

this plan is that wildlife conservation assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are allowed if they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent 

recreation uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation) will be emphasized and encouraged. 

Alternative 1. No Action Alternative 

Alternative 1 represents no change from current management of the refuge. Under this alternative, 

the Service would continue to protect 5,000 acres of refuge lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, 

migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. The staff would direct all refuge 

management actions towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (conserving habitat for 

migratory and breeding shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, marsh birds, other wildlife, 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 populations of migratory 

birds, anadromous fish, and other wildlife. 

The staff manages impoundments based on its knowledge of migration patterns, the needs of 

migrating birds, its knowledge of vegetation growth in response to water depth timing of inundation, 

and vegetation surveys. It manages marshes with prescribed fire with no survey data on the effects 

of the burning on the habitat or wildlife populations. The staff currently performs intensive monitoring 

of sea turtles, waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds and colonial nesting birds, including piping plovers. 

Staff members assist other agencies and researchers with other surveys, but perform no others on 

their own. The staff will maintain active habitat management of marshes and impoundments for 

moist-soil vegetation and mudflats designed to provide a diverse complex that meets the foraging, 

resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of species. 

The refuge would maintain the current level of wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., fishing, 

wildlife observation, and environmental education and interpretation opportunities). The refuge’s two 

trails associated with the North Pond and a service road that encircles the same pond for visitor 

access would be maintained and remain open to the public. The staff would maintain the current 
186 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

wildlife observation sites/platforms and interpretive kiosks. The refuge would continue to evaluate 

wildlife populations and consider hunting opportunities, if the situation warranted a hunt. It would 

permit fishing (50,000 annual visitors) along the shorelines of the Atlantic Ocean, Oregon Inlet, and 

Pamlico Sounds and the banks of the ditches. The staff would continue to conduct extensive 

environmental education (1,500 annual students on refuge and 1,000 annual students off refuge), 

interpretive (1.1 million annual visitors) and outreach (annual audience of 5 million) programs and 

would promote them. 

Alternative 2.

The preferred alternative, Alternative 2, is considered to be the most effective management action for 

meeting the purposes of the refuge by representing a modest improvement in programs with an 

emphasis on biological and public use. Under this alternative, the Service would protect 5,000 acres 

of refuge lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory birds, and threatened and endangered 

species. The staff would direct all refuge management actions towards achieving the refuge’s 

primary purposes (conserving habitat for migratory and breeding shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, 

marsh birds, other wildlife, 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 populations of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and other wildlife. 

The staff would continue to develop and implement most refuge management based on databases on 

primary production in impoundments, waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and sea turtles. The staff 

would manage impoundments based on its knowledge of migration patterns, the needs of migrating 

birds, its knowledge of vegetation growth in response to water depth timing of inundation, and 

vegetation surveys. It would manage marshes with prescribed fire with no survey data on the effects 

of the burning on the habitat or wildlife populations. The staff would continue to perform intensive 

monitoring of sea turtles, waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and colonial nesting birds, including 

piping plovers. It would assist other agencies and researchers with other surveys, but would also 

survey fish and land birds, and document the presence of invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians on 

their own. The staff would increase the acres of active habitat management through the 

management of marshes and impoundments for moist-soil vegetation and mudflats designed to 

provide a diverse complex that meets the foraging, resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of 

species. 

The refuge would increase its capacity to provide wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., fishing, 

wildlife observation, and environmental education and interpretation opportunities). The refuge would 

still have two trails associated with North Pond and the service road that encircles the pond for visitor 

access. The staff would maintain the current wildlife observation sites/platforms, and interpretive 

kiosks. The refuge would still continue to evaluate wildlife populations and consider hunting 

opportunities, if the situation warranted a hunt. It would permit fishing (50,000 annual visitors) along 

the shorelines of the Atlantic Ocean, Oregon Inlet, and Pamlico Sound and the banks of the ditches; 

and would promote those opportunities more. The staff would conduct more extensive environmental 

education (3,000 annual students on refuge and 2,000 annual students off refuge), interpretive (1.4 

million visitors) and outreach (annual audience of 10 million) programs to serve a larger audience and 

would promote them more. 

Alternative 3. 

The primary focus under Alternative 3 would be a substantial improvement in both the biological and 

public use programs. Under this alternative, the Service would protect 5,000 acres of refuge lands for 

resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Most refuge 

management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with substantial baseline 

biological information. The staff would direct all refuge management actions towards achieving the 
Appendices 187

refuge’s primary purposes (conserving habitat for migratory and breeding shorebirds, colonial nesting 

birds, marsh birds, other wildlife, 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 populations of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and other wildlife. 

The staff would continue to perform intensive monitoring of sea turtles, waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds, and colonial nesting birds, including piping plovers. It would assist other agencies and 

researchers with other surveys, but would also survey fish, invertebrates, land birds, reptiles, and 

amphibians on their own. The staff manages impoundments based on its knowledge of migration 

patterns, the needs of migrating birds, its knowledge of vegetation growth in response to water depth 

timing of inundation, and vegetation surveys. It would manage marshes with prescribed fire and 

survey data on the effects of the burning on the habitat or wildlife populations. The staff would survey 

all the habitats on the refuge on a regular basis. The staff would increase the acres of active habitat 

management through the management of marshes and impoundments for moist-soil vegetation and 

mudflats designed to provide a diverse complex of habitats that meets the foraging, resting, and 

breeding requirements for a variety of species. 

The refuge would increase its capacity to provide wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., fishing, 

wildlife observation, and environmental education and interpretation opportunities) even more than in 

Alternative 2. The refuge would still have two trails associated with North Pond and the service road 

that encircles the pond for visitor access. The staff would maintain the current wildlife observation 

sites/platforms, and interpretive kiosks. The refuge would continue to evaluate wildlife populations and 

consider hunting opportunities, if the situation warranted a hunt. It would permit fishing (50,000 annual 

visitors) along the shorelines of the Atlantic Ocean, Oregon Inlet, and Pamlico Sound and the banks of 

the ditches; and would promote those opportunities more. The staff would conduct more extensive 

environmental education (4,000 annual students on refuge and 3,000 annual students off refuge), 

interpretive (1.7 million annual visitors), and outreach programs (annual audience of 25 million) to serve 

a larger audience and would promote them more than in Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4

The staff prepared this alternative assuming that it would allow natural processes to dominate the 

landscape north of the Visitor Center. It represents a substantial improvement in the biological 

program, but a reduction in the public use program due to limited access. Under this alternative, the 

Service would protect 5,000 acres of refuge lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory birds, and 

threatened and endangered species. The staff would direct all refuge management actions towards 

achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (conserving habitat for migratory and breeding shorebirds, 

colonial nesting birds, marsh birds, other wildlife, 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 populations of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and other wildlife. 

Most refuge management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with 

substantial baseline biological information. The staff manages impoundments based on its 

knowledge of migration patterns, the needs of migrating birds, its knowledge of vegetation growth in 

response to water depth timing of inundation, and vegetation surveys. It would manage marshes with 

prescribed fire and survey data on the effects of the burning on the habitat or wildlife populations. 

The staff would survey all the habitats on the refuge on a regular basis. The staff would continue 

active habitat management through the management of marshes and impoundments as long as 

they remain as manageable units for moist-soil vegetation and mudflats as sea level rises. 

The staff would continue to perform intensive monitoring of sea turtles, waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds, and colonial nesting birds, including piping plovers. It would assist other agencies and 
188 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

researchers with other surveys, but would also survey fish, invertebrates, land birds, reptiles and 

amphibians on its own. However, impoundment, grassland, marsh, and shrub habitat types will give 

way to ocean overwash fans in some areas. This would result in shifts in monitoring strategies and 

monitoring for some species. For example, refuge surveys for waterfowl on the refuge would 

probably be gradually replaced or would certainly decrease as suitable habitat transitions to 

overwash fan habitat. Surveys for other species using overwash fan habitat may replace 

impoundment-based surveys. 

The refuge would decrease its capacity to provide wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., 

fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education and interpretation opportunities). The 

refuge would still have two trails associated with North Pond and the service road that encircles the 

pond for visitor access. The staff would maintain the current wildlife observation sites/platforms and 

interpretive kiosks. The refuge would continue to evaluate wildlife populations and consider hunting 

opportunities, if the situation warranted a hunt. It would permit fishing (50,000 annual visitors) along 

the shorelines of the Atlantic Ocean, Oregon Inlet, and Pamlico Sound and the banks of the ditches. 

The staff would conduct less extensive interpretation on the refuge (50,000 annual visitors) to serve a 

smaller audience. Environmental education on the refuge (4,000 annual students) off the refuge 

(3,000 annual students) and outreach (annual audience of 25 million) would remain the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Alternative 5 

The staff prepared this alternative assuming that it would allow natural processes to dominate the 

landscape throughout the refuge. It represents a substantial improvement in the biological program, 

but a substantial reduction in the public use program due to limited access. Under this alternative, 

the Service would protect 5,000 acres of refuge lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory birds, 

and threatened and endangered species. The staff would direct all refuge management actions 

towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (conserving habitat for migratory and breeding 

shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, marsh birds, other wildlife, 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 populations of migratory birds, anadromous 

fish, and other wildlife. 

Most refuge management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with 

substantial baseline biological information. The staff manages impoundments based on its 

knowledge of migration patterns, the needs of migrating birds, its knowledge of vegetation growth in 

response to water depth timing of inundation, and vegetation surveys. It would manage marshes with 

prescribed fire and survey data on the effects of the burning on the habitat or wildlife populations. 

The staff would survey all the habitats on the refuge on a regular basis. The staff would implement 

active habitat management through the management of marshes and impoundments as long as 

they remain as manageable units for moist-soil vegetation and mudflats as sea level rises. 

The staff would continue to perform intensive monitoring of sea turtles, waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds, and colonial nesting birds, including piping plovers. It would assist other agencies and 

researchers with other surveys, but would also survey fish, invertebrates, land birds, reptiles, and 

amphibians on its own. However, impoundment, grassland, marsh, and shrub habitat types will give 

way to ocean overwash fans in some areas. This would result in shifts in monitoring strategies and 

monitoring for some species. For example, surveys for waterfowl on the refuge would probably be 

gradually replaced or would certainly decrease as suitable habitat transitions to overwash fan habitat. 

Surveys for other species using overwash fan habitat may replace impoundment-based surveys. 
Appendices 189

The refuge would decrease its capacity to provide wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., 

fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education and interpretation opportunities). The 

refuge would still have two trails associated with North Pond and the service road that encircles the 

pond for visitor access. The staff would maintain the current wildlife observation sites/platforms, and 

interpretive kiosks. The refuge would continue to evaluate wildlife populations and consider hunting 

opportunities, if the situation warranted a hunt. It would permit fishing (50,000 annual visitors) along 

the shorelines of the Atlantic Ocean, Oregon Inlet, and Pamlico Sound and the banks of the ditches. 

The staff would conduct a less extensive environmental education program (1,500 annual students 

on the refuge and 3,000 off the refuge) and interpretation (50,000 annual visitors) on the refuge to 

serve a smaller audience. Environmental education off the refuge (3,000 annual students) and 

outreach (annual audience of 25 million) would remain the same as Alternative 3. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative 2 is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes better habitat management and increased public 

use opportunities, while meeting the refuge’s primary purpose of protecting habitat for migratory birds 

and other wildlife. Specific results will include increased waterfowl, shorebird, wading bird, and 

songbird use and production; enhanced habitat; increased protection for other wildlife; enhanced 

resident wildlife populations; optimum wetland conditions; greater opportunities for a variety of 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and environmental education activities; collection of 

habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At the 

same time, these management actions provide balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities 

consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological principles. It provides the best 

mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

maintained, and enhanced, and those lands within the approved acquisition boundary will be 

prioritized for acquisition to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives. In addition, the action positively addresses significant issues and concerns expressed by 

the public. 

Environmental Effects 

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. Habitat management, 

population management, land conservation, and visitor service management activities on Pea Island 

National Wildlife Refuge would result in continuation of the refuge’s current management of 

impoundments and marshes and monitoring of impoundments, waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading 

birds; and increasing the opportunities in public use programs for fishing, environmental education 

interpretation, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and outreach—would not change the impact 

on the biological and physical environment. It would pose a slightly positive effect on the social and 

economic environment. These effects are detailed as follows: 

• Protect existing habitat important to migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and 

invertebrates, provide data on wildlife species and habitats, and improve management for 

shorebirds in impoundments. 
190 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

• Increased public use may affect the refuge’s wildlife populations due to disturbance and 

habitat trampling. The staff would concentrate the use on the trail around North Pond, on the 

observation platforms, and in the Visitor Center to minimize the effects on habitats and 

wildlife. The refuge would continue to post the nesting areas of shorebirds, colonial nesting 

birds, and sea turtles. 

• Increase in fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation opportunities; increase in volunteer opportunities; and a slightly positive 

effect on the social environment of refuge visitors. 

• Increased visitation to the refuge and greater purchases of local goods and services in the 

economy of the surrounding communities. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action are 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 

present in the area. Implementation of the public use program would take place through carefully 

controlled time and space zoning, establishment of protection zones around key sites, closures of allterrain vehicle trails, and routing of roads and trails to avoid direct contact with sensitive areas, such 

as nesting bird habitat, etc. All hunting activities (e.g., season lengths, bag limits, number of hunters) 

would be conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific 

regulations established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring activities through 

wildlife inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities would be utilized, and public 

use programs would be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts 

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs 

would be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, such as 

establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are effective 

tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action would not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property would be allowed through issuance of special use permits. 

Future land acquisition would occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values within the 

approved acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title purchases 

and/or donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, cooperative 

agreements) from willing sellers. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition 

boundary would likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. The management action contains neither provisions nor proposals to pursue offrefuge stream bank riparian zone protection measures (e.g., fencing) other than on a 

volunteer/partnership basis. 
Appendices 191

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Proposed acquisition efforts by the Service would result in changes in land and recreational use 

patterns, since all uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility standards. Land 

ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the private sector. 

Potential development of access roads, dikes, control structures, and visitor parking areas could lead 

to minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site 

development activities are proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act consideration during pre-construction planning. At that time, any required 

mitigation activities will be incorporated into the specific project to reduce the level of impacts to the 

human environment and to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. While funding and personnel resources 

will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these resources unavailable for 

other programs. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Coordination 

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

All affected landowners 

Congressional representatives 

Governor of North Carolina 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 

Conservation organizations 

Findings 

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 141-150). 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, pages 141-150). 
192 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 141-150). 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 141-150). 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the 

human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 141-150). 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, 

pages 141-150). 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, 

and in foreseeable future actions. (Environmental Assessment, pages 141-150). 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, 

cultural, or historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, pages 141-150). 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their 

habitats. (Environmental Assessment, pages 141-150). 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection 

of the environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 141-150). 

Supporting References 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 

Document Availability 

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pea 

Island National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in March 2006. Additional copies are available 

by writing: Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 1969, Manteo, North Carolina 27954.