Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
August 2008
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
ALLIGATOR RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
August 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 5
History ................................................................................................................................ 5
Purposes ............................................................................................................................. 5
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 10
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 11
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................ 11
Conservation Priorities ...................................................................................................... 13
Challenges ........................................................................................................................ 14
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 15
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 16
Minerals ............................................................................................................................. 16
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 16
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 19
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 20
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 20
Visual Resources ............................................................................................................... 22
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 22
Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................30
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 35
History ............................................................................................................................... 36
Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 38
Demographics ................................................................................................................... 41
Employment ...................................................................................................................... 41
Forestry ............................................................................................................................. 43
Outdoor Recreation in the Area ........................................................................................ 43
Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 44
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 2
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 3
National Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................. 3
Relationship to State Partners ...................................................................................................... 4
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5
Refuge History and Purposes ....................................................................................................... 5
Special Designations .................................................................................................................... 7
Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 7
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................ 9
Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................10
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 14
Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 22
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 35
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 35
ii Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 45
Transportation ................................................................................................................... 45
Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................ 46
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 46
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 46
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 51
Refuge Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 52
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 55
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 56
Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................ 57
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 59
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 60
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 61
Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 61
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 63
Wildlife and Fish Populations ............................................................................................ 64
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 65
Public Use/Outreach ......................................................................................................... 65
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 65
Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................ 65
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 69
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 74
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 79
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 84
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 87
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 46
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 55
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 56
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 63
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 64
Goals ......................................................................................................................................... 64
Objectives and Strategies .......................................................................................................... 65
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 87
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 87
Refuge Administration ................................................................................................................ 91
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 91
Volunteers ................................................................................................................................. 95
Partnership Opportunities........................................................................................................... 95
Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 95
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 96
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 97
Table of Contents iii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 99
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED............................................................... 107
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ............................................................................. 113
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 121
APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ............................................................................... 159
APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 175
APPENDIX VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS .............................................. 201
APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................ 203
APPENDIX IX. WILDERNESS REVIEW .......................................................................................... 229
APPENDIX X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................. 237
APPENDIX XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 241
Summary of Public Scoping Meetings ...................................................................................... 121
Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses ........................................................................ 128
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ........................................................................... 159
COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION ....................................................................................... 162
iv Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare and Hyde Counties, North
Carolina. ............................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain
Physiographic Area. .............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 3. Soils of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ........................................................... 17
Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ............................ 23
Figure 5. Current boundary of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ....................................... 47
Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................... 48
Figure 7. Proposed visitor facilities for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ................................ 92
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge. ....................................................................................................... 9
Table 2. Threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. .......... 12
Table 3. Characteristics of soils of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................... 19
Table 4. Classifications of water bodies around the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ........... 21
Table 5. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................................................................... 24
Table 6. Texture of soil and marine origin sediments and estimated crop yields for soils on the
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. .............................................................................. 27
Table 7. Dare County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture. .................. 39
Table 8. Commodity production in Dare County in 1997 and 2002. ................................................... 39
Table 9. Hyde County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture. ................. 40
Table 10. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997, from the 2002 and
1997 USDA Census of Agriculture. ..................................................................................... 40
Table 11. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties. ......................... 42
Table 12. Acquisition history of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................... 46
Table 13. Staff of the Alligator River and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuges, 2005. ...................... 51
Table 14. Projects supporting Wildlife Strategies. .............................................................................. 87
Table 15. Projects supporting Habitat Strategies. .............................................................................. 88
Table 16. Projects supporting Public Use Strategies. ......................................................................... 89
Table 17. Projects supporting Resource Protection Strategies. ......................................................... 90
Table 18. Projects supporting Refuge Administration Strategies. ...................................................... 91
Table 19. Proposed staffing plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. ................................... 93
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the
management of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina.
The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat
management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinions on the issues
the plan should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from federal and
state agencies and nongovernmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge
staff held the public scoping meetings at four locations on four evenings. The staff also held a
second-round public meeting to solicit public reaction to the proposed alternatives.
The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative 1 was a proposal to maintain the
current management. The refuge currently manages its moist soil units very intensively by managing
water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading
birds, and aquatic organisms. It also manages the marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire.
The staff surveys waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds on a routine basis. The refuge allows the
six priority public use activities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. The staff conducts extensive environmental education
and interpretation programs with the assistance of 10,000 hours of volunteer service every year. The
staff of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge also manages Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. A
staff of 16.7 of the 23 full-time equivalent positions manages the Alligator River Refuge. The staff
manages the refuge from a General Services Administration-rented building in Manteo, 10 miles east
of the refuge.
Alternative 2 proposed moderate program increases. Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to
manage its moist soil units very intensively by managing water levels and vegetation to create optimum
habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and aquatic organisms. It also would manage
the marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire. The staff would inventory and monitor fire-dependent
habitats to document their conditions and assess the effectiveness of management. The staff would
survey waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds on a routine basis. The staff would also document the
presence of wildlife species as they are found, and document the density of invertebrates in moist soil
units. The refuge would allow the six priority public use activities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The staff would conduct extensive
environmental education and interpretation programs with the assistance of 12,000 hours of volunteer
service every year. The staff would conduct programs on the refuge and in the newly constructed visitor
center. The staff of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge would continue to manage the Alligator River
and Pea Island national wildlife refuges. A staff of 26.75 of the 39 full-time equivalent positions would
manage the Alligator River Refuge. The staff would manage the refuge from a Service-owned building in
Manteo, 10 miles east of the refuge.
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative 3 proposed substantial program increases. Under this alternative, the refuge would
continue to manage its moist soil units very intensively by managing water levels and vegetation to
create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and aquatic organisms. It
also would manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire and deciduous forests with
thinning. The staff would inventory and monitor all habitats to document their conditions and assess
the effectiveness of management. The staff would survey all wildlife species on a routine basis. The
staff would also document presence of wildlife species as they are found and document the density of
invertebrates in moist soil units. The refuge would allow the six priority public use activities: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The staff would conduct extensive environmental education and interpretation programs with the
assistance of 15,000 hours of volunteer service every year. The staff would conduct programs on the
refuge and in the newly constructed visitor center. The staff of Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge would continue to manage the Alligator River and Pea Island national wildlife refuges. A staff
of 37.45 of the 58 full-time equivalent positions would manage the Alligator River Refuge. The staff
would manage the refuge from a Service-owned building in Manteo, 10 miles east of the refuge.
The Service selected Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative, which is reflected in this
Comprehensive Conservation Plan. It advances the refuge program considerably, and is more
realistic than Alternative 3 in terms of expected staffing levels to conduct the proposed program.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to
provide a foundation for the management and use of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in
Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. The plan will serve as a guide for the refuge’s
management actions and direction over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will
receive first priority in refuge management, and wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and
encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge
or the purposes for which it was established.
The Service developed this plan in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Compliance with this Act was achieved through the
involvement of the public and the development of an environmental assessment, which described the
alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives. The
environmental assessment was incorporated as Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
The plan was prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from the refuge and various
Service programs, including the divisions of Planning, Refuges, Fisheries, Ecological Services,
Realty, and Migratory Birds. In developing this plan, the planning team and refuge staff incorporated
the input of state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, local citizens, and the general public
through a series of stakeholder and public scoping meetings. This public involvement and the
planning process itself are described in Chapter III, Plan Development.
The plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward after considering two
other alternatives, as described in the environmental assessment and summarized in the Executive
Summary. The preferred alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for the
management of the refuge and is detailed in this comprehensive conservation plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide
long-term guidance to the refuge’s management programs and activities for the next 15 years.
The plan is needed to:
• provide a clear statement of direction for the management of the refuge;
• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and local, state, and federal and government officials with an
understanding of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
• ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational and
educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997;
2 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
• ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with federal and state plans; and
• provide a basis for the development of budget requests for the refuge’s operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is to communicate with the public and include public
participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many
agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships
with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System. This plan supports the Partners in
Flight Initiative; South Atlantic Coastal Plain Migratory Bird Conservation Plan; North American
Waterfowl Management Plan; Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; and National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the conservation,
protection, and enhancement of the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although
the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and
private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service administers a
national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of these resources.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering a total of
more than 93 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s
largest collection of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these
lands, 77 million acres, lie in Alaska. The remaining 16 million acres are spread across the other 49
states and several island territories.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, is:
... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
mission of wildlife conservation for the national wildlife refuges. The Act states that the Service will
manage each refuge to:
• fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
• fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
• consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
• fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the
Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the direction
of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges.
The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, the Service is
preparing all refuge comprehensive conservation plans in conjunction with public involvement, and is
requiring each refuge to complete its own plan within a 15-year schedule.
Approximately 39.5 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 2003, mostly to
observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, the refuges generate
substantial economic benefits to the local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have
reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $809 million annually in sales and
$315 million in employment income to local economies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). In
addition, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation reports that
nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $108 billion on wildlife-related recreational pursuits in
2001 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 1998,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on the refuges nationwide, a service
valued at more than $20.6 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses the following principles:
• Wildlife comes first.
• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management.
• Refuges must be healthy.
• Growth of refuges must be strategic.
• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad
participation from others.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
A variety of international treaties, federal laws and regulations, Department and Service policies, and
presidential executive orders guides the administration of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
The documents and acts listed in Appendix III describe the refuge’s establishing authority, the
National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges).
NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the
development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop and
coordinate planning initiatives involving federal, state, and local agencies; local communities;
nongovernmental organizations; and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on
and off public lands.
The Service is initiating cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend in biological
diversity. Biological planning for species groups targeted in this plan reflects the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 brings
together international teams of biologists from private and governmental organizations from Canada
and the United States. The partnerships, called joint ventures, are working to restore waterfowl and
other migratory bird populations to the levels of the early 1970s by protecting about 6 million acres of
priority wetland habitats ranging from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian Arctic.
4 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan and Waterbirds for the Americas outline approaches
to conserving those species groups. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a high priority
of the Partners in Flight Plan. It also provides strategies for conserving and managing wintering,
breeding, and migration habitat for mid-continental wood duck and colonial bird populations.
The Partners in Flight Plan emphasizes landbird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the
priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified focal species for each habitat type from
which they will determine population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of
focal species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge.
The Southeast Waterbird Plan emphasizes waterbird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the priority
ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified focal species for each habitat type from which they
will determine population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of focal species,
objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge.
The Farm Bill programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture provide cost-share
funding and technical assistance to private landowners to install and manage conservation practices
on working farms and forests and restore cropland to natural habitats. The programs provide
opportunities for landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage their land better as
wildlife habitat or protect it with easements.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing a foundation for the protection and sustainability of
fish and wildlife throughout the United States.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is a state-partnering agency with the Service.
The Commission is charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered
species, as well as managing the state’s natural resources. It also manages approximately 1.8
million acres of game lands in North Carolina.
The Commission coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several game lands and from
several boat ramps located in Dare County. The Commission’s participation and contribution
throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable. It is continuing its
work with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to improve
the condition of fish and wildlife populations on the coastal plain of North Carolina. Not only has the
Commission participated in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field reviews as part of the
comprehensive planning process, it is also an active partner in the coordination, planning, and
execution of various wildlife and habitat surveys. The Commission also assists the refuge staff in
providing special wildlife observation opportunities. A key part of the comprehensive planning
process is the integration of common mission objectives between the Service and the Commission,
where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is located in mainland Dare and Hyde Counties, North
Carolina. The refuge is named for the Alligator River, which constitutes the refuge’s western
boundary. The Albemarle Sound forms the refuge’s northern boundary; Croatan and Pamlico
Sounds, the eastern boundary; and Hyde County, the southern boundary. The majority of the
refuge lies in Dare County. The village of Manns Harbor (2000 population 1,182) lies at the
eastern edge of the refuge, and the village of Engelhard (2000 population 1,561) lies just beyond
the refuge’s southeastern corner (Figure 1). The refuge covers approximately 152,260 acres and
lies at the eastern end of a broad, flat, and swampy peninsula in northeastern North Carolina.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES
HISTORY
The Fish and Wildlife Service established Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in March 1984 on
an 118,000-acre area that was donated by the Prudential Life Insurance Company.
There were no inhabitants within the refuge area until the late 1700s or early 1800s, when settlers
established a community called Beechlands near Milltail Creek. In 1885, three lumbermen from
Buffalo, New York, purchased 168,000 acres on the Dare County mainland to set up a timber industry
and camp at Buffalo City, near Milltail Creek. The land changed owners several times over the years
and the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company eventually obtained it. In 1974, McLean Industries
bought the land for a large farming experiment called First Colony Farms. The Prudential Life
Insurance Company formed a partnership with McLean Industries to form the Prulean Corporation. In
1984, Prudential Life Insurance Company obtained all the Prulean Corporation land, as well as some
of the First Colony Farms land.
Today, the refuge surrounds the 46,000-acre Dare County Bombing Range, used by the Navy and Air
Force for target practice with inert ordnance. The Air Force constructed the bombing range in 1965
on land leased from West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company and then First Colony Farms. In 1978,
First Colony Farms transferred the land to the Air Force. Within the range, the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission manages 41,200 acres as a game land.
PURPOSES
The purpose of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is to protect and conserve migratory birds and
other wildlife resources through the protection of wetlands, in accordance with the following:
...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources... 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)4 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f(b)1 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
6 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare and Hyde Counties,
North Carolina.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
...suitable for (1) incidental take of fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species… 16 U.S.C., Sec.
460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1952).
...the Secretary…may accept and use…real…property. Such acceptance may be
accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors…16
U.S.C., Sec. 460k-2; 16 U.S.C., Sec. 460k-460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1952).
...conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans 16 U.S.C., Sec. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966).
…for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits
they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird
treaties and conventions…16 U.S.C., Sec. 3901 (b) 100 Stat. 1583 (Emergency Wetland
Resources Act of 1986).
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has designated most of the refuge, with the exception
of cropland, moist soil areas, and the maintenance shop area, as a Significant Natural Heritage Area.
The Nature Conservancy ranks certain vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 1).
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has designated several water bodies in the vicinity of
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge as outstanding resource waters or high quality waters (Table 4).
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge lies within a physiographic area known as the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain (Figure 2). The South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 25 million-hectare (62 million-acre)
complex of forested wetlands and uplands, dunes, and marshes that extended from Florida to
North Carolina. Historically, the extent and duration of seasonal flooding along the ecosystem’s rivers
has fluctuated annually, recharging the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s aquatic systems and creating a
rich diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources.
The refuge is one of the ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those ten national
wildlife refuges—Alligator River, Pea Island, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, Mackay
Island, Mattamuskeet, Roanoke River, Pocosin Lakes, and Swanquarter in North Carolina, and the
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia—are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar,
Neuse, and Cape Fear Rivers. These four watersheds are designated as Ecosystem Unit # 34, the
Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear Ecosystem, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
8 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain
Physiographic Area.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Table 1. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge.
Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest S1 G1
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest S2 G2
Nonriverine Swamp Forest S2, S3 G2, G3
Low Pocosin S2 G3
S1 = Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S2 = Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S3 = Rare or uncommon in North Carolina.
G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence
the development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop
and coordinate planning initiatives involving regional, state, and local agencies; local
communities; nongovernmental organizations; and private citizens to help restore habitats for fish
and wildlife on and off public lands.
The Service is initiating cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend in biological
diversity. Biological planning for species groups targeted in this plan reflect the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the joint venture between the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Partners in Flight Plan,
and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative.
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focuses its work on the middle and upper Atlantic coast. Within the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is the joint venture formed between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Fish and Wildlife Service, and private conservation organizations.
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration habitat for migratory land birds returning
from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migration habitat for
midcontinental wood duck and colonial bird populations. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is
a high priority of the Partners in Flight Plan for the South Atlantic Physiographic Region.
The Partners in Flight Plan emphasizes land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the
priority ranking of species. Further, biologists from local offices of the Service, the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, and conservation organizations such as Audubon Society and The
Nature Conservancy have identified focal species for each habitat type from which they will determine
population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of focal species, objectives, and
conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge.
10 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
The Farm Bill programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture each have state-level
plans and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. The Service also uses these
programs to assist private landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage habitat for
wildlife or protect their land with easements.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has its own comprehensive wildlife conservation
strategy, known as the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan, to help direct the state’s allocation of funds
from the federally funded State Working Grants Program. The Service has provided input to the
development and execution of the strategy. The plan addresses resident as well as migratory species.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread
throughout the area. Scientists have estimated that land conversion has cleared 40 percent of the
natural vegetation. The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for
urban development and agriculture (Hunter et al. 2001).
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous negative effect on the biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of
the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The changes have reduced vast areas of forests, pocosins,
marshes, and coastal dunes to fragments ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional
value to a few large areas that have maintained many of the original functions and values of forested
habitat. Severe fragmentation has resulted in a substantial decline in biological diversity and
integrity. Species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, endangered,
or threatened include the extinct Carolina parakeet and passenger pigeon; endangered red wolf and
red-cockaded woodpecker; and threatened bald eagle, piping plover, and sea turtle. The Bachman’s
sparrow, black rail, and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat are federal species of concern. Table 2 provides
a complete list of the threatened and endangered animals in North Carolina.
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian
species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (dependent
on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; those that
depend on special habitat requirements such as mature forests or a particular food source; and those
that depend on good water quality. Habitat loss has also affected species dependent on coastal
marshes, exposed sandy areas on beaches and sandbars, and dune ecosystems.
More than 300 species of breeding migratory land birds occupy the region. Some of the inland
species, including the Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kite, wood thrush,
and cerulean warbler, have declined substantially and need the benefits of large forested blocks to
recover and sustain their existence. On the Lower Coastal Plain, land birds such as the seaside
sparrow, saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow, and Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow depend on declining
marsh habitat. Secretive marshbirds like the black rail and yellow rail require brackish marsh. The
piping plover, red knot, least tern, black skimmer, and American oystercatcher are shorebirds that
nest on the decreasing acreage of unvegetated sand along beaches and among coastal dunes.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests in the interior areas of the coastal plain has left many
of the remaining forested tracts surrounded by agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts
and reduces the functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also
result in a loss of gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel
corridors is particularly important for some wide-ranging species such as the black bear.
Habitat loss on the Lower Coastal Plain is more permanent than in the interior. Conversion of marshes for
commercial development is irreversible. Conversion of pocosins and nonriverine hardwood forests for
agriculture results in the oxidation of organic soils on which those plant communities evolved.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of wetlands, substantial alterations have occurred in the hydrology of
the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The changes are a result of channel dredging for navigation and access to
the marshes; drainage ditches; degradation of aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation,
contaminants, and urban development; managed stream flows from flood control and hydroelectric power
generation reservoirs; river channel modifications; flood control levees; and deforestation.
The region’s natural hydrology is directly responsible for the connectedness of wetlands and indirectly
responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on topography and soils.
Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to wetlands and
waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988).
Instead of natural hydrology, large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the
spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire South Atlantic Coastal Plain. In
addition, these alterations have modified both the extent and duration of annual seasonal as well as
daily flooding. The alteration of the annual flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the
interior forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species. Changes in daily flooding
regimes by drainage ditches and closing inlets through coastal barrier islands accelerates erosion on
ditch banks and throughout marshes and decreases the exposure of intertidal areas that would be
available with normal lunar tidal cycles. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993), restoration of
wetland functions is especially difficult because wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of
hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
The dredging of navigation channels also generates a spoil material that must be disposed. The
material is not always compatible for placement on the closest potential site, such as beaches where
the material must be a suitable substrate for invertebrate populations and shorebird and turtle
nesting.
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Deforestation and hydrologic alteration have degraded aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs
and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated accumulation of
sediments and contaminants in aquatic systems. Sediment now fills many water bodies, greatly reducing
their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point source runoff of excess nutrients and
contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic resources. The Service lists six species of
aquatic organisms as threatened and twelve species as endangered in North Carolina (Table 2).
12 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 2. Threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
Status Common Name Scientific Name
Endangered Manatee, West Indian** Trichechus manatus
Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill** Eretmochelys imbricata
Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley** Lepidochelys kempii
Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback** Dermochelys coriacea
Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana
Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum
Endangered Tern, Roseate** Sterna dougallii
Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus
Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae
Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis
Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis
Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon
Endangered Wolf, Red* Canis rufus
Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded* Picoides borealis
Threatened*** Alligator, American* Alligator mississippiensis
Threatened Eagle, Bald* Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Threatened Plover, Piping** Charadrius melodus
Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas
Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead** Caretta caretta
Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa
* Presence documented on Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
** Other species listed in Dare County, North Carolina
*** Listed by Similarity of Appearance
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created
sandbars, oxbow lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection,
conservation, and restoration of aquatic resources are of added importance in light of the alterations
associated with navigation and flood control.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and reduced water depths
resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for the establishment and
proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic
(nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening the viability of aquatic
systems. These invasive aquatic plants threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic
systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use. Common reed
(Phragmites australis) is the most dominant of these plants on the Outer Banks and the refuge, and
has a negative impact on the marshes in the area.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
The declines in the area of the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s bottomland hardwood forests and their
associated fish and wildlife resources have prompted the Service to designate this forest type as an
area of special concern. These areas are of particular concern as habitat for neotropical migratory
land birds that only breed in the interior of large forested areas. They also provide habitat for fish-eating
raptors that require forested habitat close to water. The forests protect the aquatic habitat for
interjurisdictional fish and other aquatic organisms. Much of the development has been for crop
production and these areas have potential for restoration, as crop prices do not justify the
maintenance of intensive drainage systems required to maintain production. Many government
habitat restoration programs focus on bottomland forests.
In the Lower Coastal Plain, the loss of marshes, pocosins, and nonriverine hardwood forest habitat
has not been as great in acreage or percentage of habitat lost, but there was originally much less of
these habitat types. Although wetland protection legislation regulates development in marshes, the
public desires to live and recreate in these areas and developers continue to destroy these areas.
Pocosins and nonriverine hardwood forests have been logged, cleared, and drained for crop
production. The fish and wildlife species associated with these habitats are in much greater jeopardy
than those associated with bottomland hardwood forests. The potential for restoring these habitats is
lower than it is for bottomland forests, since the habitat loss is due to the conversion of land to
residential, commercial, and agricultural developments. Conservationists must mitigate habitat loss
by intensive management of the habitat that remains with prescribed fire and water management.
A collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is now underway to
implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain. The goal is to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain and
possibly restore the biological diversity in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Through cooperative
efforts, apportioning resources, and the focusing of available programs, conservationists can improve
the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s biological diversity.
14 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Conservationists have initiated several coordinated efforts to set priorities and establish focus areas
to overcome the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. Conservation
organizations and agencies established a cooperative private-state-federal partnership, known as the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture in 1988 to help provide
sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
The initial Atlantic Coast Joint Venture effort for waterfowl has expanded to also establish breeding
bird objectives for shorebirds and neotropical migratory birds. Partners in Flight has developed bird
conservation plans to focus a number of private, state, and federal restoration programs into specific
areas in an effort to provide maximum program benefits for neotropical migratory birds.
One of the biggest challenges to the management and restoration efforts underway in the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain, and one that affects refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term
management objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs. These needs include those
of wintering migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, large mammals, and other
wide-ranging species. Often, management for one species or species group conflicts with the
management objectives for another species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term
priorities that frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources
shift. Biologists must exercise caution to prevent the start-up of management and restoration actions
that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive management needs of the
ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An example might be a tendency to totally
manage Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in an effort to provide habitat for many species of
waterfowl that require a managed herbaceous wetland. Such an approach may overlook the critical
habitat needs of neotropical migratory land birds that prefer a shrubby habitat.
Active management of wetlands, moist soil areas, and croplands on both public and private land is
necessary to meet the habitat goals of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (Reinecke and Baxter 1996).
The management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration) compensates for the
spatial and temporal habitat changes that deforestation and hydrologic alterations have caused
throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Appropriately managed, Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge will make a substantial contribution to meeting the objectives of the Atlantic Coast Joint
Venture. Setting habitat and species objectives from the perspective of the South Atlantic Coastal
Plain is advantageous because it looks at the big picture and enables managers to plan and provide
habitat for a diversity of species throughout their range.
CHALLENGES
In order for Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge to meet its multiple objectives of national, regional,
and local scope—ranging from moist soil unit and marsh management to providing for public use—
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must fund and staff it above current levels. Securing adequate
funding and personnel and then successfully addressing historical habitat alterations and hydrological
functions are the refuge’s biggest challenges. In the interim, as the needed funding and personnel
become available, the refuge must concentrate on its highest priorities without committing irreversible
actions that would preclude future implementation of the desired management programs.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The habitat at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge has resulted largely from wetland community
development following the Wisconsin Ice Age about 15,000 years ago. The lower sea level during this
time period resulted in large, fast-flowing river systems cutting through the coastal plain terrace. As ice
caps began melting, the sea level rose; and it is believed that the river flows slowed, depositing organic
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
and silt sediments in the areas between streams. As the shallow water areas developed, aquatic
vegetation invaded, thereby increasing organic deposition. With a warming trend at the end of the Ice
Age, boreal forests began to be gradually replaced with swamps, bogs, marshes, and pocosin habitats.
Logging and land clearing activities over the last 300 years have greatly altered all habitat types.
CLIMATE
Because the flow of air over North Carolina is predominantly from west to east, the continental
influence is much greater than the ocean or marine influence. Therefore, the refuge experiences a
fairly large variation in temperature from winter to summer.
The Gulf Stream current flows only a short distance off the North Carolina coast. One might think this
"river" of warm water would have a profound effect on the climate, which is true to a degree.
Temperatures on the coast are typically warmer in winter months and cooler during summer months
than mainland Dare County due to the temperature of the surrounding waters.
Lows sometimes reform along the coast as "Cape Hatteras lows" and then move north along the
coast. Winter's low-pressure storms are usually more intense because of the large north-to-south
contrasts. Winter storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the
winter precipitation. The forms of precipitation in spring begin to change from these steady rains to
occasional thunderstorms. The Gulf of Mexico's warm, moist air produces warm, humid weather
throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn, North Carolina's
driest season, is to many people the most pleasant with its many clear, warm days and cool nights
with little rain. This weather usually lasts until November. The winter is cool and has brief occasional
cold spells. Snowfall is not common.
The average annual precipitation is 56.99 inches. Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year:
the average monthly rainfall ranges from 3.43 inches in April to 5.98 inches in August. The average
seasonal snowfall is about 1.9 inches. The record snowfall was 8.2 inches at Hatteras in December
1989. Twelve inches of snow fell on the Outer Banks on January 23, 2003. Twenty-five inches is the
record at Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
Of the total annual precipitation, about 27 inches usually falls in May through September. The
growing season for most crops falls within this period. Thunderstorms occur on about 43 days each
year. Every few years, a hurricane or tropical storm crosses the county, bringing one to three days of
intensive rainfall.
The average relative humidity in midafternoon is about 65 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and
the average at dawn is about 80 percent. The sun shines on 55 percent of the winter days. The
prevailing wind is from the southwest. Average wind speed is highest, 13 miles per hour, in spring.
The average daily maximum temperature at the Cape Hatteras weather station from 1971–2000 was
69.9 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average daily minimum is 55.6 degrees.
In January the average temperature is 46.1 degrees, the average daily maximum is 53.6 degrees,
and the average daily minimum is 38.63 degrees. The lowest temperature on record, which occurred
at Cape Hatteras on January 21, 1985, is 6 degrees. In July the average temperature is 79.2
degrees, the average daily maximum is 85.4 degrees, and the average daily minimum is 72.9
degrees. The highest recorded temperature, which occurred on July 10, 1992, is 96 degrees. The
average last freezing temperature in spring is March 16. The average first freezing temperature in
the fall is December 7. The average growing season is 265 days.
16 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge is the product of wetland community development following
the Wisconsin Ice Age 15,000 years ago. Prior to this Ice Age, the level of the Atlantic Ocean in the
Southeast was higher than it is presently. During the Wisconsin Ice Age, the sea level dropped to its
current level and exposed large areas of the continental shelf. As a result, fast-flowing rivers cut
through the coastal plain terrace to the Atlantic Ocean. During the next several thousand years, as
the ice receded, the sea levels gradually rose. During this period, it is believed the river flows were
slowed and organic sediment loads were deposited in the interstream areas as flowing systems
shifted to slow-moving streams (Daniel 1981). Aquatic plants began to grow in these shallow bodies
of water, adding to the accumulation of sediment and aquatic debris. Simultaneous with this buildup
of organic sediments, a climatic warming trend accompanied the end of the Ice Age (Whitehead
1972). This warming trend helped to eliminate the cooler climate boreal forests and replace them
with swamps, bogs, marshes, and pocosin habitats.
The refuge lies in the Pamlico Terrace, an extensive, low, flat plain lying east of the Suffolk Scarp, a
prehistoric Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The terrace slopes from 10 to 16 foot elevations at the base of
the scarp gently eastward to 1 to 2 feet at the end of the land peninsulas. The Suffolk Scarp
separates the Pamlico Terrace of the main estuarine region from the higher Inland Coastal Plain
around the westernmost segment of the Albemarle Sound system.
Streams in this area have relatively small sediment loading. Suspended sediments are mixed with
organic sediments from swamp forests and marshes. This mixture of sediments produces the
dominant bottom sediment of the area’s sounds. This sediment contains up to 15% organic matter
(Griese et al. 1979) and is deposited within the standing waters of the estuaries.
Brown to black, organic-rich muds predominate in the surrounding sounds, but grade laterally into a thin
apron of fine sand in the shallow waters around the perimeter of the estuaries. The sand apron usually
occurs landward of the main break in the bottom slope at a depth of about 3 feet, and extends to the
shoreline. The sediments in front of the marshes generally have little sand. They are characterized by
high organic contents and contain peat blocks, logs, and stumps (Copeland et al. 1982).
MINERALS
Sand is the only mineral resource occurring in economic quantities. There are several sand pits in
the vicinity of the refuge.
SOILS
The soil types identified on the refuge are Pungo muck*, Belhaven muck*, Scuppernong muck*,
Ponzer muck*, Dorovan muck*, Hobonny muck*, Pettigrew muck*, Longshoal muck*, Currituck
mucky peat*, Hyde loam*, Cape Fear loam*, Udorthents (sands), Acredale fine sand*, Ousley fine
sand, and Baymeade fine sand (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1992) (Table 3). Soils with an
asterisk are listed as hydric in Hydric Soils of the United States (USDA Soil Conservation Service
1985) (Figure 3). Hydric soils are "…soils that in their undrained condition are saturated, flooded or
ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the
growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation" (USDA Soil Conservation Service
1985). These soils have seasonally high water tables within a foot of the surface of the soil.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 3. Soils of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
18 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Pocosin wetlands are characterized by deep organic soils known as mucks or peats. The depth of
organic soil depth over mineral soil, though not evident at the surface, has a tremendous influence on
the potential uses of the land. Typically, the deeper the muck surface layer, the shorter the
vegetation in the native plant community growing on the soil. The dominant species in the plant
communities are dense shrubs tolerant of the wet, acidic soils. Tall trees are unable to establish their
deep root systems on the deep organic soils. Wind easily topples trees that do grow on the deep
organic soils. Over the years, evolution has selected trees that are shorter. Formation of peat is an
ongoing process in areas sufficiently wet to prevent oxidation of organic matter deposited by plants.
Soils with more than 51 inches of muck over mineral soil identified in the refuge are Pungo (62,068
acres, 41% of the land); Hobonny (5,473 acres, 3.6%); Dorovan (561 acres, 0.3%); and Longshoal
(766 acres, 0.5%). The following soils have surface layers of 16 to 51 inches of muck: Belhaven
(48,135 acres, 31.6%); Currituck (3,845 acres, 2.5%); Scuppernong (2,748 acres, 1.8%); and Ponzer
(7,065 acres, 4.6%). These eight soils make up 86% of the total land area of the refuge. They are
excessively wet, characterized by layers of peat over mineral soil, and are mostly unsuitable for
agriculture (Skaggs et al. 1980; Lilly 1981). Forest productivity is lower on these soils, compared to
mineral soils with less than 16 inches of organic soil. With appropriate drainage and bedding,
productivity can be increased. However, the refuge would not likely engage extensively in such
practices on these deep organic soils, owing to the accelerated oxidation of peat and release of
nitrogen and mercury—a negative impact on water quality.
Roper soil (5,487 acres, 3.6%) has less than 16 inches of muck over mineral soil. The native vegetation
on these soils is typical of that on mineral soils and the productivity of the soils is similar to mineral soils.
When drained, these soils are among the most productive agricultural soils in the area. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service classifies Roper and Ponzer as prime farmland soils.
Mineral soils make up 14,895 acres (9.7%) of the land area of the refuge. The soil with the largest
area is Hyde (13,132 acres mostly in the north-central part of the refuge, 8.6% of land area), followed
by Cape Fear (1,661); Udorthents (58); Ousley (19); Acredale (17); and Baymeade (8). Most mineral
soils are more productive than organic soils for crops as well as forest trees. Most soils on the refuge
are poorly drained and would grow loblolly pine, baldcypress, Atlantic white cedar, or pond pine, and
those underlain by clayey subsoil would be good for bottomland hardwoods such as water oak, willow
oak, and swamp white oak. The Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies Hyde, Cape
Fear, and Baymeade as prime farmland soils.
The Udorthents and the Baymeade and Ousley soils are well drained to droughty and are more suitable
for native tree species such as longleaf pine, loblolly pine, and upland oak species such as white oak and
red oak. Udorthents are the dredge spoils from the Intracoastal Waterway and are extremely droughty.
The volume of peat on the Albemarle peninsula is probably less than half the original amount owing
to the effects of drainage, agriculture, and fire (Lilly 1995). There are descriptions of subsidence
greater or equal to 3 feet as a consequence of drainage and agriculture (Ruffin 1861; Dolman and
Buol 1967; Lilly 1981; Roberts and Cruikshank 1941; Whitehead and Oaks 1979). In general,
drainage of organic soils results in the loss of at least one-third of the peat (Farnham and Finney
1965), and sometime much greater (Dolman and Buol 1967; Lilly 1981). Some of the initial loss in
volume is due to mechanical shrinkage (Dolman and Buol 1967; Skaggs et al. 1980). In addition,
drainage makes pocosins drier, increasing the frequency and severity of fires. Last, drainage causes
peat to oxidize rather than accumulate. If subjected to drainage, fire, and tillage over a long enough
period of time, all blackland soils will become mineral soils (Lilly 1981).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Table 3. Characteristics of soils of Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
Series Approximate
Acreage Surface Texture Muck
Depth
Water Table
Depth
Flooding
Frequency
Dorovan 584.8 Muck 90” 0-1’ Frequent
Hobonny 5,761.4 Muck 90” 0-1’ Frequent
Longshoal 823.2 Mucky Peat 72” 0-0.5’ Frequent
Pungo 73,358.1 Muck 65” 0-1’ Rare
Belhaven 31,837.0 Muck 45” 0-1’ Rare
Currituck 3,979.8 Mucky Peat 40” 0-1’ Frequent
Scuppernong 2,784.3 Muck 33” 0-1’ Rare
Ponzer 10,741.0 Muck 30” 0-1’ Rare
Roper 5,715.1 Muck 10” 0-1’ Rare
Hyde 13,425.8 Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Cape Fear 1,641.2 Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Udorthents 10.8 Sand None >6’ Rare
Acredale 17.0 Silt Loamy None 0-1’ Rare
Ousley 19.9 Fine Sand None 1.5-3’ Common
Baymeade 8.4 Fine Sand None 4-5’ Very Rare
Beaches 0.4 Fine Sand None 0-1’ Storm Tidal
Fripp 0.4 Fine Sand None >6’ Very Rare
Icaria 1.5 Loamy Fine Sand None 0-1’ Rare
Johns 0.2 Loamy Sand None 1.5-3’ Very Rare
Leon 0.3 Fine Sand None 0-1’ Rare
Total Land 150,710.7
Water 2,306.7
Total 153,017.4
HYDROLOGY
Groundwater provides the freshwater resources for the area. Studies have shown that the
groundwater reservoir consists of two types of aquifers: a water table aquifer that extends from the
land surface to the first confining beds of silt and clay, and a confined or semi-confined aquifer
beneath and between the silt and clay beds. The water table aquifer ranges in thickness from 10 to
50 feet and averages 15 feet. The water table itself averages three feet above mean sea level.
20 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Maintenance of the fresh groundwater depends on the amount of rainfall. Due to the sandy nature of
the soils, rainfall enters the water table aquifer with little or no surface runoff. However, when the
ground becomes saturated during periods of intensive rainfall, some runoff occurs in roadside ditches
and small intermittent freshwater ponds.
The deeper confined aquifers are as much as 30 feet thick and are below the first confining beds
whose thickness ranges from 5 to 20 feet. Exact thicknesses are difficult to determine due to the
gradational nature of sediments below the water table aquifer.
The fresh groundwater is best described as a lens-shaped mass floating on top of denser saltwater.
The amount of freshwater in this lens varies depending on the amount of recharge and discharge.
Between the freshwater and saltwater a zone of brackish water occurs. This zone periodically
changes due to flooding, tidal movement, and rainfall.
WATER QUALITY
There are three National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitted sites that discharge into
waters adjacent to the refuge. One is a marine maintenance facility and two are domestic water
supply treatment plants.
The state’s list of impaired waters includes Roanoke Sound, Croatan Sound, and Pamlico Sound due
to fecal coliform. Technical conditions do not exist to develop total maximum daily loads for the water
bodies. Total maximum daily loads are required for Spencer Creek, Callaghan Creek, and Stumpy
Point Bay, which are also impaired due to fecal coliform.
The state has classified the water bodies and streams according to their water quality and the uses
that quality supports. The classifications for the waters surrounding the Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge are listed in Table 4. It should be noted that all comments and evaluations about
water quality refer to human health and development potential. Ecologically speaking, the water
quality on the refuge is okay.
AIR QUALITY
The area closest to the refuge that an environmental agency monitors is the Virginia Beach-Norfolk,
Virginia, metropolitan area. The Environmental Protection Agency monitors carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide and particulates in Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport
News, Suffolk, and Chesapeake. Despite the large population with the industry, traffic, and power
plants, the area has exceeded only ozone level standards in 2002. Monitoring has indicated
unhealthy levels only twice and unhealthy levels for sensitive groups only thirteen times. The air
quality is due to the breezes blowing through the area from the ocean.
Prescribed burning on the refuge has the potential to have an impact on air quality. The State of
North Carolina specifies that prescribed fires purposely set to marshes for marsh management
practices acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the Environmental Management
Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and regulations of governmental entities
having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses certain potential
liabilities of burning even though permissible.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Table 4. Classifications of water bodies around the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
Water Body or
Stream
Classification Best Uses
Swan Creek
Swan Creek Lake
Whipping Creek
Whipping Creek Lake
Sandy Ridge Gut
Sawyer Lake
C– Low Quality Freshwater*
Sw – Low Velocity Water
ORW – Outstanding
Resource Water
Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)
Billy’s Ditch C– Low Quality Freshwater*
Sw – Low Velocity Water
Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)
Pamlico Sound
Croatan Sound
Spencer Creek
Callaghan Creek
Stumpy Point Bay
Back Lake
Long Shoal River
Deep Creek
Muddy Creek
Clark Creek
Pains Bay
Parched Corn Bay
Sandy Bay
SA – Highest Quality
Saltwater
HQW – High Quality Water
Commercial Shellfishing and All Other Tidal
Saltwater Uses
Albemarle Sound SB – Moderate Quality
Saltwater
Primary Recreation (Including Swimming)
Alligator River
Milltail Creek
Boat Bay
SC– Low Quality Saltwater*
Sw – Low Velocity Water
ORW – Outstanding
Resource Water
Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)
East Lake
The Frying Pan
South Lake
Northeast Prong of
East Lake
Liehue Gut
Hooker Gut
Deer Creek
Deep Bay
Broad Creek
SC– Low Quality Saltwater*
Sw – Low Velocity Water
Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)
Tom Mann Creek
Gar Gut
Davis Pond
Spence Creek
Poster Gut
SC– Low Quality Saltwater* Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)
* These evaluations describe water quality for human consumption and development potential.
22 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
VISUAL RESOURCES
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge offers a great variety of habitats and wildlife species; however,
some effort on the part of the observer is often required in order to see and appreciate the offerings. In
2004, Sawyer Lake Road was opened for year-round access to facilitate wildlife and habitat viewing in the
south Twiford Farming Unit area. There certainly exists a grand opportunity for visitors to see and
experience habitats and wildlife not available in other places, but the “seeing and experiences” are not
necessarily easy to do. From the shorelines of Pamlico, Albemarle, and Croatan sounds and the Alligator
River, visitors can watch sunrises, sunsets, forest silhouettes, and other scenic vistas. One of the most
popular and first sights seen by refuge visitors is the view from the top of the bridge over the Alligator
River. For many, this is the first introduction to pocosin habitat.
Numerous trails and roadways, some with interpretive signage; many fishing areas; and opportunities for
canoeing and kayaking into dense and unique habitats all make this largely wild refuge a popular spot.
The Buffalo City area of the refuge, once a company town, offers historical and biological interpretive
opportunities. The Wildlife Drive, beginning at the Creef Cut Trailhead, offers scenic vistas of wildlife
management areas and good, close-up examples of the unique “pocosin.” Sawyer Lake Road also
provides wildlife viewing opportunities.
U.S. Highway 64, as it passes through Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, is designated a North
Carolina Scenic Byway and motorists in the area frequently hope to spot black bear and the far more
elusive American alligator, red-cockaded woodpecker, and red wolf. The Charles Kuralt Trail also
highlights the refuge.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Human development activities have affected the refuge’s plant communities over time. Some of these
activities occurred before the Service established the refuge, and some have occurred since. Most
notable today are the road/canal systems, public highways, farmland, and the refuge maintenance/
support facilities. However, the refuge’s vast expanse of undisturbed swamp forest and wetlands contain
many important wildlife and ecological resources. Because clear-cutting, peat mining, and agricultural
conversion have developed much of the Pamlico peninsula, this area remains one of the most remote
and diverse swamps in eastern North Carolina. The refuge’s principal natural communities include broad
expanses of nonriverine swamp forests, pocosins, and freshwater and salt marshes. Its isolation and
undisturbed quality add to the value of its rich wildlife habitats. The Alligator River area is part of the
northern border of the American alligator's range and remains as a stronghold for the black bear in North
Carolina and the mid-Atlantic coast. The refuge also provides habitat for the endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker, and bald eagles, and is the site for reintroduction of the red wolf. More recently, prescribed
fire has altered plant communities and successional stages on part of the refuge. The plant community
descriptions in this document are not intended as complete species lists.
There are twelve habitat types/land uses found on the refuge (Figure 4 and Table 5). Except for the
cropland, these cover types, for the most part, are classified as wetlands based upon vegetation,
degree of soil saturation, and hydroperiod. All cropland is classified as prior converted wetland.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
24 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 5. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge.
Habitat Type Approximate
Acreages
Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin 50,012.5
Pond Pine/Cane Pocosin 4,260.5
Brackish Marsh 11,889.1
Low Shrub Pocosin 4194.5
Non-Alluvial Hardwood Forest 1,800.0
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest* 21,377.4
Atlantic White Cedar Forest 6,700.3
High Shrub Pocosin 14,127.4
Cropland 3,468.5
Managed Wetlands 1,001.2
Cypress-Gum Forest 7,488.0
Freshwater Pools, Ponds, & Creeks 2306.7
Administrative 1,580.5
Bay Forest 1,345.2
Shrub/Marsh Transition 6,960.0
Mixed Hardwood Swamp** 11,503.8
Loblolly Pine Forest 3,001.5
Total Acres 153,017.4
* Includes Mixed Forest.
** Cypress nor Black Gum a component of this habitat type.
Freshwater Lakes, Ponds, and Pools
Except for vernal pools, this “open water” habitat type is found in association with the peninsular
drainage areas. These areas are Spencer Creek, Callaghan Creek, Long Shoal River, Milltail Creek,
Whipping Creek, and Swan Creek. Milltail Creek Lake, Whipping Creek Lake, and Swan Creek Lake
are enlarged portions of the creek channels. Laurel Bay Lake drains into Alligator River, Sawyer
Lake drains into Milltail Creek, and Lost Lake drains into Swan Creek. Tidal streams such as Peter
Mashoes Creek flowing into the Albemarle Sound and Deep Creek flowing into the Pamlico Sound
are not typical of the other refuge drainage systems. East Lake and South Lake are estuarine bays
off of Albemarle Sound. Numerous man-made canals also dissect the refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
These aquatic systems can be best described as low-energy, sluggish systems with flows largely
dependent upon wind tides in surrounding water bodies. Stream and lake systems are relatively deep (4–
20 feet) and have vertical banks that are sometimes hollow underneath. There is a profound absence of
shallow water within these systems. The bottom substrate consists of a liquefied organic muck varying
from 2 to 4 feet deep. Water quality is usually poor, with low dissolved oxygen and a pH ranging from 3.5
to 5.5. The water is darkly stained due to tannins from organic soils and vegetation with low turbidity.
Brackish Marsh
The Brackish Marsh community is found along the margins of sounds and estuaries in areas not
subjected to regular flooding by salt water. Often referred to as "high marsh," this community is
subjected to irregular flooding mostly from wind tides along the Outer Banks. Salinity in the brackish
marsh is generally low due to distance from a saltwater source and freshwater inflow, but can be 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. Vegetation in the brackish marsh community
is strongly dominated by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), but patches of saltmeadow grass
(Spartina patens) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) can be found. In some areas patches of giant
cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) and reed (Phragmites australis) occur and can be extensive in a
few areas. Sawgrass (Cladium jamaiciense) is the dominant species in large tracts of marsh on the
north side of the refuge and can be found throughout. One may also find cattails, wax myrtle,
bulrush, sedges, and spikerushes. As salinity increases, this community can grade into salt marsh; if
salinity decreases, it grades into freshwater marsh. The largest acreage of brackish marsh on the
refuge occurs primarily along the eastern boundary adjacent to Croatan Sound. This irregularly
flooded marsh is also present along Callaghan and Spencer creeks and is associated with the mouth
of almost every creek emptying into East and South lakes.
Freshwater marsh occurs along fringes of rivers and streams, as patches in lakes, and as isolated
pockets in disturbed areas. Panic grasses, arrow arum, blue flag, water lily, cattail, and sawgrass are
predominant in this marsh type. Also present are duck weed, giant duck weed, water meal, cow-lilly,
bladderworts, lotus, duck potato, sweet flag, pickerel weed, mock bishops weed, sedges, rushes,
water willow, and marsh pennywort (Noffsinger et al. 1984).
Flood-killed Land
This cover type shares characteristics of marsh. At one time this was forested land, but years of
storm tides, wind tides, hurricanes, and other salinity-increasing episodes have gradually killed most
of the woody species. In some areas, pumping for agricultural drainage altered hydroperiods to the
point that some woody species no longer survive.
Cropland
Description of Croplands. The acquisition of the 10,000-acre Prulean Farms inholding, including
approximately 5,100 acres of cropland, in March 1988 gave the refuge even greater habitat
diversity. This tract provided a large, functional farming area that has considerable potential for
waterfowl management through the creation of moist soil units in agricultural land and cultivated
fields with the assistance of cooperative farmers. Furthermore, the purchase and resulting
development of waterfowl management units meets a goal established in the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan for the Atlantic Flyway. Prulean Farms developed the cropland from
forested wetlands by encircling it with dikes and constructing drainage ditches. Five pumps at
two stations drain the area. Each pump is capable of removing 250,000 gallons of water per
minute from the farm fields. Pumping is required to keep the area dry enough to farm.
26 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Geographic Divisions of Croplands. Cropland at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge was
developed from hardwood swamp and pocosin habitat and does not exhibit readily apparent
geographic variation. However, the area is divided into units because of distances between units and
for reference purposes.
The Laurel Bay Unit is on the west side of the refuge and consists of approximately 1085 acres of
tillable land. The North Twiford Unit lies in the north/central section of the refuge north of Twiford
Road and has approximately 684 acres of tillable land. The South Twiford Unit is on the south side of
Twiford Road and has about 660 acres of tillable land. The Creef Unit lies on the east side of the
agricultural area and has approximately 2044 acres of tillable land. The remaining acreage is in
wooded blocks and forested buffer strips that were required as "mitigative" conditions during the land-clearing
phase while there was an active permit application.
Soil Types of Croplands. Much of the land area that was cleared and drained for agricultural purposes
would have been classified as pocosin even though some areas had undergone succession into
hardwood swamp and white cedar swamp. Soils of pocosins vary from dark surfaced mineral soils
(usually called ultisols or entisols) to deep organic soils called histosols. Histosols with a high fiber
content and extending to depths of 24 inches or greater are called peat. Peat is formed when leaves,
sticks, other vegetable matter become submerged in water and decompose slowly. In an unaltered
condition, pocosin soils develop over thousands of years and drain poorly. Mineral soils in pocosins, often
buried by organic soils, were deposited largely as recent marine sediments and vary from sand to clay.
Considerable variation in mineral soils can occur over relatively short distances in pocosins.
Typically, pocosin soils exhibit pH ranges of 3.0 to 4.0. Low pH and poor aeration cause reduction
conditions (as opposed to oxidation), resulting in lower availability of nitrogen and phosphorous. As
peat depth increases, nutrient availability decreases.
Soil types in the Laurel Bay Unit include Hyde loam, Pungo muck, and Belhaven muck. The North
Twiford and South Twiford units have Hyde loam, Roper muck, and Belhaven muck. The Creef Unit
has Hyde loam, Roper muck, Belhaven muck, Ponzer muck, and Cape Fear loam. All of these series
are considered to be very poorly drained soils; the mucks have an organic surface. Slopes range
from 0 to 2 percent.
Of these soil types, Hyde loam and Roper muck are considered prime farmland if properly drained. In the
undrained state none are ideally suited for farming because of wetness, the possibility of flooding, and for
some types, the presence of woody material such as logs, stumps, and roots in the soil. The texture of
the marine sediments that were the origin of the soils and estimated crop yields are in Table 6.
Although percentages have not been determined, visual observation of the Dare County soil survey
maps clearly show that Hyde loam and Roper muck are the dominant soil types.
Cropland Management Objectives. The primary purpose of the refuge’s agricultural program is to
provide food and habitat for wintering waterfowl, including ducks, Canada geese, tundra swans, and
many other wildlife species. Agricultural practices provide large, open areas with extensive amounts
of food for migratory and resident wildlife. Priority is given to migratory waterfowl, endangered
species, neotropical migratory birds, and resident game birds. Small nongame mammals provide a
food base for predators. Mammalian game species such as the cottontail rabbit, white-tailed deer,
and black bear thrive around the agricultural fields. A pack of red wolves has used this area as the
center of its home range since release in 1987.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Table 6. Texture of soil and marine origin sediments and estimated crop yields for soils on
the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
Soil
Series
Surface
Texture
Texture of Marine
Sediments Origin
Estimated
Corn Yield
Estimated Soybean Yield
Hyde Loam Loamy 150 45
Roper Muck Loamy 160 45
Cape Fear Loam Loamy, Clayey 140 45
Belhaven Muck Loamy 125 40
Ponzer Muck Loamy 130 40
Pungo Muck Loamy, Clayey 100 25
Other objectives include providing research opportunities for wildlife frequently using farmland and
demonstrating benefits to wildlife from alternative farming practices. Also, the farming program
results in grain availability for trapping and banding activities, reduces soil erosion while maintaining
soil fertility, and prevents encroachment of undesirable vegetation. These objectives have been and
will continue to be achieved through the refuge’s cooperative farmers, because this is the most
economical and efficient approach.
Managed Wetlands (Moist Soil Management Units)
To date, approximately 1,900 acres of cropland have been placed under a moist soil management
regime. Moist soil management units were located in those areas where farming was most difficult
because of woody debris, deep organic soils, wetness, or combinations of these factors.
Water management in the moist soil units is done to promote optimum growth conditions for
vegetation adapted to growing in a moist environment that produces good waterfowl food. This
entails a slow drawdown from late January through early March. A slow drawdown is necessary to
avoid flushing nutrients and coliform bacteria from the farm fields. Each unit is dried out during the
spring and early summer so that treatments such as burning, disking, and planting can be done as
needed. Approximately 100–150 acres of millet or milo are planted on a rotational basis. Once the
treatments are complete, moist soil conditions are maintained during the remainder of the summer.
In early fall, the fields in each unit are gradually flooded. A sample water management plan is
included in Appendix II. Management activities within these management units hinge upon
assistance from cooperative farmers through their lease agreements.
Cypress-Gum Forest
This cover type is found primarily in the western half of the refuge. Although much of this habitat is
riparian, there is no readily apparent river levee system associated with these systems. Cypress-gum
forests also occur as wet flats in nonalluvial settings. Dominant tree species are bald cypress, black gum,
red maple, and red bay. Other tree species may include Carolina water ash and green ash. An
occasional loblolly or pond pine may be found scattered throughout. The average canopy height of these
trees varies depending upon hydroperiod and past logging practices but can be 100–120 feet. Large
trees suitable for denning by many wildlife species, including the black bear, may be found throughout this
28 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
forest type. These den trees add a very important component to the overall habitat. Red bay, greenbrier,
titi, and fetterbush make up the shrub layer. Very little if any herbaceous vegetation is present.
Atlantic White Cedar Forest
The white cedar forest habitat type usually exists in a landscape mosaic interspersed with pond pine
pocosin, cypress-gum, and nonalluvial hardwood communities. The habitat type typically occurs as a
relatively even-aged stand, often with a dense canopy and low plant species diversity. White cedar is
predominant although black gum is an important coexisting species. An occasional pond pine or bald
cypress may be present. Conversely, an occasional white cedar may be found in other habitat types.
Average tree height in this area is about 60 feet. The shrub layer in these areas is dominated by
sweet gallberry, fetterbush, and greenbrier. Virginia or netted chain-fern is usually the only
herbaceous plant present in substantial amounts.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Hardwood/mixed pine is found in scattered areas throughout the refuge. Red maple, red bay, and black
gum are dominant hardwood trees with an average height of 50 to 60 feet. Pond pine and loblolly pine
are the pine species present. Dominant shrubs are fetterbush, bitter gallberry, and sweet bay. Little or no
herbaceous vegetation is present (Noffsinger et. al 1984). Cane may be found in some locations.
Nonalluvial (Nonriverine) Hardwood Forest
This habitat type occurs on poorly drained loamy or clayey mineral soils (mostly Hyde loam and Cape
Fear loam) found primarily in the flats of the refuge between streams. These areas occur mostly on
the margins of peatlands, grading into cypress-gum, Atlantic white cedar, or pond pine pocosin
habitat types. Various hardwood trees typical of bottomland hardwoods dominate this forest. Over
time, these forests on mineral soils have been most productive from a development perspective, as
much of the total acreage has been targeted for residential development, conversion to pine
plantation, or conversion to agriculture. A long history of poor logging practices has further degraded
this habitat type. However, remaining areas in a more natural state are dominated by a tree canopy
of water oak, laurel oak, cherrybark oak, swamp chestnut oak, overcup oak, white oak, black gum,
sweetgum, red maple, green ash, and loblolly pine. Tulip poplar, persimmon, shagbark hickory, and
serviceberry may also be found. Dominant understory vegetation includes American holly, deciduous
holly, blueberry, sweet pepperbush, sweet and bitter gallberry, and fetterbush. The ground layer may
have cane, netted and Virginia chain fern, royal fern, ebony spleenwort, and partridgeberry. Common
woody vines are greenbrier, grape, poison ivy, Virginia creeper, and cross vine.
Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin
Pocosin – General. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge exhibits typical pocosin vegetation, which
is a dense growth of shrubs sometimes associated with trees. The most common shrubs are titi,
honey cup, fetterbush, bitter gallberry, and sweet gallberry growing with green brier. Shrubs and
vines often grow so densely that walking through them is almost impossible. Some shrubs that
inhabit the refuge are evergreen, but the two most important deciduous species are titi and honeycup.
Dominant trees are usually pond pines with some loblolly bays, red bays, and sweet bays. Because
of various factors, trees and shrubs change in height, density and relative species composition from
one area to another throughout the refuge. In some areas, shrubs are fairly short (two to three feet)
and the only trees are a few scattered pond pines that are crooked and very stunted. These shrub-dominated
areas are commonly referred to as short or low pocosin. Short or low pocosin is usually
found over deeper peat deposits (McDonald et al. 1983). In other places on the refuge both trees
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
and shrubs are much taller and denser. Forested areas are sometimes called tall or high pocosin. In
this plan, the pocosin community is differentiated as Low Shrub Pocosin, High Shrub Pocosin, Pond
Pine/Shrub Pocosin, and Pond Pine/Cane Pocosin.
Very few species are able to adapt to nutrient-poor, acidic, organic soils, and long hydroperiod of
pocosin habitat. The diversity present is attributed to the fact that openings in the vegetation remain
which permit establishment of such herbaceous species as sphagnum, Virginia chain-fern, sedges,
trumpets, red pitcher plant, sundews, cotton grass, beakrush, bladderwort, yellow-eyed grass,
hatpins, and broom sedge. These open areas may also have shrubs like lambkill, leatherleaf, and
huckleberry that are less common in denser areas (Ash et al. 1983).
Low Shrub Pocosin. The low shrub pocosin community is associated with the deeper organic soils
that occur primarily in the southeastern portion of the refuge. The shrub layer is the dominant feature
of this community and generally attains a canopy height of two to six feet. Bitter gallberry, fetterbush,
titi, and honey cup dominate this shrub layer with Virginia chain-fern being the most abundant
herbaceous plant (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Openings may occur and are usually dominated by
sedges, pitcher plants, cranberry, and broom sedge. These areas are further characterized by long
hydroperiods with widely spaced, stunted pond pines with heights of mature trees ranging from about
six to twenty feet. These communities closely approximate a “quaking bog” as the ground actually
moves in a vertical plane as you walk across it. False low shrub pocosin can be distinguished from
true low shrub pocosin by the presence of tree residue and depth of the peat.
High Shrub Pocosin. The high shrub pocosin community is associated with deep to intermediate
organic soils, primarily in a transitional zone between low shrub pocosin and the pond pine pocosin.
The shrub layer remains as the dominant feature of this community. However shrubs tend to be taller
(ten to fifteen feet) and trees, mostly pond pine, may grow up to thirty to forty feet. Bitter gallberry
and fetterbush dominate this shrub layer with Virginia chain-fern being the most abundant
herbaceous plant (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Other shrub species may include wax myrtle and salt
meadow bush, especially on edges and in areas of disturbance. Red bay and loblolly bay may be
found, but are uncommon. Openings are less common than in low shrub pocosin, but may occur with
species composition being about the same as the low shrub community. These areas are further
characterized by intermediate to long hydroperiods. False high shrub pocosin can be distinguished
from true high shrub pocosin by the presence of tree residue and depth of the peat.
Pond Pine/Shrub Pocosin. Pond pine pocosin occurs primarily in the eastern half of the refuge with large
areas occurring in-the northeastern and southeastern sections on intermediate depth organic soils. This
cover type is very similar to the high shrub pocosin, but contains more pond pine, bays, and red maple.
Red bay and loblolly bay also reach heights greater than twenty feet in this cover type. Mature tree
heights, including red maple, may vary from about thirty to forty feet. Fetterbush and bitter gallberry are
the dominant shrubs with Virginia chain-fern as the dominant herbaceous plant where openings occur.
Grasses, sedges and other herbaceous species are rarely present due to the dense shrub understory.
Pond Pine/Cane Pocosin. This cover type is found primarily northeast of the Navy Bombing Range
and south of Grouse and Cedar roads on essentially the same types and depths of organic soils.
Pond pine is the dominant canopy with only small amounts of red bay, sweetbay, and red maple
present. Average height of the overstory trees is forty to sixty feet. The shrub layer is dominated by
river cane (Arundinaria gigantea) with bitter gallberry (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Differences in the Pond
Pine/Cane and Pond Pine/Shrub communities are poorly understood. Past reports suggested that
differences are attributable to fire frequency. However, subsequent observations suggest variation is
due to factors other than fire frequency. Differences in hydroperiod and soil properties are the most
likely explanations for the cane understory domination in some areas and not in others. For example,
30 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
the areas with cane may be on organic soils with a higher mineral content, have subtle differences in
depth of organic layer, or the physical and chemical properties of material underlying the organic
layer may be causative factors for differences in surface plant community composition.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
Although there have been no comprehensive botanical surveys, there are no known federally listed
plants on the refuge.
Plant Species
A comprehensive, in-depth botanical survey for plant species on the refuge has not been conducted.
However, Appendix VI represents the most comprehensive list available. This botanical list will be
revised as new information becomes available.
WILDLIFE
General
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and its surrounding waters support many species of resident
and migratory fish and wildlife. Of these, 48 species are fish (Allen et al. 1979; Baker and Smith
1965; Hester and Copeland 1975; Johnson et al. 1980); 145 are birds (Potter 1982a); 48 are reptiles
and amphibians (Allen et al. 1979; Braswell and Wiley 1982); and 40 are mammals (Clark et al.
1985). The refuge supports wildlife species that are important from both a regional and a national
standpoint (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Its large size and dense vegetation makes it a haven for species
that avoid man, such as the black bear. Also, the refuge harbors many species adapted to living in
forested habitat as opposed to disturbed areas such as field edges. The refuge also lies at or near
the northern limit of ranges for several vertebrate species (Noffsinger et al. 1984).
Birds
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge provides habitat for a wide variety of birds. Because of the
refuge's large size and plant community diversity, habitat is provided for forest-dwelling species as
well as marsh-dwelling species. This somewhat unique complex of various wetland habitat types
results in the presence of some unique avian forms such the Wayne’s black-throated green warbler, a
distinct form of prairie warbler, and an unusually dense population of worm-eating warblers (Watts
and Paxton 2002). Approximately 250 species of birds visit the refuge regularly, with about 40 to 50
additional species considered accidental visitors.
The area is roughly at midpoint in the Atlantic Flyway and is a much-used and valuable feeding and
resting area for numerous species of wintering waterfowl. Tundra swans, coots, and more than 25
species of ducks winter either on the refuge or in its adjacent sounds and rivers. Migratory waterfowl
numbers peak during the months of November through February. In addition to waterfowl, large
numbers of hawks, owls, and many species of passerine birds may be seen. The avian species
composition changes throughout the year since most are migratory.
Waterfowl. Until the addition of the moist soil management units, the refuge did not support large
numbers of waterfowl. The wood duck is the most abundant year-round species. The species is
most often associated with the numerous ditches, canals, and swamps. The most prevalent wintering
species in moist soil units and refuge marshes include pintail, green-winged teal, gadwall, widgeon,
mallard, and black duck. Other species wintering or migrating on the refuge and surrounding waters
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
may include blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, shoveler, scaup, canvasback, ruddy duck, red head,
bufflehead, hooded merganser, and red-breasted merganser. Tundra swan numbers have increased
steadily to a peak of about 1,500 birds on average. A few (less than ten) resident Canada geese are
seen on the refuge periodically. Neither migratory Canada geese nor snow geese use the refuge.
Breeding Birds. The species that breed on the refuge are characteristic of species that inhabit other
coastal plain communities. However, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge differs noticeably from
other coastal plain areas by having more warblers, especially prothonotary and black- throated green
warblers, and fewer nuthatches, thrashers, and blue-gray gnatcatchers. The refuge is especially rich
in woodpecker species, such as the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and the large pileated
woodpecker. The red-cockaded woodpecker is found in pond pine pocosin. They use pond pine
trees for nest cavity trees and the pond pine pocosin forest for foraging habitat. Typically, the red-cockaded
woodpecker prefers living trees 60 to 80 years old that are infected with red-heart fungus.
The tree must also exude resin around the nest hole; a new cavity tree will be found when it no longer
does so. The resin may serve as a defense against predators (Ash et al. 1983). Wading birds such
as the great blue heron are common and breeding has been documented in at least two rookeries on
and adjacent to the refuge. Bald eagles have also historically nested on the refuge and viable nests
remain; nesting does not occur in every nest every year.
Wintering Birds. Based upon results of the Christmas Bird Count since 2001, approximately 110
bird species can be found on the refuge during the winter. The most common winter species are
the American robin, yellow-rumped warbler, red-winged blackbird, sparrows, and northern
bobwhite. Robins feed heavily on berries of redbay and greenbrier and roost in large
concentrations in the Milltail Creek and Whipping Creek areas. Myrtle warblers use low-shrub
pocosins, vegetated canal banks, and forest edges. They feed heavily on bayberry and wax
myrtle berries. Northern bobwhite and red-winged blackbirds overwinter primarily in the
agricultural fields within the refuge. Within the agricultural grassland filter strips, the song
sparrow, fox sparrow, swamp sparrow, white-throated sparrow, and savannah sparrow may be
observed. Mourning doves and crows winter on the refuge in smaller numbers making use of the
farm fields. The American kestrel and the red-tailed hawk prey in the open areas of the refuge,
while the northern harrier hunts over the marshes, fields, and low shrub pocosins.
Transient Species. Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge lies in the path of the Atlantic Flyway, a
major migration route. The refuge provides resting and foraging areas for many migrant species
which winter farther south. Species that migrate through the refuge during the fall include the blue-winged
teal; raptors such as the broad-winged hawk and merlin; shorebirds; and a variety of perching
birds such as the western kingbird, bank swallow, veery, Swainson's thrush, and warblers (yellow,
magnolia, Cape May, black-throated blue, blackpoll, and palm); bobolink; northern oriole; and rose-breasted
grosbeak (Noffsinger et al. 1984).
Mammals
Of the 47 species of mammals commonly occurring in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, 42
occur on the refuge. The most common land mammals are the black bear, opossum, and rodents
such as the hispid cotton rat. Semiaquatic furbearers such as the muskrat, nutria, and river otter are
common. Numbers of beaver are increasing. The white-tailed deer population has remained
relatively constant at low numbers in recent years. However, deer herd health checks at five-year
intervals show that the population is slightly higher than the carrying capacity for pocosin habitat. The
black bear population is among the highest density populations in the southeast. Numerous sightings
of eastern cougar have been reported, but none have been confirmed.
32 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
American Black Bear. The refuge has what is believed to be one of the largest concentrations of
black bear found in the southeastern United States. A decline in bear numbers in this and other
areas seems to have resulted from man's disturbing influence and the destruction of habitat (Hamilton
1978). According to Hamilton and Marchiuto (1977 and 1978), major wetland forest types such as
pocosin must be protected to maintain the Coastal Plain bear population.
Hardy (1974) suggested a Dare County bear population of 25 to 35 individuals, of which 13 to 20
were adult males, four to eight were adult females, and five to nine were juveniles. There was very
little evidence of reproductive success. The population imbalance probably resulted from selective
mortality engendered by excessive hunting.
The U.S. Geological Survey’s Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at Virginia Tech completed a study
of the black bear population at Alligator River in 2005. The estimated population is between 180 and
293, with a density on good habitat of three bears per square mile. The normal population on good
habitat is one bear per square mile.
High hunting pressure associated with increased access through road construction was the apparent
mechanism that reduced bear on and off the refuge. In the 1970s, state legislation made it illegal to hunt
black bear in Dare County. The population has increased steadily since. The state legislature re-established
a hunting season for Dare County in 1992, but the season was not opened on the refuge due
to insufficient population data. A research project, conducted by the University of Tennessee from 1992–
1996, resulted in good information on habitat use, food habits, and reproduction. During the same study
an attempt to estimate the population size was not successful due to low recapture numbers (Folta 1998;
Allen 1998). An effort to estimate the population through genetic analysis of hair samples began during
2003 by Virginia Tech and data collection will continue through 2004.
Limiting factors on black bear on the refuge have been identified as blackgum mast, disturbance, and
availability of escape cover. Although blackgum fruit has been identified as limiting, the diet of the
black bear varies with the seasons and availability of food. Spring foraging appears to be largely
opportunistic with a high occurrence of ants and leaves in the diet. Blueberries and switchcane
stems are preferred through the summer. Fall feeding shifts to blackgum, with winter diets consisting
mainly of greenbrier, sumac, and gallberry (North Carolina State University 1974).
White-tailed Deer. The white-tailed deer is probably the most sought-after game species on the refuge.
Hunters make extensive use of the refuge with its road system to gain access to large blocks of habitat
suitable for deer hunting. White-tailed deer are considered to be browsers because they primarily
consume woody vegetation. However, white-tailed deer will eat almost any available form of plant life.
Because of this adaptability, it is impossible to single out one habitat as greatly superior to others.
Interaction of deer and habitat is a combination of food preference and utilization, quantity and quality of
food, and availability of cover (Halls 1984; Halls and Ripley 1961). However, best estimates suggest a
much lower carrying capacity for pocosin habitat than other habitat types. For example, Monschein
(1981) reported the following best estimates: approximately 6 deer per square mile for pocosin habitat;
about 18 deer per square mile along pocosin borders; and 35–40 deer per square mile for coastal
bottomland hardwoods. Basic differences involve the quantity, quality, and availability of food.
Since establishment of the refuge, periodic abomasal parasite counts, necropsy findings, laboratory
tests, and general physical condition indicate that the health of the deer population is fair to good. It
was concluded in 1985, 1992, and 1998 by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Study that the
Alligator River deer were "…within an optimal stocking density for the nutritional capacity of the
habitat. Additional increase in deer numbers should be avoided by removal of deer through
management by sport-hunting" (Nettles 1985; Davidson 1992 and 1998).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Furbearers. The Alligator River Refuge provides habitat for fur-bearing species such as bobcat, otter,
mink, gray fox, muskrat, nutria, and raccoon. Raccoon, nutria, muskrat, otter and mink make use of
the canals and streams that run through the refuge. The gray fox does not penetrate very deeply into
the unmodified areas of the refuge, but it does make good use of the edges feeding on small
mammals as well as blackberries and other fruits (Ash et al. 1983). Bobcats are common predators
on the refuge and are most commonly observed around the farm unit, along the edges of pocosin
areas, and in swamp forests. They may be found throughout the refuge because of the presence of
the marsh rabbit, the bobcat's main prey (Ash et al. 1983).
In addition to the mammals already mentioned, the refuge supports populations of the gray squirrel,
cottontail rabbit, opossum, and several rodent and insectivore species.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Sixty-one species of reptiles and amphibians are reported for the refuge. Reptiles and amphibians
are most numerous and diverse around permanent and semi-permanent open water, marshes,
creeks, lakes, and canals. They also thrive in disturbed or modified/transitional areas. Some of the
species that inhabit the area are the brown, banded, and plain-bellied water snakes; common
snapping, red-bellied and eastern painted turtles; the southern leopard frog; and a wide variety of
snakes. Three species of venomous snakes have been documented on the refuge. They are the
cottonmouth moccasin, canebrake (timber) rattlesnake, and copperhead. The pygmy rattlesnake has
been documented in Hyde County; however, even though the refuge extends into Hyde County, none
have been documented on the refuge.
American Alligator. The refuge is near the northern extent of the American alligator's natural range in
North America. This endangered reptile occurs in refuge marshes, slow-moving streams, and man-made
canals. They prefer areas where the water turbidity is low and the water quality is high, with
the presence of an adequate food source (McDonald et al. 1983). Milltail Creek Lake, Whipping
Creek, and Swan Creek Lake usually provide prime alligator habitat (Noffsinger et al. 1984).
Fish
The fisheries on and surrounding Alligator River Refuge are diverse and productive. The refuge's
interior lakes and streams support species characteristic of blackwater or oligohaline systems. Fish
that inhabit the refuge include resident species, migratory species, anadromous species, and one
catadromous species.
Resident species such as gar, pickerel, white and yellow perch, a variety of sunfish, and catfish
inhabit the blackwater streams and lakes of the refuge. They also use the open water of Alligator
River and the sounds for spawning, nursery and foraging habitat. These resident species provide a
large portion of the diet of migratory and anadromous species, which are important to both sport and
commercial fishermen (Noffsinger et al. 1984). Migratory species use the refuge's estuaries as
spawning grounds and the surrounding waters as a nursery area. Migratory species that use the
refuge include Atlantic croaker, spot, Atlantic menhaden, and the southern and summer flounders.
Anadromous species are those that spawn in the refuge's freshwater streams and estuaries, inhabit these
areas as juveniles, mature offshore, and return to these streams to spawn as adults. The Alligator River
and Milltail and Whipping creeks are used heavily by these species, which include striped bass, alewife,
and blueback herring. The mouth of Alligator River serves as an important wintering area for sexually
immature female striped bass. This area is important because the Albemarle Sound population does not
make coastal migrations as do other Atlantic coast striped bass populations.
34 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Insect and Disease Pests
The gypsy moth is now well established as far south as northeastern North Carolina. The North
Carolina Division of Plant Industry and U.S. Forest Service closely monitor gypsy moth populations.
Both agencies use pheromone traps located throughout the Dare County mainland and the barrier
islands, including refuge lands. When large-scale outbreaks are detected, they use integrated pest
management techniques to suppress but not necessarily eliminate gypsy moths from the area.
Although the refuge is within the quarantine area of northeastern North Carolina, there have not been
any outbreaks of the gypsy moth requiring treatment other than on Roanoke Island.
Since the mid-1990s, southern pine beetle outbreaks and cutting controlling buffers resulted in the
conversion of over 5,000 acres of mostly pond pine habitat to shrub habitat. Without prescribed fire,
this acreage will most likely remain as shrub habitat unless pond pine is planted after site preparation.
During 2002 and 2003 the spread of southern pine beetle infestations was greatly diminished.
Exotic and Pest Organisms
At the present time little is known about exotic organisms on the refuge. Feral cats and dogs can be
found on the refuge, but there is uncertainty as to numbers and extent of impact on wildlife.
Fire ants are an increasing problem, especially in the farm unit. Due to pesticide use restrictions on
the refuge, it is not possible to eradicate this species.
The coyote, a carnivorous species native to the grasslands of the midwestern United States, has
migrated eastward as wooded habitat was cleared. Coyotes are now present throughout the refuge,
but they represent a carnivore that is not native to the refuge or North Carolina.
Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) is currently found on the refuge in ditches adjacent to
Highway 64, Milltail Road, and Longcurve Road. Common reed (Phragmities australis) is found
throughout various refuge areas, including disturbed sites and farming units. Efforts have recently
begun to control these invasive, noxious plants.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Several federally listed species occur in the area. Among them are the red-cockaded woodpecker,
red wolf, bald eagle, and American alligator. All species except for the red-cockaded woodpecker
occur throughout the refuge.
The Service first reintroduced the red wolf on the refuge in 1987. Since the initial releases, wolves
have reproduced in the wild and may be found throughout the refuge and four surrounding counties.
Depending upon circumstances within and between packs, there can be from two to five packs of
wolves on the refuge at a given point in time. An estimated 100 wolves now inhabit a 1.7 million acre
area in eastern North Carolina.
The red-cockaded woodpecker is federally listed as an endangered species. Known red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters occur on the south end in the vicinity of Whipping Creek Road, north of U.S.
Highway 264 just east of Stomper Road, and on the Dare County Bombing Range. One inactive cluster
with one known cavity tree occurs in the vicinity of the east side of Koehring Road just north of the Pollock
Road intersection. The area around Stumpy Point was surveyed by helicopter during 1999 and no
evidence of the red-cockaded woodpeckers was found in the areas outside of those described.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
The bald eagle is federally listed as a threatened species and is seen infrequently throughout the
year. Sighting numbers have been increasing in recent years. Eagle nesting has been documented
near the North Twiford Farm Unit and near Swan Creek Lake on the south end of the refuge. Mature
bald eagles have been observed adjacent to Stumpy Point Bay and nesting is suspected, but the
refuge has not been able to find and confirm a nest. Another possible eagle nest may be under
construction at the mouth of Laurel Bay Lake.
The American alligator is listed as threatened by similarity of appearance in North Carolina and is
found in aquatic habitat throughout the refuge. The Service has documented nesting in recent years
on the refuge, but the current population is not known.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The wetland environment
makes it unlikely that there are many cultural resources on the refuge. The small area of uplands is
the most likely site of settlements or encampments. The staff must conduct management activities so
as to avoid compromising sensitive sites.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge lies within mainland Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina.
Recently made more accessible to the mainland by bridges and ferries and primarily supported by
tourism, coastal Dare and Hyde counties have seen an influx of tourists, visitors, and residents over
the last few decades. This considerable population growth and development of the barrier islands
has brought substantial economic benefit to a region historically rural and impoverished. As a result,
the refuge, with its location along U.S. Highway 64, has seen greater recreational and public use due
to this increase in visitors. However, the region’s natural resources of land and water have suffered
increasing demands, often with negative impact. As one of the few remaining tracts of intact natural
land, the refuge and, consequently, its management considerations, have become even more critical.
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and Dare and Hyde counties are located in the northeastern
part of North Carolina and are bounded by the Albemarle Sound to the north, Tyrrell and Beaufort
counties to the west, and the Pamlico Sound to the south.
Dare County. The Alligator River forms the western boundary of Dare County, which is bound to the
north by the Albemarle Sound, to the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and to the south by the Hyde
County line dividing the Pamlico Sound.
For many decades, Dare County has been i