Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2008
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
PEE DEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Anson and Richmond Counties, North Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
October 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 2
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 3
National Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................. 3
Relationship to State Partners ...................................................................................................... 4
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 5
Special Designations .................................................................................................................... 8
Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 8
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................ 8
Ecological Threats and Problems ................................................................................................. 9
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 11
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 11
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 11
Geology, Topography, and Soils ....................................................................................... 12
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 14
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 14
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 14
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 15
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 15
Endangered, Threatened, and Imperiled Species ............................................................. 26
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 28
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 28
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 31
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 37
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 37
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 37
Scoping of Issues and Concerns ................................................................................................ 38
Summary of Issues ..................................................................................................................... 38
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 38
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 41
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 41
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 41
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 41
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................................... 43
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 43
Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 43
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 43
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 44
i i Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 66
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 68
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 74
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 77
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 77
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 77
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 77
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 79
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 79
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 80
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 80
Partnerships and Volunteer Opportunities ................................................................................. 81
Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 81
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 83
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 85
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................. 93
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................. 99
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 111
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 111
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS AND THE SERVICE’S RESPONSES ....................................... 111
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 111
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 113
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 113
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ................................................................ 115
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................... 127
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 149
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................ 155
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA .......................................................................................................... 157
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ................................................................................................ 165
Service Asset and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) ........................................... 165
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 166
APPENDIX K. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................. 167
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 167
Core CCP Planning Team ........................................................................................................ 167
Wildlife and Habitat Management Review Team ..................................................................... 167
Visitor Services Review Team .................................................................................................. 168
Wilderness Review Team......................................................................................................... 168
Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team ...................................................................... 168
Table of Contents i i i
APPENDIX L. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 171
APPENDIX M. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 173
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 173
Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 173
Selection Rationale ......................................................................................................... 176
Environmental Effects ..................................................................................................... 176
Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 177
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 177
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 177
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 177
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 177
Coordination .................................................................................................................... 178
Findings ........................................................................................................................... 178
Supporting References ................................................................................................... 179
Document Availability ...................................................................................................... 179
i v Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge and its approved acquisition boundary. ...... 6
Figure 2. The Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem. .................................................................... 7
Figure 3. North Carolina conservation lands. ................................................................................... 10
Figure 4. Vegetation of Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................................................... 16
Figure 5. Burn Units, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................. 18
Figure 6. Timber stands, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ........................................................... 19
Figure 7. Croplands on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. .............................................................. 20
Figure 8. Managed wetlands, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. .................................................... 21
Figure 9. Conservation easements, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. .......................................... 33
Figure 10. Public use areas, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ........................................................ 34
Figure 11. Hunt areas, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................. 35
Figure 12. Current organizational chart, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................... 36
Figure 13. Proposed organizational chart, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. .................................. 82
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Habitat types and sizes on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. ............................................ 15
Table 2. Acreages of open water and wetland habitats on Pee Dee NWR. ....................................... 23
Table 3. State and federally listed fish and wildlife species potentially occurring on Pee Dee NWR . 29
Table 4. Listed plant species potentially occurring on Pee Dee NWR. ............................................... 30
Table 5. Regional county population data for Pee Dee NWR. ............................................................ 31
Table 6. Project costs and staffing. ..................................................................................................... 80
Table 7. Pee Dee NWR step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive conservation plan. ....................................................................................... 81
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
to provide a foundation for the management and use of Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge (Pee Dee
NWR) in Anson and Richmond counties, North Carolina. The CCP is intended to serve as a working
guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife
conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; 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 CCP has been prepared in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual. The CCP also meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 through the inclusion of an environmental assessment (EA) which described the alternatives that
were considered in the Draft CCP and their potential effects on the environment.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. In developing the CCP, the
team has incorporated the input of federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, local
citizens, and the general public. This public involvement and the planning process itself are
described in Chapter III, Plan Development.
This CCP represents the Service’s proposed alternative and is being put forward after considering
two other alternatives, as described in the environmental assessment (see Draft CCP/EA). The Draft
CCP/EA was made available to federal and state agencies, conservation partners, and the general
public for review and comment. All public comments were considered in the development of this
CCP, and they are summarized along with the Service's responses in Appendix K.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to develop a management action that best achieves the refuge’s purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent
with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
• provide a clear statement of the refuge’s management direction;
• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
• ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection, recreation and
education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
• provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
2 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the Service
shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, it
has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous
fish, and certain marine mammals.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges and over 3,000
small waterfowl breeding and nesting sites covering nearly 100 million acres. These areas comprise
the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of lands and waters specifically
managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million acres, are in Alaska. The
remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several U.S. island territories.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the Improvement Act, is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.”
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy; that the growth of refuges and the Refuge System must be strategic; and that the Refuge
System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others. This broad
participation includes local, state, and federal government partners; organizations; local business
communities; individuals; and volunteers. Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the
success of the Refuge System and in 1999, some 36,000 of them contributed more than 1.3 million
hours on refuges nationwide, representing an economic value of more than $20 million.
The Improvement Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation
for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were initiated in 1997 to implement the direction of
this new legislation, including an effort to complete 15-year CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which
are conducted with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges, including
providing management direction for natural resources and recreation and education programs. The
Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
• 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 recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, observing
wildlife, photographing wildlife, and participating in environmental education and interpretation,
are legitimate and priority public uses of national wildlife refuges.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The Refuge System attracts more than 35 million annual visitors. Economists have found that these
refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the economies of local communities. In
2001, on conservation lands throughout the nation, approximately 37.8 million people participated in
wildlife-related activities, most to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. These visitors represent nearly
40 percent of the country’s adults who spent $108 billion on wildlife-related pursuits in 2001, according to
the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2001). As visitation
continues to grow on conservation lands and waters in general and specifically on refuges, the adjacent
local communities are realizing economic benefits.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Management options are guided by a refuge’s establishing authorities,
Public Law 104, Stat. 2957 (§108, H.R. 3338), and the Improvement Act (see Appendix C for more
information on legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges). Key guidance
and direction can be found in:
• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966;
• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962;
• Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual; and
• National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Because refuges must be managed for wildlife first, the lands and waters within the Refuge System
are closed to public uses unless specifically and legally opened under specified conditions providing
for compatibility with each refuge's purpose(s). All programs and uses of a refuge must be evaluated
based on the mandates set forth in the Improvement Act, including those that:
• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to refuge purpose(s) and goals;
• conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
• monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
• manage and ensure compatible wildlife-dependent visitor uses as those uses which benefit
the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and which contribute to the enjoyment of the
public (these uses include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation); and
• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purpose(s).
NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Because many issues affecting the protection and management of natural resources transcend geo-political
boundaries, multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private
entities to address the environmental problems affecting regions. A large amount of conservation
and protection information defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and
ecosystem levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between
affected parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments.
4 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
The conservation guidance described in the various plans and initiatives listed below, along with
issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and integrated where appropriate into this CCP.
• U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic Plan
• Wildfire and Air Quality National Strategic Plan
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System
• North American Bird Conservation Initiative
• North American Waterfowl Management Plan
• North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan
• Southeastern U.S. Region Waterbird Conservation Plan
• U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
• U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Southeastern Coastal Plains-Caribbean Region
• Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
• Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans
• USFWS Southeastern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS
The Service is committed to encouraging and maintaining partnerships with others to improve the
environmental health of ecosystems and the Refuge System. Partnerships are recognized by the
Service as vital to fulfill the Service’s mission and help share advocacy for fish and wildlife resources.
Some of the current partners include federal and state agencies, environmental organizations,
outdoor sporting groups, industry, local governments, and private landowners. A provision of the
Improvement Act and subsequent agency policy provides that the Service shall ensure timely and
effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish and wildlife
agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges.
Pee Dee NWR's state agency partners include the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission;
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; North Carolina Forest Service;
and North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) manages the state’s fish and wildlife resources. It helps the
Service with enforcement and management responsibilities relating to migratory birds, game species,
and fisheries, as well as with management of the state’s natural resources. The NCWRC owns,
leases, or manages two million acres (809,371 hectares) of public and private lands for recreation
and conservation purposes.
Various agencies within the state government have participated in a mix of refuge projects, including
the planning process to develop this 15-year comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge. The
State of North Carolina’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive planning
process provides for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment
of fish and wildlife in North Carolina. A vital part of the comprehensive planning process is the
integration of common mission objectives, where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Pee Dee NWR was established in 1963 and is located approximately 48 miles (77 kilometers [km]) east of
Charlotte, North Carolina, in Anson and Richmond counties (Figure 1). The refuge covers a total of 8,443
acres (3,417 hectares) and includes a diversity of habitats consisting of creeks, ponds, and a river;
bottomland hardwoods; upland pine forests; croplands; open fields; moist-soil units; and mixed
pine/hardwood forests. These areas support a wide variety of fish, wildlife, and plants, including waterfowl
and other migratory birds, as well as federal- and state-listed species. In addition, the refuge protects a
number of historical and archaeological sites. A growing human population, along with ongoing
development and other human activities, currently threaten the refuge and its surrounding environs.
The refuge straddles several miles of the Pee Dee River in south-central North Carolina in the unique
Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem (Figure 2). The Pee Dee River is approximately 230 miles
(370 km) long and begins with its headwaters in the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina.
It then flows in a southeasterly course through South Carolina into the Atlantic Ocean.
The refuge’s current habitat management activities include cooperative farming for wildlife food and
cover; impoundment management for waterfowl and wading birds; selective timber thinning;
prescribed burning; and old field management.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The Catawba Indians were the earliest known inhabitants to make use of the vast resources of the
Pee Dee River. In the early 1700s, white settlers moved in and began clearing the rich river bottoms
and nearby hillsides for farmland. By the mid-1800s, most of the land had been cleared and planted
to cotton, which remained the principal crop until the 1950s.
The origin of the refuge dates to 1934 when a local landowner, Lockhart Gaddy, established a
Canada goose sanctuary bordering the Pee Dee River and Brown Creek. Mr. Gaddy was an avid
goose hunter and created the “Lockhart Gaddy's Wild Goose Refuge” to provide food, shelter, and
protection for migratory Canada geese. He opened it to the public and allowed visitors to feed and
observe the geese, and daily attendance rates of 4,000 visitors were not uncommon. Shortly before
his death in 1950, the goose flock numbered approximately 10,000. In 1950, Mrs. Gaddy took over
management of the refuge until her death in 1975, at which time the refuge was closed to the public.
In the 1960s, the numbers of both geese and ducks began to decline in south-central North Carolina.
However, the lands adjacent to the Pee Dee River and Brown Creek offered potential for waterfowl
habitat development. With local and state support, Pee Dee NWR was established in October 1963
to provide wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl.
The original purpose for which the refuge was established was “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary,
or for any other management purpose for migratory birds,” including waterfowl and songbirds
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act). The refuge’s objectives include:
• Resource Protection: Through a continued land acquisition program, complete acquisition of
lands within the approved refuge boundary to ensure protection of the area's natural and
cultural resources and to help fulfill the refuge's commitment to ecosystem management
within the Yadkin–Pee Dee River focus area.
6 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge and its approved acquisition boundary
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Figure 2. The Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem
8 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
• Habitat Restoration: With consideration to other goals and subsequent management
programs, restore aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout the refuge to provide for the
needs of a diversity of native plant and animal communities including threatened and
endangered species.
• Resource Management: Maintain the refuge through active management programs including
forestry, cooperative farming, moist-soil and water management, prescribed burning, law
enforcement, public use, biological monitoring, and wildlife surveys.
• Dynamic Partnering: Maintain a key role in the Yadkin–Pee Dee River Focus Area of the
Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem by maintaining and expanding partnerships with
individuals, communities, agencies, and organizations to accomplish mutually beneficial
natural resource conservation goals.
• Environmental Education and Interpretation: Expand public awareness and appreciation of
wildlife and associated habitats, natural science, land stewardship and ethics, and the Refuge
System.
• Wildlife-oriented Recreation: Provide opportunities for refuge visitors to enjoy high quality,
safe and wholesome wildlife-dependent recreational experiences that are compatible with the
purpose for which the refuge was established.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The refuge does not include any areas with special federal designations. However, 3,000 acres
(1,214 hectares) of the Brown Creek floodplain is designated as a Significant Natural Heritage Area
by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Expanding human populations and resulting habitat alterations are the biggest threat to natural systems
and biodiversity. Protecting land is one of the most effective ways to safeguard native habitats, fish,
wildlife, and plants. Pee Dee NWR is located in an area of North Carolina that has dramatically changed
through historical land use practices (primarily agriculture), and more recently, residential and industrial
development. The refuge is important in a regional ecosystem context because it contains large areas of
protected natural habitats. Together with other federal and state lands, such a network of conservation
lands can help mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation, provide protection, and serve as wildlife
corridors. In addition, the refuge’s vegetated areas reduce sedimentation and help improve water quality
downstream. Furthermore, forested wetlands can function as water retention areas to minimize flood
damage during times of excessive rainfall.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
In 2001, Congress charged each state and territory with developing a statewide comprehensive
wildlife conservation strategy as part of the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the
State Wildlife Grants Program. These programs were designed to assist states by providing annual
allocations for the development and implementation of programs to benefit wildlife and their habitats.
The funding was intended to supplement, not duplicate, existing fish and wildlife programs, and to
target species in greatest need of conservation, species indicative of the diversity and health of the
states’ wildlife, and species with low and declining populations, as deemed appropriate by each
state's fish and wildlife agency. The state wildlife conservation plans provide an essential foundation
for the future of wildlife conservation and a stimulus to engage state, federal, and other conservation
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
partners to think strategically about their individual and coordinate roles in prioritizing conservation
efforts across the nation. This includes the use of landscape-based conservation strategies to map
existing protected areas (see Figure 3 for North Carolina conservation lands) and to identify gaps and
potential wildlife corridors. The North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan (NCWAP) was finalized in 2005 as
a guide to the NCWRC and its partners in conservation for sound management of North Carolina’s
fish and wildlife resources into the future.
The goals of the NCWAP are to:
• Improve the understanding of the species diversity in North Carolina and enhance the ability
to make conservation or management decisions for all species;
• Conserve and enhance habitats and the communities they support;
• Foster partnerships and cooperative efforts among natural resource agencies, organizations,
academia and private industry;
• Support educational efforts to improve understanding of our wildlife resources among the
general public and conservation stakeholders; and
• Support and improve existing regulations and programs aimed at conserving habitats and
communities.
In addition to the NCWAP, several other state and regional conservation and resource protection
plans are listed below:
• North Carolina Working Lands Plan
• New Parks for a New Century
• State Stormwater Management Program
• Wetlands Conservation Plan
• Private Lands Protection Plan
• North Carolina Forest Plan
• Natural Heritage Program Biennial Protection Plan
• The Greater Uwharries Regional plan
• The Nature Conservancy Piedmont Ecoregional Plan
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Pee Dee NWR is an important component of the Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem in that it
borders the Pee Dee River and its associated lowlands and uplands, encompassing a range of
habitats. Human impacts and underlying threats to biological diversity on and off the refuge include:
• Direct loss of habitat due to development and other human activities
• Simplification and degradation of remaining habitats, including habitat alteration and
fragmentation
• Loss and decline of species and biological diversity
• Effects of constructing navigation and water diversion facilities
• Introduction and spread of exotic, nuisance, and invasive species
• Lack of environmental regulation and enforcement
• Cumulative effects of land and water resource development projects
• Ongoing wildlife disturbance due to development and other human activities
• Impacts of non-point sources of pollution and water quality degradation
10 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. North Carolina conservation lands
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
In an assessment of risk to ecosystems in the United States, seven southeastern states, including
North Carolina, made the “extreme risk” category based on the number of endangered ecosystems,
the percentage of imperiled species by state, and development pressures. In fact, 8 of the top 21
endangered ecosystems in the United States can be found in North Carolina (Noss and Peters 1995).
Several of these rare habitats are found on the refuge, including southern forested wetlands
(bottomland hardwoods), large streams and rivers, and longleaf pine forests.
CLIMATE
Pee Dee NWR lies in the Southern Piedmont climate zone, an area where the interaction of south
and east winds from the Atlantic Ocean and the nearby western mountain ranges creates a unique
climate (State Climate Office of North Carolina [SCONC] 2006).
Temperature
Extremely low temperatures are infrequent because the Appalachian Mountains block much of the cold,
continental air masses that move southward in the winter months. The coldest month is January. A
record low of -4 degrees Fahrenheit (F°) (-20 degrees Celsius [C°]) was recorded in January 1985.
Average winter lows are approximately 32 F° (0 C°), while winter highs of around 53 F° (12 C°) are the
norm. During spring the temperatures quickly rise, and average May highs and lows are 80 F° (27 C°)
and 58 F° (14 C°), respectively. July is the hottest month of the year with highs averaging 90 F° (32 C°)
and lows near 70 F° (21 C°). Although July is the warmest month on average, record high temperatures
of 107 F° (41 C°) were recorded in June and August 1983. During autumn, average high temperatures
rapidly decline to 60 F° (16 C°) in early December (SCONC 2006). The average first frost occurs on
November 4 (North Carolina State University 1996).
Relative Humidity
The average relative humidity does not vary greatly from season to season but is generally the
highest in winter and lowest in spring. The lowest relative humidities are found over the southern
Piedmont, where the year-round average is about 65 percent.
Precipitation
While there are no distinct wet and dry seasons in North Carolina, average rainfall does vary around
the year. Summer precipitation is normally the greatest, and July is the wettest month averaging 5
inches (13 centimeters [cm]). Summer rainfall is also the most variable, occurring mostly in
connection with showers and thunderstorms. Daily showers are not uncommon, nor are periods of
one to two weeks without rain. Autumn is the driest season, and November the driest month with an
average rainfall of approximately 2.9 inches (7.2 cm). Precipitation during winter and spring occurs
mostly in connection with migratory low pressure storms, which appear with greater regularity and in
a more even distribution than summer showers. Average annual rainfall is approximately 46.5 inches
(118 cm) in the refuge vicinity. In 2007, much of the southeast was in an ���exceptional” drought with
corresponding stream flows at or below the 5th percentile compared to the 30-year average (U.S.
Geological Survey 2007). In December 2007, Charlotte, North Carolina had only received
approximately 25 inches (64 cm) of rain, more than 16 inches (41 cm) below average (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007).
Lightning
Lightning poses a hazard to refuge visitors and personnel and can cause infrastructure damage. In
addition, fire management is a refuge activity that can be influenced by lightning. Historical lightning
data are not available for Pee Dee NWR (SCONC 2006).
12 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Wind
Pee Dee NWR averages approximately two severe thunderstorms annually with accompanying high
winds of 40 miles per hour (mph) (64 kilometers per hour [kph]) or greater.
Severe Weather
Windstorms, hail, ice storms, tornadoes, droughts, and tropical cyclones all have the potential to
affect the refuge by altering habitat, displacing wildlife, and damaging infrastructure. A 2002 ice
storm severely damaged trees in Anson County and other areas of central North Carolina. Recent
tropical cyclones that caused wind damage, localized flooding, and tornadoes include Hugo in 1989
and Frances and Jeanne in 2004. Currently Anson and Richmond counties are abnormally dry, with
eminent drought conditions possible (North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council 2007).
GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS
Geology
Pee Dee NWR lies in an area of North Carolina defined by Triassic Basin and Piedmont geologies. The
Triassic Basin gets its name from the Triassic period, which was during the Mesozoic Era between 245–208
million years ago, which lasted 37 million years. It is located all along the eastern coast of the United States.
The basin was formed due to many processes. Erosion basically carved the newly raised mountains across
the State of North Carolina, and after 15–20 million years of erosion, movement of material in the mantel
began to produce forces that would alter and then eventually tear and separate the North American and
Euro-African crustal plates. As this stress increased, the crust began to fracture. When it began to fracture,
cracks developed throughout Europe, Africa, and the eastern coast of North America. These fractures
formed in two separate sets. One set runs northeast to southwest and the other runs north-south. Many
fractures remain exactly how they formed millions of years ago. Today, the fractures can be seen across
the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces as cracks in the older Paleozoic rocks (Horton and Zullo 1991).
Within the Piedmont geology, the Carolina slate belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic and
sedimentary rocks. It was the site of a series of oceanic volcanic islands about 550–650 million years ago.
Topography
The surface relief of the Piedmont is characterized by relatively low, rolling hills with heights of
between 200 feet (50 meters [m]) and 800 feet to 1,000 feet (250 m to 300 m) above mean sea level.
Its geology is complex, with numerous rock formations of different materials and ages intermingled
with one another. Essentially, the Piedmont is the remnant of several ancient mountain chains that
have since been eroded away (Rogers 1999). Due to its topography, the rivers within the Piedmont
tend to flow from north to south, rather than west to east.
Soils
The soil types on the refuge range from sandy (Orangeburg) on a small portion of the refuge in Richmond
County to a loamy clay and humid soil (Wehadkee) in the Brown Creek floodplain (Robinson and Singleton
1991). Other soil types include the well drained first bottom Riverview (Pee Dee River floodplain) and the
sandy loam types (Mayodan; White Store). The refuge’s soil types are described below.
Riverview Series. The Riverview series consists of deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils that
formed in loamy alluvium in the coastal plain. These soils are on nearly level floodplains and natural
levees along rivers and large creeks. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. The soils flood mostly during the
winter or early spring months. The native vegetation is forests consisting of gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), oak (Quercus spp.), beech (Fagus grandifolia), poplar (Populus spp.) and some pine (Pinus
spp.). In a representative profile, the surface layer is dark brown loam 8 inches (20 cm) thick. The
underlying material, in sequence from the top, is 14 inches (35 cm) of dark brown loam; 10 inches (25 cm)
of dark brown very fine sandy loam; 6 inches (15 cm) of very dark grayish brown loam; 24 inches (61 cm)
of brown silty clay loam; and the lower part is mottled clay loam to a depth of 80 inches (203 cm).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Chewacla Series. The Chewacla series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils on
nearly level floodplains. They formed in loamy sediments washed largely from soils formed in
residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. Slopes
range from 0 to 2 percent. Chewacla soils formed in recent alluvium on nearly level floodplains along
streams that drain from the mountains and Piedmont. Most areas flood frequently. Much of the soil
is cleared and is in pasture or cropland. The remainder is forest. Chewacla soils have brown loam
surface layers 8 inches (20 cm) thick. The subsoil is 50 inches (127 cm) thick. It is dark yellowish
brown and consists of yellowish brown loam in the middle part and light brownish gray silty clay loam
in the lower portion. The underlying material is sand and extremely gravelly sand.
Wehadkee Series. The Wehadkee series consists of poorly drained soils on floodplains along streams
that drain from the mountains and Piedmont. They are formed in loamy sediments. Slopes are generally
less than 2 percent. Runoff is very slow as is internal drainage, while permeability is moderate. These
soils are frequently flooded and are usually found in forested areas. Native vegetation is comprised of
chiefly water-tolerant hardwoods such as sweetgum, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), water oak (Quercus
nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos), poplar, hickories (Carya spp.), beech, and elm (Ulmus spp.). In a
representative profile, the surface layer is grayish brown sandy loam about 8 inches (20 cm) thick. The
subsoil, extending to a depth of 40 inches (101 cm), is dark gray loam in the upper part and gray sandy
loam in the lower part. The underlying layer to a depth of 50 inches (127 cm) is gray sandy loam.
Granville Series. The Granville series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable
soils on Piedmont uplands. They formed in residuum weathered from Triassic sandstone and shale.
The slope ranges from 0 to 10 percent. Soils are strongly acidic throughout, except when the surface
is limited. Approximately two-thirds of the acreage of Granville soils is cultivated or used for pasture.
Common vegetation includes white (Quercus alba), red (Q. falcata), black (Q. velutina) and post oaks
(Q. stellata), hickory, sweetgum, red maple (Acer rubrum), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and
dogwood (Cornus spp.). Shortleaf (Pinus echinata), Virginia (P. virginiana) and loblolly (P. taeda)
pines are common, especially on old fields. In a representative profile, the surface layer is light
yellowish brown sandy loam, about 3 inches (8 cm) thick. The underlying material is brownish yellow
sandy clay loam saprolite weathered from Triassic material.
Mayodan Series. The Mayodan series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils that
formed in residuum weathered from Triassic materials of the Piedmont uplands. Slopes range from 1
to 25 percent. Approximately 65 percent of the acreage of Mayodan soils is cultivated or used for
pasture. Forest vegetation includes white, red, black and post oaks, hickory, yellow poplar,
sweetgum, red maple, sourwood, and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). Shortleaf, Virginia, and
loblolly pine are common in old fields. A representative layer consists of a surface layer of grayish
brown sandy loam 3 inches (8 cm) thick. The subsoil, which extends 47 inches (119 cm), is strong
brown sandy clay loam in the upper part and yellowish red sandy clay in the middle and lower parts.
The underlying material is dark red and very pale brown clay.
Creedmoor Series. The Creedmoor series is composed of moderately well drained and somewhat
poorly drained, very slow permeable soils that have formed in residuum weathered from Triassic
materials of upland Piedmont origins. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent. In a representative profile,
the surface layer is dark gray sandy loam 2 inches (5 cm) thick. The subsurface layer is pale brown
sandy loam 6 inches (16 cm) thick. The subsoil extends to 56 inches (142 cm). It is pale brown and
brownish yellow sandy clay loam in the upper part; light yellowish brown clay in the middle part; and
light gray clay and silty clay in the lower part. The underlying layer is fine sandy loam to 77 inches
(195 cm). About one-third of the soil is under cultivation or in pasture, and the remainder is in forests
of shortleaf and loblolly pine, oaks, hickory, and gum.
White Store Series. The White Store series consists of moderately well drained, very firm, plastic,
sticky, very slow permeable soils that have formed in residuum weathered Triassic material of the
Piedmont uplands. White Store soils are on nearly level to moderately steep Piedmont uplands.
14 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Slopes range from 2 to 25 percent. About two-thirds of the total area is in forests of loblolly and
shortleaf pines, oaks, hickories, and gums. The remainder is in cultivation or pasture. In a
representative profile, the surface layer is brown, fine sandy loam about 6 inches (15 cm) thick. The
subsoil extends to 35 inches (89 cm). It is strong brown clay loam in the upper part. The underlying
material is dark reddish brown weathered sandstone to 38 inches (98 cm).
Worsham Series. Soils of the Worsham series are very deep and poorly drained. They are on
uplands and formed in a mixture of colluvium and alluvium or in residuum. Typically these soils have
a dark gray fine sandy loam surface layer 8 inches (20 cm) thick. The gray mottled subsoil layers (8–
50 inches / 20–127 cm) are sandy clay loam and sandy clay. Slopes range from 0 to 8 percent.
HYDROLOGY
The refuge’s hydrology is characterized by sheet-flow and stream flow. Water drains from upland
areas through sheet-flow and small streams and collects in larger creeks (such as Brown Creek)
which empty into the Pee Dee River. This hydrology is interrupted primarily by roads, where water is
directed through culverts. Water is retained in impoundments and then slowly released to streams.
AIR QUALITY
Air quality is high on the refuge due to its rural location. According to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Anson and Richmond counties consistently maintain “attainment” (good air quality)
status, which includes ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and
lead (EPA 2007). Factors that contribute to poor air quality are air stagnation due to temperature
inversions and forest fires, although these episodes are typically not severe and of short duration.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
The refuge’s water quality has not been systematically assessed; however, some parameters
(dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and turbidity) were collected during an ichthyological survey
conducted by Progress Energy (Progress Energy 2005a). Standing water in lakes and ponds is
expected to be reasonably good due to limited input of sediment and pollutants. However, the
streams, creeks and rivers on the refuge are thought to have fair to poor water quality. The EPA has
listed Brown Creek as an impaired water body on its 2002 303(d) list (North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality 2002). Impairments include low
dissolved oxygen and high sediment and turbidity levels. Low-order streams on the refuge (Canal
Branch, Hurricane Creek, Pressley Creek, and Flat Fork Creek) received stream health scores of
“Poor” or “Fair” using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (Progress Energy 2005a).
The water quality of two refuge ponds has been indirectly measured through mercury analyses of fish
tissue (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). All fish (catfish, sunfish, and largemouth bass) collected from
Ross and Sullivan ponds contained mercury at concentrations that ranged between 0.01–0.88 parts per
million (ppm) wet weight. Mercury levels were lowest in redear sunfish (median: 0.12 ppm) and highest in
largemouth bass (median: 0.63 ppm). Mercury distribution nationwide can be attributed to a variety of
natural (e.g., mercury deposits in certain geologic formations and soil types) and anthropogenic sources
(e.g., fossil fuel combustion, solid waste incineration). All waters of the eastern United States are subject
to continuous mercury loading through atmospheric deposition (EPA 2001).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Pee Dee NWR protects a wealth of biological resources, including bottomland hardwoods, upland
pine forests, mixed pine-hardwood forests, grasslands, croplands, and managed wetlands. Many
species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds use the refuge year-round or as part of their
annual migrations, some of which are state- and federal-listed species.
HABITAT
The refuge encompasses a variety of natural habitat types (Table 1). Artificial habitats consist of
croplands, moist soil units, flooded crop impoundments, and a green tree reservoir (see Table 1 for
habitat types and sizes and Figure 4 for a vegetation map).
Table 1. Habitat types and sizes on Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat Type Acres (Hectares)
Bottomland Hardwoods 2,895 (1,172)
Mixed Pine-Hardwoods 1,820 (737)
Upland Pine Forest 1,736 (703)
Croplands 1,161 (470)
Grasslands/Old Fields 732 (296)
Managed Wetlands 315 (127)
Open Water* 319 (129)
Total 8,978 (3,634)
*Includes 140 acres of the Pee Dee River which flows through the refuge, but are not Service-owned
Bottomland Hardwoods
A total of 2,895 acres (1,172 hectares) of bottomland hardwood habitat occurs on Pee Dee NWR
and is considered one of the largest contiguous tracts of this rare habitat type in North Carolina.
The majority of this habitat type is located along the bottoms of the Pee Dee River, Brown Creek,
Thoroughfare Creek, and Pressley Creek. Water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos),
wamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda) dominate the stands, along
with lesser amounts of green and white ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica and F. americana);
mockernut and shagbark hickories (Carya tomentosa and C. ovata); white oak (Q. alba); and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The understory is comprised of pawpaw (Asimina triloba),
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), southern arrowwood
(Viburnum dentatum), devils walkingstick (Aralia spinosa), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
16 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Vegetation of Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Upland Pine Forests
A total of 1,736 acres (703 hectares) of upland pine forest habitat occurs on Pee Dee
National Wildlife Refuge. Of this, about 212 acres (86 hectares) consist of planted pine.
This habitat type is made up of pure stands of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) or mixtures in which
loblolly makes up the majority of the stocking. The most common species mixed in is
sweetgum (Liquidambar spp.). On the well drained sites, shortleaf (P. echinata), Virginia (P.
virginiana) and longleaf pines (P. palustris) occur. The understory is rich in species diversity
and numbers. Management techniques utilized in this habitat include prescribed fire and tree
thinning (see Figure 5 for burn units and Figure 6 for timber stands).
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forests
A total of 1,820 acres (737 hectares) of mixed pine-hardwood forest occurs on the refuge.
Loblolly and shortleaf pines are not predominant, but make up at least 25 percent of the
stand. The hardwood species present differ depending on site wetness. Succession is
strongly toward the hardwoods, and these sites can be considered transitional to various
hardwood types. Thinning and prescribed fire (Figures 5 and 6) are the primary
management tools used in these areas, with low intensity fires (or no fire) used in areas
where hardwoods dominate (to prevent hardwood tree mortality).
Grasslands and Old Fields
Grassland and open areas total 732 acres (296 hectares) and include 85 acres (34 hectares) of
road rights-of-way; 7.4 acres (3 hectares) of distribution rights-of way; and 18 acres (7 hectares)
of a gas line right-of-way. These habitats are maintained using prescribed fire, mowing, discing,
and planting annuals and native grasses.
Croplands
Croplands comprise 1,161 acres (470 hectares) of the Pee Dee NWR (Figure 7). In 2006,
615 acres (249 hectares) were planted with corn and 547 acres (221 hectares) were planted
with soybeans under the Cooperative Farming Program. Of these acreages, 20 percent of
the crops are taken in standing corn left for wildlife or as commodity payments. A
percentage of wheat is occasionally grown. In addition, in the upland fields, farmers are
required to leave a 15-foot (4.6-meter) wide unplanted field border, which is left fallow or
planted by refuge staff in a mix of wildlife food crops.
Natural and Managed Wetlands
Natural and managed wetlands are comprised of flooded crop impoundments, moist-soil
impoundments, manmade ponds and semi-permanent wetlands, beaver ponds, and a manmade
green tree reservoir (see Figure 8 for a map of the managed wetlands and Table 2 for their
respective sizes). Management techniques used in these areas include prescribed fire, planting,
mowing, and water level manipulation.
Nonnative Plants
Nonnative plants have the potential to alter refuge habitats by displacing native plants, changing fire
regimes, and altering soil hydrology (Miller 2003). Although a systematic inventory of nonnative plants
has not been performed on the refuge, kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense) and alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) are present. In addition, Japanese stilt grass
(Microstegium vimineum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Chinese lespedeza
(Lespedeza cuneata) are problematic invasive plants that may occur on the refuge.
Kudzu is a fast-growing vine that can be a serious invader of semi-natural or natural habitat. This
species forms large impenetrable masses, growing over woody vegetation and engulfing unwooded
areas. It kills trees by completely shutting out light, girdling woody stems and tree trunks, breaking
branches or uprooting entire trees and shrubs from the sheer weight (Miller 2003). Kudzu is found on
a few, relatively small areas of the refuge.
18 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Burn Units, Pee Dee NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 6. Timber stands, Pee Dee NWR
20 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Croplands on Pee Dee NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Figure 8. Managed wetlands, Pee Dee NWR
22 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Alligatorweed displaces native plants in ditches, along banks, and in shallow water (Holm et al. 1997). It
can also disrupt water flow, causing increased sedimentation; and can shade out submersed plants and
animals, causing reduced oxygen levels beneath the mat (Quimby and Kay 1976). Alligatorweed has
been documented in at least one of the refuge impoundments.
Chinese privet is currently the most widespread nonnative weed on the refuge. It is an
aggressive invasive, often forming dense thickets particularly in bottomland forests. Chinese
privet is shade-tolerant and colonizes new areas by root sprouts and is spread widely by
abundant bird- and other animal-dispersed seeds.
Japanese stiltgrass is adapted to low light conditions, and it threatens native plants and natural habitats in
open to shady, and moist to dry locations. Stiltgrass spreads to form extensive patches, displacing native
species that are not able to compete with it. In areas where white-tailed deer are over-abundant, they
may facilitate its invasion by feeding on native plant species and avoiding stiltgrass.
Japanese honeysuckle has few natural enemies in North America which allows it to spread widely
and out-compete native plant species. It is an evergreen to semi-evergreen, giving it a competitive
advantage over many native species that go dormant and stop growing during the colder months.
Shrubs and young trees can be killed by girdling when vines twist tightly around stems and trunks,
cutting off the flow of water through the plant. In addition, dense growths of honeysuckle covering
vegetation can gradually kill plants by blocking sunlight from reaching their leaves. Vigorous root
competition also helps Japanese honeysuckle spread and displace neighboring native vegetation.
Chinese lespedeza is primarily a threat to open areas such as meadows, prairies, open woodlands,
wetland borders and fields. In addition, this species represents an invasion threat in upland pine
forests that have been thinned or burned. When is becomes established, it can crowd out native
plants and develop an extensive seed bank in the soil, ensuring repeated colonization of a site upon
removal of the parent plants. Established dense stands of Chinese lespedeza can suppress native
flora, and its high tannin content makes it unpalatable to native wildlife.
Wildlife
The lands and waters of Pee Dee NWR provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, including
invertebrates; at least 35 species of fish; 48 species of amphibians and reptiles; 28 species of
mammals; and more than 175 species of birds (see Appendix I, Refuge Biota). Several
representative species from each category are described below.
Invertebrates
Aquatic invertebrates on the refuge include crayfish, snails, and mussels. More than 10 species of
mussels have been documented on the refuge (Progress Energy 2005b; J. Fridell, USFWS, personal
communication, 20 Nov. 2007), including the eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata), Carolina lance (E.
angustata), Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), notched rainbow (V. constricta), eastern
creekshell, (V. delumbis), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) and creeper (Strophitus undulatus).
Crayfish likely to be found on the refuge include those species in the genus Cambarus and Procambarus.
Listed crayfish species were not documented during a 2005 study along the Pee Dee River (Progress
Energy 2005b). An inventory of terrestrial invertebrates has not been performed on the refuge. However,
at least a few state-listed insects are likely to occur on the refuge, as several dozen have been
documented in Anson and Richmond counties (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 2004).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Table 2. Acreages of open water and wetland habitats on Pee Dee NWR
Unit Acres /
Hectares
Habitat Type
Ross Pond 6.9 / 2.8 Manmade Pond
Sullivan Pond 3.8 / 1.5 Manmade Pond
Little Pond 0.8 / 0.3 Manmade Pond
Lower Ringneck Unit 6.4 / 2.6 Manmade Moist Soil Unit
Andrews Pond 17.8 / 7.2 Manmade Pond
Beaver Ponds 22 / 8.9 Beaver Ponds
Sullivan MSU 26.5 / 10.7 Manmade Moist Soil Unit
Arrowhead Lake 28.6 / 11.6 Manmade Lake
Unnamed Impoundments 51.6 / 20.9 Manmade Moist Soil Units
Green-tree Reservoir 135 / 54.6 Manmade Reservoir
Griffin Unit 60 / 24 Flooded Crop Impoundments
Patterson Unit 20 / 8 Flooded Crop Impoundments
Andrews Unit 10 / 4 Flooded Crop Impoundments
Upper Ringneck Unit 10 / 4 Manmade Moist Soil Unit
Total 399.4 / 161.1
24 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Fish
A total of 35 species of fish were encountered in a fishery survey on the refuge (Progress Energy
2005a). These include the longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and
gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). Common species included largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), several species of sunfish (Lepomis spp.),
catfish (Ameiurus and Ictalurus spp.), shiners (Notropis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.), and eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). At least one listed species, the Carolina darter (Etheostoma
collis), has been documented.
Nonnative fish found on the refuge include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), comely shiner (Notropis
amoenus), smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus), blue and channel catfish (Ictalurus furcatus and I.
punctatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and yellow perch
(Perca flavescens). The ecological effects of these nonnative fish have been evaluated for only a few
of these species, such as carp and flathead catfish. Carp, a bottom-feeder, are known to negatively
impact native fish by removing aquatic vegetation, which, in turn, causes a decline in water quality
(Hill 1999). Flathead catfish, a large predatory species, has the potential to cause changes in North
Carolina freshwater fish communities (Pine et al. 2005) and has been named one of the worst
nonnative species of fish in the United States (Fuller 1999).
Amphibians
Amphibians have not been intensively surveyed on the refuge, but several species have been
documented. North Carolina and the Piedmont, in particular, have a high diversity of salamanders.
Nine species of salamanders have been found on the refuge. The salamanders likely to be found
along streams and in wetlands on the refuge include the Eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens),
two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), and marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), while
slimy salamanders (Plethodon glutinosus) are common in woodlands. Toads include the Eastern
spade-foot (Scaphiopus holbrooki), which prefers sandy lowlands; Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei),
which is found near wetlands; the woodland oak toad (B. quercicus); and the American toad (B.
americanus), a species that can be found in a variety of habitats. At least nine species of frogs are
found on the refuge. Aquatic and wetland species include the bullfrog (Rana catebeiana), green frog
(R. clamitans), and Northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), whereas the gray treefrog (Hyla
chrysoscelis) occupies woodlands.
Reptiles
A baseline reptile survey was initiated by NCWRC on the refuge in 2007 and is underway. Prior to
2007, six species of lizards, 13 species of snakes, and seven species of turtles have been
documented on the refuge. The six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus) and the eastern
fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates) are likely to be found in drier habitats. Several species of skinks,
such as the broadheaded skink (Eumeces laticeps), are found in many refuge habitats. Snakes that
could be encountered on the refuge include common species such as black racers (Coluber
constrictor), corn snakes (Elaphe guttata), and rat snakes (E. obsolete), which utilize several different
habitats. The eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos) usually occupies drier, sandy areas.
Several water snakes may be found along the streams, ponds, and wetlands, including Nerodia spp.
as well as brown water snakes (Storeria dekayi). The most common venomous snake in the
Piedmont is the copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), a species that can be found in the refuge’s
fields and lowlands. Turtles on the refuge include mostly aquatic species such as the snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentine); musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus); one or more species of terrapins
(Chrysemys spp.); and possibly the softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera). The only terrestrial turtle on
the refuge is the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), a species that inhabits pastures and woods.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Birds
The refuge is an important stopover area for many species of migratory birds and songbirds during
the fall and spring. The refuge lies midway along the Atlantic Flyway, and thus many species of
migratory birds feed and rest on the refuge during their annual migrations. The refuge impoundments
also serve an important role as an inviolate sanctuary for waterfowl during the winter, since no
hunting is allowed. In total, more than 188 species of birds can be found using the refuge seasonally.
This includes a number of federal- and state-listed avian species, several of which are discussed in
the Endangered, Threatened, and Imperiled Species section below. Waterfowl, wading birds,
shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds (i.e., songbirds or passerines) all depend on the diverse
habitats available on the refuge.
Waterfowl. The planning region for the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) includes Pee Dee NWR. The
ACJV is a partnership of private and public entities working together for the conservation of native birds in
the Atlantic Flyway region of the United States. The highest priority nonbreeding waterfowl species
identified in the ACJV are the Canada goose (Branta canadensis, Atlantic and Southern James Bay
populations) and the American black duck (Anas rubripes). These two species are found on Pee Dee
NWR. Other species that utilize the refuge’s wetland forests, ponds, impoundments, and croplands
include the wood duck (Aix sponsa), American wigeon (Anas Americana), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos),
blue-winged teal (Anas discors), ring-necked ducks (Aythya collaris), and hooded mergansers
(Lophodytes cucullatus). Several of these species nest on the refuge, while others use it as a stopover
site to feed and rest during their migrations.
Shorebirds. Pee Dee NWR was identified in the Southeast Coastal Plain–Caribbean Shorebird
Conservation Plan (Southeast SCP) as an important refuge for shorebirds. Shorebird species include
the killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago
delicate), and several species of sandpipers (Calidris spp). None of these species are likely to breed
on the refuge; however, the refuge provides suitable foraging habitat for spring and fall migrating and
overwintering birds. Although the refuge does not support breeding populations, its role in providing
stopover habitat during the spring and fall migrations is important. Availability of foraging habitats
during key migratory periods has been shown to be critical for the persistence of long-distance
migratory birds. One habitat goal stated in the Southeast SCP is to provide dedicated, high quality
managed habitat to support the energetic requirements of in-transit migrants.
Wading Birds. Wading birds at the refuge utilize a broad range of wetland habitat types for foraging,
roosting, and nesting. Refuge habitats frequented by wading birds include both natural and
manmade features, natural wetlands, impoundments, and shallow streams and creeks. Great blue
herons (Ardea herodias) and green herons (Butorides virescen) are common on the refuge.
Landbirds. Several species of landbirds are known or likely to occur within the refuge, including priority
species identified by the Southern Piedmont Bird Conservation Plan, North Carolina Partners in Flight,
and the North Carolina Bird Species Assessment. However, due to their inconspicuousness or a general
lack of quantitative abundance data, it remains unclear to what extent they occur on the refuge or how
significantly the refuge might contribute to their conservation. The refuge’s upland habitats are utilized by
priority species such as wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens),
yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and yellow-throated
vireo (Vireo flavifrons). Priority species in riparian habitats include the Louisiana waterthrush
(Seiurus motacilla), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrine), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), northern
parula (Parula americana), Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria
citrea), and Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii).
Nonnative Birds. Several species of nonnative birds have been documented on the refuge, including
the cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer
domesticus), and rock pigeon (Columba livia). Cattle egrets first colonized South America during the
26 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
1930s and soon thereafter invaded North America (Crosby 1972). This species has been
documented to compete with native wading birds in rookeries (Burger 1978). European starlings
compete aggressively for nesting cavities, often to the detriment of native birds (Kerpez and Smith
1990). Similarly, house sparrows will supplant and even kill native species attempting to use nest
boxes (Gowaty 1984; Radunzel et al. 1997). The European starling is known for its propensity to
damage fruit crops, sprouted seeds, and livestock feedlots (Dolbeer et al. 1978; Somers and Morris
2002). Starlings are major components of winter blackbird roosts which are noisy, smelly and
generally not aesthetically pleasing (Dolbeer et al. 1978; Mott 1980).
Mammals
The mammals found on Pee Dee NWR are likely to include those that are relatively common state-wide.
Bobcats (Lynx rufus) are the largest native predators on the refuge and will be found in a variety of
habitats. Smaller predators include the opossum (Didelphis virginiana); raccoon (Procyon lotor); striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis); red fox ((Vulpes vulpes); gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus); and otter (Lutra
canadensis). Conspicuous herbivores include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), beaver (Castor
canadensis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), and cottontail rabbits
(Sylvilagus floridanus). In addition, numerous species of rats, mice, voles, bats, shrews, and moles
occupy various habitats on the refuge.
Nonnative mammals include the coyote (Canis latrans) and feral hogs (Sus scrofa). Coyotes
have colonized the eastern United States during the last 100 years and continue to expand their
range (Hill et al. 1987). Coyotes are highly opportunistic, generalist feeders, with a varied diet
that usually includes rodents, birds, and fruit (Gammons 2004). However, coyotes can also prey
on larger species. Although coyotes are not known to seriously impact quail populations (Henke
2002), they can be important predators of deer (Brundige 1993; Patterson and Messier 2003),
wild turkey (Ballard 2003), and livestock (Houben 2004). A potentially much more problematic
species is the feral hog. This species has been listed among the world’s 100 worst nonnative
species by the World Conservation Union (Invasive Species Specialist Group 2007) due to its
predation on native species and habitat destruction.
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND IMPERILED SPECIES
Several federal- and state-listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur or potentially
occur within the refuge. They include birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, freshwater mussels,
and several species of plants (Table 2).
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a large raptor whose populations declined through
poaching, habitat loss, and pesticide poisoning (Buehler 2000). In 1967 it was listed as endangered.
Through various conservation efforts, the bald eagle’s status was changed to threatened in 1995 and
removed from the Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List in July 2007. It remains federally
protected under the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and is state-listed as threatened. It is
primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near bodies of water where it feeds.
There are no documented bald eagle nests within the refuge; however, two to four eagles have been
annually documented feeding and roosting in the area year-round.
Little Blue Heron
One of the wading birds, the little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), forages in shallow water for small
fish and invertebrates. As a result of farmland expansion, residential development, and recreation,
changes in water levels and flow have degraded coastal and riparian wetlands for breeding and
wintering herons (Rogers and Smith 1995). The little blue heron is occasionally observed on the
refuge, especially during summer and fall. This species is state-listed as one of special concern.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus) is known for its unique behavior of impaling
its prey on thorns, barbed-wire fences, and similar projections, hence its preference for nesting near
areas containing such “larders.” Throughout its range, its habitat typically includes grasslands
interspersed with scattered trees and shrubs that provide nesting and perching sites. A variety of
habitats often occur within breeding territories, including cultivated cropland, transportation rights-of-way,
and shelterbelts. Loggerhead shrikes are declining nationwide. One hypothesis for their
decreasing populations suggests that the abandonment of many farms and orchards, overgrown from
neglect, has created unfavorable nesting habitat. Roadkills and pesticide contamination may also be
factors (Yosef 1996). Though uncommon on the refuge year-round, the loggerhead shrike is known
to breed on Pee Dee NWR.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) is a nonmigratory bird of mature southern
pine forests. Its preference for longleaf pine and the destruction of that habitat have resulted in the
woodpecker becoming federally listed as an endangered species in 1970 (Hooper et al. 1980). It is a
cooperative breeder and lives in family units or groups that consist of a breeding pair and previous
offspring that jointly raise each successive brood. Each group inhabits a “cluster” of cavity trees.
Historically, three sites or “clusters” were present on Pee Dee NWR. The last known occurrence of a
single male RCW was in 1999–2000. Prior to 2000, the cluster occupied by the solitary male was
augmented with four artificial cavities and two female RCWs were released in an attempt to establish
a breeding pair, but these efforts proved unsuccessful.
Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat
Rafinesque's big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii) typically require large hollow trees for
roosting and raising their young. Throughout their range, many such roosts have been lost. The relatively
few remaining colonies now survive primarily in lowland tree hollows that are subject to flooding, or in
abandoned buildings that are prone to human disturbance and structural collapse from decay. Some
occupy cave entrances and rock shelters, again where they are easily disturbed. The status and distribution
of this species on the refuge is unknown, although it is likely to occur there given the amount of suitable
habitat. These bats are federally listed as of special concern and designated as threatened by NCWRC.
Stream Fish
Due to continued degradation of water quality from runoff and pollution, several species of stream fish
in North Carolina have declined significantly (Warren et al. 2000). Stream fish need clean, well-oxygenated
water that is free of sediments that can smother foraging areas and spawning grounds.
The Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis), listed by the Service and NCWRC as a species of special
concern, has been documented on the refuge (Progress Energy 2005a). The Carolina redhorse
(Moxostoma sp. 2) could also be found in the section of the Pee Dee River that flows through the
refuge as it has been documented from nearby areas. This species was only recently discovered
(1995) as a distinct species (hence it has not been fully named to date) and has been extirpated
throughout most of its former range (Dr. W. Starnes, North Carolina Museum of Natural Science,
personal communication, 15 Nov. 2007).
Diadromous Fish
Diadromous fish migrate between salt and freshwater to complete part of their life cycle. Some
spawn in freshwater and migrate to marine habitats to mature (e.g., salmon, some shad species),
while others spawn in the ocean and become adults in freshwater (e.g., eels). Prior to the European
colonization of North America, several diadromous species were found in the Pee Dee River and its
tributaries. These included the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrhynchus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), hickory shad (A. mediocris), American
shad (A. sapidissima), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis).
Populations of these species in North America have declined due to overfishing, loss of habitat,
28 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
limited access to spawning areas (blocked by dams), and water pollution, promoting state and federal
protective measures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
2006). These species cannot pass Blewett Falls dam, which is located downstream of the refuge on
the Pee Dee River, and are consequently unlikely to be found on the refuge (M. Bowers, USFWS,
personal communication, 12 June 2007). Only the American eel has been documented on the refuge
(Progress Energy 2005a).
Freshwater Mussels
The decline of freshwater mussels (Family Unionidae), which began in the late 1800s, has resulted
from various habitat disturbances, and most significantly, the modification and destruction of aquatic
habitats by dams and pollution (Williams et al. 1993). Nonnative bivalves such as Asian clams
(Corbicula fluminea) and zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) have also contributed to the decline
of native freshwater mussels (Leff et al. 1990, Haag et al. 1993). In North Carolina alone, over 50
species of freshwater mussels are federal- and/or state-listed (NCWRC 2004). Several freshwater
mussel species have been documented on the refuge (Alderman 2005), including two federal species
of concern, Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) and brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa).
State and Natural Heritage Program listed species documented in Brown Creek and Little Brown
Creek include eastern creekshell, creeper, and eastern lampmussel (J. Fridell, USFWS, personal
communication, 20 Nov. 2007). Table 3 lists the state- and federal-protected freshwater mussels that
have been documented or are potentially found on the refuge.
Listed Plants
North Carolina has a number of rare and imperiled plant species (North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources 2002). These listed plants have declined due to habitat loss from
urbanization and agriculture, changes in land use (e.g., fire suppression), competition with exotic plants,
and changes in hydrology. The listed species of plants that potentially occur on Pee Dee NWR, based on
documented occurrences for Anson and/or Richmond counties (North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources 2002), are shown in Table 4. This list was further developed through
input from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (M. Schafale and B. Sorrie, personal
communication, September 2007 and May 2008). Most of these are state-listed plants, but also include a
federally endangered species, the Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Several archaeological studies have been performed on Pee Dee NWR (Anderson and Bryant 2000;
Joy 1994; Garrow 1979; Cooper and Derting 1976). The results of these studies have shown that
areas surrounding the Pee Dee River and Brown Creek had appreciable prehistoric use. Although
many of the findings could not be unambiguously dated, some artifacts were diagnostic to the Early –
Late Archaic period (8,000 – 1,000 B.C.).
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
North Carolina’s estimated population growth is 34,500 people annually, with 14,500 acres (5,868
hectares) developed yearly in association with that increase (Costa and Petersen 2002). It is
considered one of seven fastest-growing states in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The
state's population is currently estimated at 8,856,505 and is expected to surpass 10 million by 2025
(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Although the populations of Anson and Richmond counties are not
expected to increase substantially, certain neighboring counties such as Mecklenburg and Union
will become significantly more populated by 2019, as shown in Table 5 (North Carolina State
Demographic Unit 2007; South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics 2007).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Table 3. State- and federal-listed fish and wildlife species potentially occurring on Pee Dee
NWR
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
NCWRC USFWS
FRESHWATER MUSSELS
Alewife Floater Anodonta implicata T -
Brook Floater Alasmidonta varicosa E SC
Carolina Creekshell Villosa vaughaniana E SC
Carolina Fatmucket Lampsilis radiata conspicua T -
Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E E
Creeper Strophitus undulatus T -
Eastern Creekshell Villosa delumbis SR -
Eastern Lampmussel Lampsilis radiata T -
Eastern Pondmussel Ligumia nasuta T -
Notched Rainbow Villosa constricta SC -
Roanoke Slabshell Elliptio roanokensis T -
Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa E SC
FISH
Carolina Darter Etheostoma collis SC SC
Carolina Redhorse Moxostoma sp. 2 SC C
MAMMALS
Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii T SC
BIRDS
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T -
Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SC -
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus SC -
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E E
Key: C=Candidate for potential listing, E=endangered, SC= species of concern, SR=Significantly Rare (Natural Heritage
Program), T=threatened
30 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Table 4. Listed plant species potentially occurring on Pee Dee NWR
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
NCWRC USFWS
Dwarf Aster Eurybia mirabilis SC -
Huger’s Carrion-flower Smilax hugeri SC -
Schweinitz’s Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E E
Small-leaved Meadow-rue Thalictrum macrostylum SC -
Thick-pod White Wild Indigo Baptisia alba SC -
Key: E=endangered, SC= species of concern, T=threatened
In 2000, the population density of Anson County was 48 persons per square mile (mi²) or 18 persons
per square kilometer (km²). There were 10,221 housing units at an average density of 19 units/mi²
(7 units/km²). The racial makeup of the county was 49.53 percent White; 48.64 percent Black or
African-American; 0.45 percent Native American; 0.57 percent Asian; 0.02 percent Pacific Islander;
0.32 percent from other races; and 0.46 percent from two or more races. About 0.83 percent of the
population was Hispanic or Latino of any race. The major economic activities include manufacturing;
retail; technical services; health care; accommodation and food services; and agriculture. The land
use is primarily agricultural, followed by silviculture and urban areas (North Carolina State
Demographic Unit 2007).
With the exception of population density, the demographics for Richmond County were similar to
those of Anson County in 2000. The population density was 98/mi² (38/km²). There were 19,886
housing units at an average density of 42/mi² (16/km²). The racial makeup of the county was
64.84 percent White; 30.53 percent Black or African-American; 1.65 percent Native American;
0.68 percent Asian; 0.03 percent Pacific Islander; 1.08 percent from other races; and 1.18
percent from two or more races. About 2.83 percent of the population was Hispanic or Latino of
any race. Manufacturing, retail, health care, and accommodation and food services were the
major employment sectors in 2000. Land use consists mostly of farming, followed by urban areas
(North Carolina State Demographic Unit 2007).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Table 5. Regional county population data for Pee Dee NWR
County 2005
Population
Percent Increase
(2000–2005)
Predicted 2019
Population*
Home Counties
Anson 25,766 1.9% 27,279
Richmond 46,676 0.2% 47,335
Nearby Counties
Chesterfield (SC) 42,768 10.9% (1990-2000) 46,850
Mecklenburg 796,232 14.5% 1,093,595
Montgomery 27,359 2.0% 30,412
Stanly 58,912 1.4% 64,265
Union 161,332 30.3% 249,559
Fishing, hunting, and other wildlife-associated activities are an important component of the recreational
opportunities available in North Carolina (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2001). More than two million North Carolina
residents and nonresidents engaged in hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching activities. Birdwatchers
comprised the largest component (75 percent) of the wildlife-related activities, with over 1.3 million people
engaged in this activity. In 2001, state residents and nonresidents spent nearly $2.5 billion on wildlife-oriented
recreation in North Carolina. Of that total, trip-related expenditures were $703 million and
equipment purchases were $1.5 billion. The remaining $227 million was spent on licenses, contributions,
land ownership and leasing, and other items and services.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
Land Protection and Conservation
Pee Dee NWR oversees 20 conservation easements, totaling approximately 1,305 acres (528
hectares) located in eight counties (Anson, Bladen, Cabarrus, Columbus, Hoke, Lincoln, Robeson
and Scotland) (Figure 9). The easement properties range in size from 14 to 224 acres (5.7 to
90.6 hectares) and are predominantly wetlands with a few consisting of upland pine forests.
These easements are placed under Service management as part of the Farm Service Agency’s,
formerly Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) Inventory Property Disposal Program. The Farm
Service Agency (FSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. FSA provides farm
ownership, farm operating, and other loans to farmers and ranchers unable to obtain credit from
commercial lending institutions. In many instances, FSA obtains real property used to secure
loans when those loans are defaulted. FSA obtains these properties through foreclosure actions
that it or another lien holder initiates on delinquent real estate loans, or through voluntary
conveyances from delinquent borrowers in lieu of foreclosure. FSA holds these properties in
inventory until they can be sold to other parties or otherwise be disposed. FSA has an affirmative
responsibility to protect wetlands, floodplains, and other important resources located on inventory
properties prior to their disposal. Two primary mechanisms exist to conserve important resources
32 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
on properties sold or otherwise transferred out of inventory status. Important resources on
inventory properties can be protected from future degradation through a conservation easement
or through fee title transfer for conservation purposes.
Visitor Services
The purpose of the refuge’s visitor services program is to provide opportunities for appropriate and
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation to enable the public to enjoy the refuge (see Figure 10 for
public use map). Approximately 30,000–35,000 visitors come to Pee Dee NWR annually. The refuge
has a visitor contact area in the refuge office, where visitors can obtain maps and brochures; and three
informational kiosks located around the refuge. Wildlife observation and photography opportunities
exist along several trails and wildlife drives. Every year, at least 6,000 hunters visit the refuge to hunt
for deer, turkey, quail, dove, and small game (see Figure 11 for hunt areas). Fishing is also a popular
activity on the refuge, and opportunities exist along several ponds, streams, Brown Creek, and the Pee
Dee River. The refuge hosts a variety of environmental education programs for grade schools and
college students. For environmental interpretation, the refuge offers brochures, a kiosk, the Tall Pines
Trail, and the Gaddy Covered Bridge (Figure 10).
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance
The refuge headquarters office is located near the town of Wadesboro, North Carolina, a small community
population of approximately 3,500 people. The refuge occupies a unique location where the rolling hills of
the Piedmont drain into the wetland and aquatic habitats of the Pee Dee River and Brown Creek. The
majority of the refuge lies within Anson County, with only a very small portion in Richmond County.
The refuge staff was reduced from eight employees in 2002 to its current number of five. These
positions include the refuge manager, assistant manager, office assistant, engineering equipment
operator, and a refuge officer (Figure 12). The assistant manager position has also been identified for
reduction under the Work Force Planning Initiatives of 2006. Two vacated maintenance worker
positions and a biologist will not be refilled under current directives. There was also a full-time forest
technician position during the 1990s that was vacated and not filled.
The refuge’s equipment includes the following: John Deere (JD) 450 dozer; Cat D-5 dozer; JD
670C grader; JD 310 backhoe; JD 7510 farm tractor; JD 2155 farm tractor; Case 886 farm tractor;
type-6 fire engine; all-terrain vehicles including two Honda 4- wheelers; and a Kawasaki Mule
with a small water tank and hose reel.
A friends group called the Friends of the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1997.
Its mission is to enhance public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of the refuge’s
purposes, programs, and projects and to assist the refuge staff in its biological and maintenance
projects. The group now has more than 100 paid members and an active core membership of about
12 people. The group sponsors several annual events, including a fall wildlife night prowl, butterfly
walks, the Christmas Bird Count, and the annual Kids' Fishing Day. Additionally, the group is working
with other groups to provide support for a proposed environmental education center.
Refuge volunteers support the refuge during a variety of public use programs. Annually the refuge
receives work campers who work four-month shifts at the refuge. Projects are dependent upon the
camper’s knowledge and desires. In the past they have answered phones, picked up litter,
performed maintenance, and monitored nest boxes. The refuge also utilizes volunteers to help
conduct Christmas Bird Count surveys.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Figure 9. Conservation easements, Pee Dee NWR
34 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 10. Public use areas, Pee Dee NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 11. Hunt areas, Pee Dee NWR
36 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 12. Current organizational chart, Pee Dee NWR
Refuge Manager
Refuge Wildlife
Specialist (Assistant
Refuge Manager)
Office Assistant
Park Ranger
Engineering Equipment
Operator
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
III. Plan Development
OVERVIEW
Although Pee Dee NWR has had several step-down management plans in the past, no CCP existed
to address all refuge programs. The comprehensive planning process has allowed the Service,
governmental and non-governmental partners, and the public the opportunity to take a detailed look
at the refuge and its management, resources, and future. The Service’s CCP planning process
provides for public involvement in developing a plan for the future management of a refuge. The
CCPs are revised every 15 years or earlier, if monitoring and evaluation determine that significant
changes are needed to achieve the refuge’s purposes, vision, goals, and/or objectives. The basic
steps of the comprehensive conservation planning process involve the gathering of information;
scoping for public input; developing the draft CCP; gathering public input on the draft CCP;
developing the final CCP; and implementing and monitoring the actions identified in the final CCP.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process began with various data-gathering sessions. As part of this process, the
Service conducted several reviews: a wildlife and habitat management review, a visitor services
review, and a wilderness review. In addition, the Service established a Core CCP Planning Team
that obtained input from the public and from an Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team.
The Core CCP Planning Team consisted of two staff members from Pee Dee NWR and a contracted
consultant from the Dynamac Corporation. This team was the primary decision-making team for the
CCP. The key tasks of this group involved defining and refining the vision; identifying, reviewing, and
filtering the issues; defining the goals; outlining the alternatives; and providing a reality check. The
Core CCP Planning Team members are:
• Jeffrey Bricken, Refuge Manger, Pee Dee NWR
• Greg Walmsley, Assistant Refuge Manager, Pee Dee NWR
• Oliver van den Ende, Contractor, Dynamac Corporation
The Core Planning Team met regularly to review public comments, data, and information collected to
write the CCP. Professional reviews of the refuge were conducted to determine the status, trends, and
condition of the refuge’s resources and facilities. Experts from the Service (including those from the
Ecological Services Division and Carolina Sandhills NWR); the State of North Carolina (including the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Forest Service, and North Carolina
Partners in Flight); Ducks Unlimited; and Gaddy’s Goose Pond participated in the wildlife and habitat
management review of the refuge in 2006. A visitor services review was conducted in 2006 involving
staff from the Service’s Regional Office, the Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex, and Cape Romain
NWR. This review focused on the refuge’s existing visitor use activities and provided recommendations
to improve program development and public use facilities. The information garnered from these
reviews helped the planning team analyze and develop recommendations for this CCP.
Following the initial gathering of information, a notice of intent to prepare a CCP for the refuge was
published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65122). The Service also placed
advertisements in local newspapers; posted information on the refuge’s website regarding the
upcoming public meeting and how to submit comments; posted information on the meeting in the
local community (e.g., local shops, post offices, the refuge’s visitor center, and local libraries); and
distributed flyers announcing the public meeting. Invitations were sent to everyone on the key
38 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
contact list. During January 2007, at least three CCP-related articles appeared in four local
newspapers: Richmond County Daily Journal, The Weekly Post News, Montgomery Herald, and The
Express. A public scoping meeting was held at the refuge on January 25, 2007, with 26 attendees.
During the public scoping period, more than 15 comments were submitted by individuals and
organizations spanning several states. Planning updates kept the public informed of the progress of
the CCP. To date, more than 50 people are on the refuge’s CCP mailing list.
From April 22 to May 22, 2008, the Service solicited comments regarding the Draft CCP/EA. These
comments are summarized, along with the Service's responses, in Appendix K.
SCOPING OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The planning team identified a wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered
species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining
public input through public scoping meetings, open planning team meetings, comment packets, and
personal contacts. All public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues
that are important to the public are beyond the scope of the Service’s authority and cannot be
addressed in this planning process. The team did consider all issues raised throughout the planning
process, and developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding important
issues. The team identified those issues that, in its best professional judgment, are the most
significant to the refuge. The priority issues for Pee Dee NWR are as follows:
• Need for comprehensive wildlife and habitat management
• Lack of baseline data
• Threats to rare, threatened, and endangered species
• Human population growth, increased development, and resulting impacts to refuge and refuge
resources and management
• Need for increased partnerships and interagency cooperation
• Spread of exotic and invasive species
• Impacts to water quality, quantity, and levels
• Need for improved environmental outreach, education, and interpretation
• Need for cultural resource management plan
• Need to maintain quality hunting and fishing opportunities
• Lack of sufficient resources
In addition to these priority issues, other issues also include the refuge’s trust responsibilities. The
issues for the refuge to address during the 15-year life of the CCP are divided into four categories:
wildlife and habitat management; resource protection; visitor services; and refuge administration.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT
The refuge is biologically diverse, with numerous species of fish, wildlife, and plants. The habitat
diversity and location of the refuge offer fish and wildlife, including federal- and state-listed species,
migratory birds, and native species, an undeveloped landscape of prime habitat. However, increased
human population growth, urbanization and suburbanization, and the development of lands around
the refuge will eventually increase public use demands on the refuge and are expected to increase
associated impacts to the refuge. Direct and indirect activities that may impact the refuge include
commercial, residential, and recreational uses (potentially resulting in reduced water quality, the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
spread of exotic species, and increased wildlife and habitat disturbance). Ongoing development of
the landscape is consuming and fragmenting the remaining off-refuge habitats, which are also used
and needed by many refuge wildlife (e.g., for breeding, nesting, loafing, feeding, migrating, and
dispersing). The spread of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; the threats to imperiled species;
the management and maintenance of impounded wetlands; and the decline in migratory birds and
their associated habitats are priority wildlife and habitat management issues that need to be
addressed in the 15-year life of this CCP.
Threatened, Endangered, and Imperiled Species
The protection and recovery of threatened and endangered plants and animals are important
responsibilities of the Service and the Service’s national wildlife refuges. Although federal-listed species
are currently not known to occur on the refuge, Schweinitz sunflowers grow in nearby areas and red-cockaded
woodpeckers were found on the refuge until several years ago. Several state-listed species,
consisting predominantly of freshwater mussels, are found on the refuge. In addition, loggerhead shrikes
have been documented on the refuge. Rare species utilize a variety of habitats found on the refuge
including open water, wetlands, and upland communities. The refuge's large component of bottomland
forest becomes increasingly important on a regional scale due to the loss of this important habitat in North
Carolina, while the refuge's uplands will serve as a sanctuary for species that are losing habitat on a
regional scale due to accelerating development.
Nonnative and Nuisance Species
Nonnative (introduced) and nuisance (destructive) species have the potential to negatively influence
native species through habitat alteration (which can change ecological processes), resource
competition, predation, or any combination of these factors. All major habitats on the refuge have
nonnative and nuisance species. In upland habitats, coyotes prey on native wildlife species while
Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), privet (Ligustrum sinese), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), kudzu
(Pueraria montana var. lobata), wisteria (Wisteria sinensis), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon)
crowd out native plants. The refuge’s wetlands and aquatic habitats are inhabited by alligator weed
(Alternanthera philoxeroides). Refuge waterways and impoundments are known to support carp,
comely shiner, blue catfish, flathead catfish, green sunfish, redear sunfish, and yellow perch. Several
nonnative species that are problematic in other parts of North Carolina but likely to begin colonizing
areas of the refuge within the following 15 years include feral hogs, nutria, and armadillo.
Resident Wildlife
Outside of the refuge, many prime habitat types are being developed, fragmented, or otherwise
altered as a result of large-scale land use changes, leaving them unsuitable for many wildlife species.
Large or conspicuous invertebrates include butterflies which utilize many terrestrial habitats, while
crayfish and freshwater mussels inhabit the freshwater habitats. At least 28 species of fish inhabit the
waterways on the refuge. Small fish, such as mosquito fish and shiners, reside in small streams and
the shallow, weedy areas of rivers and lakes. Meanwhile, larger predatory fish, such as largemouth
bass, bluegill, and catfish, inhabit the deeper waters. Amphibians consisting of frogs, toads, and
salamanders use wetland areas such as small, upland ephemeral ponds and the impoundments and
waterways of the refuge. Reptiles represent a diverse group of animals and include species of
turtles, lizards, and snakes. Common refuge mammals include deer, bobcat, fox, raccoon, and
opossum, as well as smaller species such as rodents and bats. Resident birds include large species
such as turkey, hawks, and owls, as well as medium-sized woodpeckers, doves, and grackles.
Several smaller birds such as blackbirds and warblers also nest on the refuge.
40 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Migratory Birds
A variety of migratory birds utilize the refuge’s relatively undisturbed upland and wetland habitats.
Pee Dee NWR serves as an overwintering and/or stopover site for a variety of waterfowl,
shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds. Regional landscape development and degradation
will place greater emphasis on the refuge as one of the remaining undeveloped tracts along the
Pee Dee River corridor.
The refuge currently plays an important role for several species of wading birds, shorebirds,
waterfowl, and passerines. Impoundments and backwaters are important habitat for wading birds
such as the great blue heron, green heron, and great egret. The bottomland hardwood habitat,
which has declined significantly elsewhere in North Carolina, supports wood ducks and
woodpeckers. Pee Dee NWR was originally established as a waterfowl refuge and more than 20
species of ducks and geese have been recorded, though most species occur only in small
numbers. However, mallards have been estimated to number in the several thousands, primarily
on refuge impoundments, while Canada geese typically number in the hundreds. The refuge’s
various upland habitats are utilized by passerines, including vireo, warbler, sparrow, wren, thrush,
and flycatcher species, as well as indigo bunting, American robin, brown thrasher and eastern
phoebe. These habitats will increase in conservation value as the surrounding landscape
becomes increasingly fragmented and less suitable for foraging and resting.
Data Needs and Comprehensive Habitat Management
The refuge's topography and other factors have created a habitat gradient that is comprised of xeric
(dry) upland plant communities which grade into wetter lowland forest types. These, in turn, connect
to wetlands and open water. Each habitat is sustained by different ecological processes, primarily
fire regimes and hydrology. Much of the ecology of species and their responses to fire and
hydrological conditions need to be quantified via the collection of baseline data and coordinated
research. This information will be invaluable in building a comprehensive habitat management
program, including fire and impoundment management plans needed to maintain the ecological
integrity and diversity of refuge habitats and the wildlife species that these areas support.
Impounded Wetlands
The refuge’s 100 acres of impounded wetlands provide relatively undisturbed habitat for many
species of migratory birds, as well as resident birds and many other fish and wildlife. Wetlands are
declining or being degraded nationwide, and have suffered significant losses in North Carolina as
well. Refuge impoundments will increase their conservation value as similar habitat becomes less
available due to increasing human impacts in the landscape.
Bottomland Hardwoods
Pee Dee NWR has some of the largest contiguous tracts of bottomland hardwoods remaining in
central North Carolina. This unique habitat supports many wildlife species, and as these forests
continue to decline regionally, the bottomland hardwoods of the refuge will play an increasingly
important role in the long-term population health of species dependent on this habitat.
Water Quantity and Quality
The increased demand for water for human uses and the degradation of water supplies from pollution and
runoff negatively affect water quantity and quality on the refuge. These issues will intensify as a growing
population occupies more land in the immediate vicinity of the refuge and in the upstream areas of the
Pee Dee River watershed. Water dominates a large proportion of the habitats on the refuge. At least 30
percent of the refuge is comprised of impoundments, wetlands, bottomland hardwoods, and open water
connected to Brown Creek and the Pee Dee River. Therefore, ensuring appropriate water quantity and
quality on the refuge will be critical to the long-term ecological health of the refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
RESOURCE PROTECTION
The resource protection issues at Pee Dee NWR consist of land acquisition, easement management,
and law enforcement.
Acquiring ecologically important lands is one of the most effective ways in which to protect vulnerable
habitat and associated wildlife species. The refuge is located in an area where obtaining land from
willing sellers is still an option, since neighboring lands are largely undeveloped.
More than 1,300 acres of land are protected through conservation easements administered by Pee
Dee NWR. Such forms of cooperative land protection strategies are likely to play a larger role in an
area threatened by urbanization.
Accelerating population growth in the regions surrounding the refuge will likely result in increased
impacts from inappropriate and illegal activities on the refuge. The refuge contains large areas that
are relatively remote and difficult to patrol. Increased law enforcement and patrols will be required to
protect and maintain the refuge's resources.
VISITOR SERVICES
The growing human population will increase use of the refuge as undeveloped and natural areas
dwindle in the region. Higher visitation rates will result in increased use of existing facilities, roads,
and parking areas; and the associated waste disposal issues will increase. The quantity of litter may
rise. The need for environmental education, outreach, and interpretation will increase, particularly
those that focus on helping the public appreciate the benefits of nature and the projects that foster
environmentally sound behaviors. Subsequently, the refuge’s staff size would need to grow to meet
the increased demand for educational and interpretive opportunities and programs, and to better
manage the visitor services program.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Important issues related to refuge administration involve staffing, funding, and intergovernmental
coordination. The lack of sufficient resources to address management concerns continues to be an
issue for the refuge. Given the complexity of management on the refuge and the need for the
involvement of multiple partners in developing and implementing solutions, intergovernmental
coordination was identified as one of the priority issues that needs to be addressed in this CCP.
WILDERNESS REVIEW
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The results of the refuge’s wilderness review are provided in Appendix H.
42 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decision-making.
But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management.
The Improvement Act requires the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of
the refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat
conservation. The Service has identified six priority wildlife-dependent public uses: hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These
uses are therefore emphasized in this CCP.
Described below is the CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This management
direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the refuge vision.
Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered and analyzed: Alternative A, Current
Management (No Action); Alternative B; and Alternative C (Proposed Action). Each of these
alternatives is described in Chapter III of the Environmental Assessment (see Draft CCP, Section B).
The Service chose Alternative C as the preferred management direction.
Implementing the preferred action will result in an increase in the refuge's wildlife and habitat
diversity. Listed species, migratory birds, and other wildlife species and habitats will continue to be
protected and managed for optimal biodiversity. Resource protection activities will be enhanced,
including the management of easements. Visitor services in the six priority public uses will improve
and accommodate the expected rise in visitation. And finally, refuge administration activities will
focus on improving wildlife and habitat diversity through streamlined efforts and the strengthening of
local and regional partnerships.
VISION
Pee Dee NWR was established in 1963 as an important resting and feeding area for wintering
migratory waterfowl. The refuge occupies a unique location where the rolling hills of the Piedmont
drain into the wetland and aquatic habitats of Brown Creek and the Pee Dee River. Through the
collaboration of interagency partners, volunteers and the Service, Pee Dee NWR will continue to
serve as an important conservation link in the Savannah–Santee–Pee Dee Ecosystem. The refuge’s
lands and waters will continue to support migratory birds, habitat, and species diversity through
sound stewardship and habitat management.
Pee Dee NWR is committed to the conservation and enhancement of this important biological resource
for the people of North Carolina. In this pursuit, the Service will work with partners to provide
environmental education and promote quality wildlife-dependent recreation for all visitors. The focus of
Pee Dee NWR will be to help foster an interest and sense of wonder in nature by future generations.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s responses to the issues, concerns,
and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public and are
presented in a hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated
with the various strategies. These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment
to achieve the mandates of the Improvement Act; the mission of the Refuge System; and the
44 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
purposes and vision of Pee Dee NWR. With adequate resources as outlined in Chapter V, the
Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years.
WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Wildlife and habitat management goals include rare, threatened, and endangered species; migratory
birds; exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; wildlife and habitat diversity; and water resources.
I. RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT GOAL I: Conserve, protect, and enhance populations of
rare, threatened, and endangered species of plants and animals at existing or increasing levels on
the refuge and conserve, restore, protect, and manage their native North Carolina Piedmont habitat
occurring on the refuge to contribute to recovery goals.
Discussion: Listed species are plants or animals that have been listed by a state and/or federal
agency with special protection or conservation designations. Those species with regulatory
protection are protected by law, such as state and federal endangered and threatened species. The
refuge’s expansive and protected areas provide undisturbed, natural-like habitat for many species.
The refuge serves as a vital area for species such as bald eagles. Several listed plant species have
been documented on the refuge. Due to its location, size, and diversity of undisturbed habitats, its
level of federal protection, and its unique landscape features, the refuge lends itself to the possible
future of a number of species and possible future reintroduction of declining species.
I.A. Bald Eagle
Wildlife and Management Objective I.A: Over plan's 15-year lifespan, continue to support bald
eagle foraging habitats on the refuge.
Discussion: The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near
bodies of water where it feeds. Although bald eagles were federally delisted in July 2007, it is still
designated as "threatened" by the State of North Carolina. There are no documented nests within the
refuge; however, annually 2–4 eagles have been documented feeding and roosting in the area during
the winter. In addition, a few migratory bald eagles have been noted moving through the area during
winter. Disruption, destruction, or obstruction of roosting and foraging areas can also negatively
affect bald eagles. Nesting bald eagles may inadequately feed their young if the adults are prevented
or discouraged from feeding at preferred sites. Migrating and wintering bald eagles congregate at
specific sites for purposes of feeding and sheltering. Bald eagles rely on established roost sites
because of their proximity to sufficient food sources. Roost sites are usually in mature trees where
the eagles are somewhat sheltered from the wind and weather. Human activities near or within
communal roost sites may prevent eagles from feeding or taking shelter, especially if there are not
other undisturbed and productive feeding and roosting sites available. Disruptive activities in the
flight path between nesting and roosting sites and important foraging areas can interfere with feeding.
Activities that permanently alter eagle habitat can altogether eliminate the elements that are essential
for feeding and sheltering eagles. Where human activities agitate roosting or foraging bald eagles to
the degree that they interfere with or interrupt breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, causing
injury, death, or nest abandonment, constitutes a violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act. Eagles are unlikely to be disturbed by routine use of roads, homes, and other facilities where
such use pre-dates the eagles’ successful nesting activity in a given area. Therefore, in most cases
ongoing existing uses may proceed with the same intensity with little risk of disturbing bald eagles.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
The refuge’s current forestry practices include upland forestry management (including mechanical
thinning and prescribed burning) that will favor the development of potentially suitable nest trees. In
addition, the refuge has extensive bottomland hardwoods that could offer suitable nesting areas.
Increasing the crown size of selected trees (through mechanical thinning) may somewhat improve the
potential for nesting.
Strategies:
• Implement the Southeast Regional Bald Eagle Management Guidelines around any newly
established nest sites.
• Retain mature trees and old growth stands wherever possible, particularly within ½ mile (0.8
km) from water.
• Remove sweetgum at select locations to increase height and crown size of potential nest trees.
• Retain tall trees along the Pee Dee River and low grounds area.
• Protect foraging habitat from disturbance by the categories of management activities by
adhering to activity-specific guidelines (USFWS 2006).
I.B. Little Blue Heron
Wildlife and Management Objective I.B: Over the plan’s 15-year lifespan, manage habitat on the
refuge to support little blue heron foraging and nesting habitat and minimize disturbance.
Discussion: Little blue herons are declining in several states, including North Carolina. Loss of
foraging and nesting habitat has contributed to their decreasing numbers. This species requires
shallow areas where they can prey on invertebrates, amphibians, and fish. This species is
occasionally found on the refuge, which is within its breeding range.
Strategies:
• Adjust water level in impoundments to 0–25 cm (0–12 inches) during seasons that little blue
herons are present.
• Maintain possible rookery/breeding sites.
• To reduce human disturbance, allow riparian vegetation to grow sufficiently high around
impoundments to provide a visual barrier.
• Limit public access seasonally to areas with high wading bird use.
I.C. Loggerhead Shrike
Wildlife and Management Objective I.C: Over the plan’s 15-year lifespan, manage habitat on the
refuge to maintain breeding populations of loggerhead shrikes.
Discussion: Loggerhead shrikes are declining in many portions of their range. Possible factors
causing a decrease in their populations include the loss of nesting habitat (abandonment of many
farms and orchards have allowed fields to become overgrown from neglect), roadkills, and pesticide
contamination. This species is known to breed on the refuge. Steps could be taken to increase the
breeding potential of loggerhead shrikes on the refuge.
Strategies:
• Work with partners to improve habitat on private lands adjacent to the refuge.
• Manage open grasslands and old fields for shrubs and trees with thorns as “larders” (to
effectively feed, shrikes need to impale their prey on thorns).
• Increase surveys to monitor population status and trends.
• Install six to eight "shrike perches" (8-ft pole with small tangle of barbed wire attached at the
top) in the grassy area near the refuge headquarters.
46 Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
I.D. Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Wildlife and Management Objective I.D: During the first ten years of the plan, work with partners
to document the presence or absence of red-cockaded woodpeckers near and on the refuge,
and adapt management as required on at least 1,000 acres (405 ha) of uplands annually.
Discussion: Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) have occurred on the refuge in the past. Historically
there were three sites or “clusters” on Pee Dee NWR. The last known occurrence of a single male RCW
was in 1999–2000. Prior to 2000, the cluster occupied by the solitary male was augmented with four
artificial cavities and then two female RCWs were released in an attempt to establish a breeding pair.
These efforts were unsuccessful. Although the species is not breeding on the refuge, occupied red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters exist on conservation lands within 45 miles (72 km) of the refuge, and
potentially suitable habitat exists on Pee Dee NWR. As RCW populations expand on nearby protected
lands, the potential for new groups to become established on the refuge increases. Reintroduction of this
listed species may be an option as suitable refuge habitat becomes available.
Strategies:
• Manage existing pine and mixed pine-hardwood stands to provide suitable foraging and cavity
habitat for RCWs as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Recovery Guidelines
criteria listed in the 2003 Revised Recovery Plan.
• Conduct annual surveys of current RCW cluster sites to determine activity status.
• Update 1992 Pee Dee NWR Forest Habitat Management Plan to incorporate revised RCW
recovery criteria and recommendations from relevant USFWS guidance documents.
• Use 2005 timber stand inventory data and the RCW Foraging Matrix Application to evaluate
present forest stand conditions and to identify specific habitat prescriptions for these pine stands.
• Thin pine stands every 10 years to produce an uneven-aged stand composition with a
targeted basal area and density meeting R