Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
September 2007
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
POCOSIN LAKES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
November 2007
Comprehensive Conservation Plan i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need For The Plan .................................................................................................. 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 2
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 3
National Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................. 3
Relationship To State Partners ..................................................................................................... 4
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5
Location ............................................................................................................................... 5
Establishment ...................................................................................................................... 5
Refuge History and Purposes ....................................................................................................... 5
History ................................................................................................................................ 5
Purposes ............................................................................................................................. 7
Special Designations .................................................................................................................... 8
Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 9
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................ 9
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 11
Forest and Fragmentation ................................................................................................. 11
Alterations To Hydrology ................................................................................................... 13
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................ 14
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants ............................................................................. 14
Conservation Priorities ...................................................................................................... 14
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 16
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 16
Geology ............................................................................................................................. 16
Subsurface Resources ...................................................................................................... 17
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 17
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 21
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 22
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 22
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 25
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 25
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 36
Invasive and/or Exotic Species ......................................................................................... 43
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 44
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 44
History of the Area ............................................................................................................ 44
Land Use in the Area ........................................................................................................ 46
Demographics In The Area ............................................................................................... 47
Employment In The Area .................................................................................................. 51
Forestry In The Area ......................................................................................................... 53
ii Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Outdoor Recreation In The Area ....................................................................................... 54
Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 54
Tourism In The Area ......................................................................................................... 55
Transportation ................................................................................................................... 56
Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................ 56
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 57
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 57
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ........................................................................ 63
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 65
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 65
Summary Of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities .................................................................... 66
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 66
Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................ 66
Habitats ............................................................................................................................. 67
Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 68
Public Use ......................................................................................................................... 68
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 69
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 71
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 71
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 71
Goals ......................................................................................................................................... 72
Objectives and Strategies .......................................................................................................... 72
Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................ 72
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 76
Public Use ......................................................................................................................... 82
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 88
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 91
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 95
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 95
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 95
Volunteers ............................................................................................................................... 101
Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................ 101
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 101
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 103
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 105
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .............................................................. 111
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ............................................................................. 117
Comprehensive Conservation Plan iii
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 125
Summary of Public Scoping ..................................................................................................... 125
Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses ........................................................................ 125
APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS .............................................................................. 159
INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................................... 159
APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................... 162
COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................................... 177
APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 201
APPENDIX VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND SPECIES SUITES ............................................... 227
APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................ 229
APPENDIX IX. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 257
APPENDIX X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................ 265
APPENDIX XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................... 269
iv Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
List of Figures
Figure 1. The location of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Tyrrell, Washington,
and Hyde Counties, North Carolina ..................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain
Physiographic Area. ........................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3. Characteristics of soils of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ..................................... 20
Figure 4. Vegetative Habitat Types of Pocosin Lakes NWR. ............................................................. 27
Figure 5. Existing boundary of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ...................................... 58
Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge .................................... 60
Figure 7. Proposed Visitor Facilities of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. ........................ 83
Figure 8. Wilderness inventory units of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............................. 258
Figure 9. Potential wilderness study areas of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............. 262
Comprehensive Conservation Plan v
List of Tables
Table 1. Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge acquisition history .................................................... 6
Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Pocosin Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................................ 8
Table 3. Federally threatened and endangered animal species that occur on the South Atlantic ....... 11
Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ....................................... 18
Table 5. Active National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in Tyrrell,
Washington, and Hyde Counties, North Carolina .................................................................. 23
Table 6. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Pocosin Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................ 24
Table 7. Habitat types by approximate acreage for Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............ 26
Table 8. 1999-2000 Monthly peak waterfowl use on Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............ 38
Table 9. 1999-2000 Monthly waterfowl use days on Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............ 39
Table 10. 1988-2005 annual peak waterfowl use on Pungo Unit ....................................................... 40
Table 11. 1988-2005 annual waterfowl use days on Pungo Unit ........................................................ 41
Table 12. 2002-2005 (aerial survey only) annual peak waterfowl use on Pocosin Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge (including the Pungo Unit) ........................................................... 42
Table 13. 2002-2005 (aerial survey only) annual waterfowl use days on Pocosin Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge (including the Pungo Unit) ........................................................... 42
Table 14. Tyrrell County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census ..................................... 48
Table 15. Commodity production in Tyrrell County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997 ......... 48
Table 16. Hyde County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census ...................................... 49
Table 17. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997........... 49
Table 18. Washington County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census ............................ 50
Table 19. Commodity production in Washington County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and ......... 50
Table 20. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina Counties .......................... 52
Table 21. Protected lands in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties ............................................... 57
Table 22. Staff of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................... 63
Table 23. Projects supporting fish and wildlife population strategies .................................................. 95
Table 24. Projects supporting habitat strategies ................................................................................. 96
Table 25. Projects supporting public use strategies ........................................................................... 97
Table 26. Projects supporting resource protection strategies ............................................................. 98
Table 27. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies .......................................................... 99
Table 28. Proposed staff for the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ........................................ 100
Executive Summary - Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Executive Summary
The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the
management of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (Pocosin Lakes NWR) in Hyde, Tyrrrell, and
Washington Counties, North Carolina. The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs
for the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat
management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the issues
the plan should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from Federal and
State agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge
staff held six public scoping meetings and two public meetings to solicit public reaction to the
proposed alternatives. Also, a 30-day public review and comment period of the draft comprehensive
conservation plan and environmental assessment was provided. In addition, two open house type
public meetings were held during the 30-day public comment period to answer questions and take
comments on the plan.
The Service developed and analyzed four alternatives. Alternative 1 was a proposal to maintain the
status quo. The refuge currently manages its impoundments very intensively by controlling water
levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl. It also manages pine forests
and marshes with prescribed fire. Waterfowl are surveyed on a routine basis. The refuge has a
visitor center, which includes an auditorium and indoor and outdoor classrooms, but depends on
volunteers and cooperating agency personnel to staff and maintain the center. With regard to public
use, each of the priority public uses as defined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation) is encouraged. The staff conducts a limited number of environmental
education and interpretation programs. Under this alternative, eight staff members (7.5 full-time
equivalents) are dedicated to refuge management and eight staff members (7.5 full-time equivalents)
are dedicated to fire management, as was the case when the plan was started. Because of budget
constraints, two of the refuge management positions have been held vacant for the last several
years.
Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, proposed moderate program increases to address the refuge
priorities. The refuge would manage its impoundments very intensively by controlling water levels
and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl. It would also manage pine forests
and marshes with prescribed fire and would manage the vegetative composition of habitats in
selected areas. Waterfowl would be surveyed on a routine basis. The staff would develop inventory
plans for all species and implement them in selected habitats. The staff would develop and
implement a black bear management plan. The staff would maintain the visitor center with volunteers
and cooperating agency personnel supplementing refuge personnel. There would be eighteen staff
members (17.5 full-time equivalents) dedicated to refuge management and eight staff members (7.5
full-time equivalents) dedicated to fire management. The volunteer program would be expanded to
recruit volunteers to contribute 4,000 hours of service. Two workamper pads would be built to attract
volunteers with recreational vehicles. The six priority public uses would be allowed and the staff
would conduct environmental education and interpretation programs to meet local needs.
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative 3 proposed substantial program increases. The refuge would manage its impoundments
very intensively by controlling water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating
waterfowl. It would also manage pine forests and marshes with prescribed fire and would manage
the vegetative composition of habitats on the entire refuge. Waterfowl would be surveyed on a
routine basis. The staff would develop inventory plans for all species and implement them over the
entire refuge. The staff would develop and implement a black bear management plan. The staff
would maintain the visitor center with volunteers and cooperating agency personnel supplementing
refuge personnel. There would be twenty-five staff members (25 full-time equivalents) dedicated to
refuge management and seven staff members (7 full-time equivalents) dedicated to fire management.
The refuge would conduct forest management and hydrology restoration by contract. The volunteer
program would be expanded to recruit volunteers to contribute 10,000 hours of service. Eight
workamper pads would be built to attract volunteers with recreational vehicles. The six priority public
uses would be allowed and the staff would conduct environmental education and interpretation
programs to meet local needs and expand outreach to the communities.
Alternative 4 proposed maintaining the refuge in caretaker status. The refuge would manage its
impoundments very intensively by controlling water levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat
for migrating waterfowl. It would manage pine forests and marshes with prescribed fire. Waterfowl
would be surveyed on a routine basis. The visitor center would depend on volunteers and
cooperating agency personnel to staff and maintain it. There would be four staff members (3.5 full-time
equivalents) dedicated to refuge management and eight staff members (7.5 full-time
equivalents) dedicated to fire management. The six priority public uses would be allowed; however,
the staff would not conduct any environmental education and interpretation programs.
The Service selected Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative and is reflected in this comprehensive
conservation plan. Alternative 2 advances the refuge program considerably, and is more realistic
than Alternative 3 in terms of expected staffing levels to conduct the proposed program.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Pocosin Lakes NWR was prepared to guide
management actions and direction for the refuge. 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 ws established.
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. The draft of this plan was
made available to State and Federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general
public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the development
of this CCP, describing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s preferred plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that Pocosin Lakes NWR will play in support of the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide long-term guidance to the refuge’s
management programs and activities for the next 15 years.
The plan will:
􀁹􇤠 provide a clear statement of the desired future conditions when refuge purposes and goals
are accomplished;
􀁹􇤠 provide refuge neighbors and visitors with a clear understanding of the management actions
on the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 ensure management of the refuge reflects policies and goals of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 ensure refuge management is consistent with Federal, State, and local plans;
􀁹􇤠 provide long-term continuity in refuge management; and
􀁹􇤠 provide a basis for operation, maintenance, and capital improvement budget requests.
Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is to communicate with the public and include public
participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many
agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships
with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System. This CCP supports the following:
Partners in Flight Initiative, South Atlantic Coastal Plain Migratory Bird Conservation Plan, North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
2 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for the conservation,
protection, and enhancement of the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although
the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local and
private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service administers a
national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of these resources.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 93
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands
(77 million acres) is in Alaska. The remaining 16 million acres are spread across the other 49 states
and several island territories.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997, is:
... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. The Act states that the Service shall manage
each refuge to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the
Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
􀁹􇤠 Retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
Following the passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the
direction of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all
refuges. The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, all
refuge comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared in conjunction with public involvement,
and each refuge must complete its own plan within a 15-year schedule.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Approximately 36.7 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 2004, mostly to observe
wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, substantial economic benefits are
being generated to the local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have reported that
national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $1.37 billion annually to the regional economies (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). In addition, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
Associated Recreation reports that nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $108 billion on
wildlife-related recreational pursuits in 2001 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 1998,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on the refuges nationwide, a service
valued at more than $20.6 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
A variety of international treaties, Federal laws and regulations, Department and Service Policies, and
Presidential executive orders guide the administration of Pocosin Lakes NWR. The documents and
acts listed in Appendix III contain management options under the refuge’s establishing authority and
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges).
NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the
development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop and
coordinate planning initiatives involving Federal, State, and local agencies; local communities, non-governmental
organizations, and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on
and off public lands.
The Service is initiating cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend in biological
diversity. Biological planning for species groups targeted in this plan reflects the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 brings
together international teams of biologists from private and government organizations from Canada
and the United States. The partnerships, called joint ventures, are working to restore waterfowl and
other migratory bird populations to the levels of the early 1970s by protecting about 6 million acres of
priority wetland habitats from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian Arctic.
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan and Waterbirds for the Americas outline approaches
to conserving those species groups. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a high priority
of the Partners in Flight Plan. It also provides strategies for conserving and managing wintering,
breeding, and migration habitat for mid-continental wood duck and colonial bird populations.
The Partners in Flight Plan emphasizes land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the
priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified priority species for each habitat type from
which they will determine population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of priority
species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge.
4 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
The Farm Bill programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture provide cost-share
funding and technical assistance to private landowners to install and manage conservation
practices on working farms and forests, restoring cropland to natural habitats. The programs provide
opportunities for landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage their land better as
wildlife habitat or protect it with easements.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
Federal agencies and State fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and management
of fish and wildlife throughout the United States.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is a State-partnering agency with the Service,
charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species, as well as
managing the State’s natural resources. The Commission also manages approximately 1.8 million
acres of game lands in North Carolina.
The Commission coordinates the State’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several game lands and from
several boat ramps located near Pocosin Lakes NWR. The agency’s participation and contribution
throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable, and it is continuing
its work with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to
improve the condition of fish and wildlife populations in North Carolina. Not only has the agency
participated in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field reviews as part of the planning
process, it is also an active partner in annual hunt coordination planning and various wildlife and
habitat surveys. A key part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of
common mission objectives between the Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
LOCATION
Pocosin Lakes NWR is in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties, North Carolina (Figure 1). The
Service named the refuge for the pocosin habitat that dominates the landscape and for the lakes that
occur within the pocosin. A pocosin is a swamp on a hill dominated by a dense, shrubby plant
community and deep organic soil. The eastern edge of the refuge is on the Alligator River, just west of
the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, and 47 miles west of the Atlantic Ocean. The northern edge
of the refuge is U.S. Highway 64, four miles south of Albemarle Sound. The western edge of the refuge
is just east of North Carolina Highway 45. The southern edge of the refuge is on the Intracoastal
Waterway, four miles north of Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. This region is part of the
physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Fish and Wildlife Service
administrative ecosystem known as the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem.
The population of Tyrrell County is 4,419; the population of Washington County is 13,723; and the
population of Hyde County is 5,826.
ESTABLISHMENT
Congress established the 12,000-acre Pungo NWR in 1963 by the authorities of the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 1929 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The Service established the Pocosin
Lakes NWR in 1990 and made the Pungo NWR a unit of the refuge. The refuge now includes
110,106 acres.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES
HISTORY
The 12,350.35-acre Pungo Unit of Pocosin Lakes NWR was established in 1963 as the Pungo NWR. In
1990, adjacent lands were donated to the Fish and Wildlife Service, establishing the Pocosin Lakes
NWR. In 1991, Pungo NWR was abolished and the acreage transferred to Pocosin Lakes NWR. It is
now known as the Pungo Unit of Pocosin Lakes NWR. Also in 1991, 5,707 acres in the Frying Pan area
were transferred from Alligator River NWR to Pocosin Lakes NWR due to its proximity.
The refuge’s complete acquisition history is in Table 1.
6 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. The location of Pocosin Lakes NWR in Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties,
North Carolina
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Table 1. Pocosin Lakes NWR acquisition history
DATE TRACTS ACRES COST COST
ACRE
TOTAL
ACREAGE
TOTAL
COST
1990 1 89,658.00 $0 $0 89,658.00 $0
1991 3 19,465.37 $1,682,158 $93.14 109,123.37 $1,682,158
1993 1 55.53 $0 $0 109,178.90 $1,682,158
1994 1 879.32 $0 $0 110,058.22 $1,682,158
1999 2 48.32 $0 $0 110,106.54 $1,682,158
Total 8 110,106.54 $1,682,158 $15.27
PURPOSES
The purpose of Pocosin Lakes NWR, as reflected in the legislation under which Congress authorized
the refuge and the refuge has acquired land, is to protect and conserve migratory birds and other
wildlife resources through the protection of wetlands, in accordance with the following laws:
...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929);
...for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits
they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird
treaties and conventions... 16 U.S.C. Sec 3901 (b) 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetland
Resources Act of 1986)
...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources... 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restriction or affirmative
covenant or condition of servitude... 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
The following objectives for the refuge were established in the Interim Management Plan completed
soon after the establishment of Pocosin Lakes NWR:
1. To protect and enhance habitat for those species which are classified as threatened,
endangered, or of special concern;
2. To protect and restore wetlands which will contribute to the Presidential Initiative of “No Net
Loss of Wetlands;”
8 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
3. To protect the watershed of nearby lakes, rivers, and estuaries which support recreational and
commercial fisheries and which provide wintering habitat for Canada geese, snow geese,
tundra swans, and a variety of ducks;
4. To protect organic soils and pocosin wetlands from wildfires;
5. To protect and enhance production habitat for wood ducks and songbirds and winter habitat
for other waterfowl; and
6. To provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent interpretation, outdoor recreation, and
environmental education.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s Atlantic Coast Joint Venture office, working
through a collaborative effort with private, State, and Federal agencies, has established certain
habitat objectives for the physiographic area.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has designated most of the refuge, with the exception
of cropland, moist-soil areas, and the shop area, as a “Significant Natural Heritage Area.” The Nature
Conservancy ranks certain vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 2).
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has designated several water bodies in the vicinity of
Pocosin Lakes NWR as outstanding resource waters or high-quality waters (Table 2). The North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has designated several streams and water bodies within and off
the eastern border of the refuge as anadromous fish spawning habitats.
Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Pocosin Lakes NWR
Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest S1 G1
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest S2 G2
Nonriverine Swamp Forest S2, S3 G2, G3
Low Pocosin S2 G3
S1 = Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the
state.
S2 = Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S3 = Rare or uncommon in North Carolina.
G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G3 = Either very rare or local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Pocosin Lakes NWR lies within a physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain (Figure 2).
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 25-million-hectare (62-million-acre) complex of forested
wetlands and uplands, dunes, and marshes that extended from Florida to North Carolina. Historically, the
extent and duration of seasonal flooding along the ecosystem’s rivers fluctuated annually, recharging the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s aquatic systems, creating a rich diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a
vast array of fish and wildlife resources. The natural hydrology of nonriverine wetlands maintained saturated
conditions in mineral and organic soils. Precipitation in excess of the soil’s storage capacity ran off of the
surface in sheet flow to area streams and water bodies.
The refuge is one of the ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those ten national
wildlife refuges – Alligator River, Pea Island, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, Mackay
Island, Mattamuskeet, Roanoke River, Pocosin Lakes, Swanquarter – and the Back Bay National
Wildlife Refuge in Virginia are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and Cape
Fear Rivers, which has been designated as Ecosystem Unit # 34, the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse- Cape
Fear Ecosystem, by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the
development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop and
coordinate planning initiatives involving regional, state, and local agencies; local communities; non-governmental
organizations; and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on
and off public lands.
The Service is initiating cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend in biological
diversity. Biological planning for species groups targeted in this plan reflect the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the Joint Venture
between North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners in
Flight Plan, and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative.
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focus is that of the middle and upper Atlantic coast. Within the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is the joint venture formed between the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and private conservation organizations.
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration habitat for migratory songbirds returning
from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migration habitat for mid-continental
wood duck and colonial bird populations. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a
high priority of the Partners in Flight Plan for the South Atlantic Physiographic Region.
The Partners in Flight Plan emphasizes land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the
priority ranking of species. Further, biologists from local offices of the Service; the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission; and conservation organizations, such as Audubon Society and the
Nature Conservancy, have identified priority species for each habitat type from which they will
determine population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of priority species,
objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge.
10 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Pocosin Lakes NWR in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Area
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
The Farm Bill programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture each has State level
plans and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. The Service also utilizes those
programs to assist private landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage habitat for
wildlife or protect their land with easements.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has its own Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy to help direct the State’s allocation of funds from the federally funded State Working Grants
Program. The Service has provided input to the development and execution of the strategy.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
FOREST AND FRAGMENTATION
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread
throughout the area. It has been estimated that 40 percent of the natural vegetation has been lost to
land conversion. The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for
agriculture and urban development (Hunter et al., 2001).
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain. Development has reduced vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests to
forest fragments, ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas
that have maintained many of the original functions and values of forested habitats. Severe
fragmentation has resulted in a substantial decline in biological diversity and integrity. Animal
species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, threatened, or
endangered include the red wolf and Bachman’s sparrow (Table 3).
Table 3. Federally threatened and endangered animal species that occur on the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain in North Carolina
Region Status Common Name Scientific Name
Coastal Plain Endangered Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus
Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata
Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempii
Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea
Coastal Plain Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana
Coastal Plain Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum
12 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Region Status Common Name Scientific Name
Coastal Plain Endangered Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis
Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon
Coastal Plain Endangered Wolf, Red Canis rufus
Coastal Plain Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis
Coastal Plain Threatened Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis
Coastal Plain Threatened Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Coastal Plain Threatened Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus
Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas
Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Caretta caretta
Coastal Plain Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa
Coastal Plain Endangered Sparrow, Bachman’s Aimophila aestivalis
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian
species most adversely affected by fragmentation and habitat degradation include those that are
area-sensitive (dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on
forest interiors; those that depend on special habitat requirements, such as mature forests or a
particular food source; and/or those that depend on good water quality. Increased nest parasitism
from brown-headed cowbirds is also common in fragmented forests.
More that 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds are found in the region. Some of these
species, including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and
cerulean warbler, have declined substantially and need the benefits of large forested blocks to
recover and sustain their existence.
Fragmentation has also brought the forest edge and brown-headed cowbird (a seed-eating bird
common in agricultural areas) closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting birds.
The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds, rather than
building a nest of its own. Nestling cowbirds are typically bigger and more aggressive and out-compete
the young of the species building the nest. This results in poor reproductive success and
declining populations of forest interior-nesting species that are forced to nest near forest edges.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts
surrounded by a sea of agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested
corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of connectivity between
the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts and reduces the
functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also result in a loss of
gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel corridors is
particularly important for some wide-ranging species, such as the black bear and red wolf.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been substantial
alterations in the region’s hydrology. This is due to managed stream flows from flood control and
hydroelectric power generation reservoirs, drainage ditches, river channel modification, flood control
levees, deforestation, and degradation to aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation,
contaminants, and urban development.
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988).
Instead of natural hydrology, large-scale man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial
and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire South Atlantic Coastal Plain. In addition, these
alterations have modified both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding. The alteration of this
annual flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the forested wetlands and their associated
wetland-dependent species. Specifically, the combination of managed stream flows and drainage
ditches in bottomland forests exposes the forests to more frequent flooding than occurs naturally, drains
back swamps through natural levees, and floods the back swamps at low flows through the ditches.
14 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to fully emulate and reconstruct
the structure and functions of a natural wetland. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993),
restoration of wetland functions is especially difficult since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of
hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Siltation from deforestation and hydrologic alteration has degraded aquatic systems, including lakes,
rivers, sloughs and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated
accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Sediment now fills many water
bodies, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. It also reduces light penetration in shallow
water and the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation growing in the water. Concurrently, the non-point
source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic
resources. Six species of federally threatened aquatic organisms and twelve species of federally
endangered aquatic species occur in North Carolina and Virginia.
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created oxbow
lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration
of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with
flood control and navigation.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and reduced water depths
resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for the establishment and
proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic (non-native)
vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of aquatic systems.
These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems,
and choke waterways to a degree that limits biodiversity and often prevents recreational use.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
The declines in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s bottomland hardwood forests and their associated
fish and wildlife resources have prompted the Service to designate these forest systems as areas of
special concern. A collaborative effort involving private, State, and Federal conservation partners is
now underway to implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The goal is to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively
maintain and possibly restore the biological diversity in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Some areas
are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation.
Conservation agencies and organizations have initiated several coordinated efforts to set priorities
and establish focus areas to overcome the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation.
A cooperative private-State-Federal partnership, known as the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, was established in 1986 to help provide sufficient
wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
The initial Atlantic Coast Joint Venture effort for waterfowl has expanded to also establish breeding
bird objectives for shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and neotropical migratory songbirds. The
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is working with the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Working Group to
establish step-down objectives for shorebird foraging habitat for the fall and spring migration period
throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Partners in Flight has developed bird conservation plans to focus a number of private, State, and
Federal restoration programs into specific areas in an effort to provide maximum program benefits for
neotropical migratory songbirds. The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide islands
or blocks of habitat in an otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The targeted block sizes of forest
habitat range from 10,000 to 100,000 acres. Such areas are large enough to support viable
populations of various suites of neotropical migratory interior forest-dwelling songbirds. Of course,
these areas will also support other species that depend on large forested blocks. The plans are
anchored by existing or proposed State wildlife management areas or national wildlife refuges.
These public lands serve as centers of biodiversity that are enhanced and supported by the
expansion of blocks of habitat, either through public or private management.
One of the biggest challenges to the management and restoration efforts underway in the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain, and one that affects refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term
management objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs, including those of wintering
migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, wading birds, threatened and
endangered species, large mammals, and other wide-ranging species. Often a management strategy
for one species or species’ group conflicts with that of another species or species’ group. The
tendency is to pursue short-term priorities that frequently change as scientific knowledge expands
and interests in special resources shift. Land managers must exercise caution to prevent the start-up
of management and restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term,
comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An
example might be a tendency to manage the forests on Pocosin Lakes NWR in an effort to provide
habitat for many species of neotropical migratory songbirds that use dense understories of shrubs.
Such an approach may overlook the critical habitat needs of other songbirds that prefer forests with
sparse understories.
Partners in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture can only meet their habitat goals through active
management of croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private land
(Reinecke and Baxter 1996). Biologists must actively manage land (i.e., vegetation manipulation and
hydrology restoration) to compensate for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that deforestation
and hydrologic alterations have caused throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Properly
managed, the Pocosin Lakes NWR will make a substantial contribution to meeting the objectives of
the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. Setting habitat and species objectives from the perspective of the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain is advantageous, because it looks at the big picture and enables
managers to plan and provide habitat for a diversity of species throughout their range.
Although forest stand management is probably the best solution for restoring the vast forests in the
region, land managers must remember that hydrology (i.e., flooding) drives the ecological system in
the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The plant and animal community throughout the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain is dependent upon the hydrologic cycle. It is incumbent upon land managers to
manage hydrology in an effort to restore the ecological diversity that once characterized the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain. Refuges can install impoundments and structures to control and manage
water in an effort to mimic historic flood cycles and to meet wildlife habitat objectives.
16 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Since the flow of air over North Carolina is predominantly from west-to-east, the continental influence
has a great influence on precipitation patterns while the maritime influence affects climatological
factors, such as length of growing season. The Gulf Stream current flows only a short distance off
the North Carolina coast. Its direct effects are limited by the fact that the prevailing winds in winter
are from the southwest most of the year and from the northeast in the winter
Lows usually form along the coast as "Cape Hatteras lows" and then move north along the coast.
Winter's low-pressure storms are usually more intense because of the large north-to-south contrasts.
Winter's storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the winter
precipitation. The forms of precipitation in spring begin to change from these steady rains to
occasional thunderstorms. The Gulf of Mexico's warm, moist air produces warm, humid weather
throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms that occur on an average of
45 days. Autumn is slightly drier than the other three seasons and is to many people the most
pleasant with its many clear, warm days and cool nights with relatively little rain. This weather usually
lasts from October through December.
Occasional hurricanes do have major impacts on Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties. The
storms usually pass off the coast east of the Pocosin Lakes NWR, but may bring large quantities of
rain to the refuge. Most North Carolina tornadoes occur in the Piedmont and the interior of the
coastal plain, which spares Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties.
The average annual precipitation is 51.51 inches, and the average snowfall is 4.2 inches. Snow
accumulations of more than 1 inch for more than a day are rare. Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout
the year without a pronounced wet or dry season: average monthly rainfall ranges from 3.10 inches in
April and November to 6.39 inches in July. Eight months have average precipitation between 4 and 6
inches. Of the total annual precipitation, about 30 inches usually fall in April through September. The
growing season for most crops falls within this period.
The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 60 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and
the average at dawn is about 85 percent. The sun shines 65 percent of the time in summer and 60
percent in winter. The prevailing wind is from the southwest. Average wind speed is highest, 11
miles per hour, in late winter and early spring. In January, the average temperature is 42 degrees, the
average daily minimum temperature is 30 degrees and the average daily maximum is 53 degrees. In
July, the average temperature is 78 degrees, the average daily maximum temperature is 89 degrees, and
the average daily minimum is 67 degrees.
The average growing season is 192 days long. The average last date of frost in the spring is April 15
and the first frost in the fall is October 25.
GEOLOGY
The Coastal Plain Province lies east of the Piedmont Province. The Piedmont begins at the "Fall
Line," which is a broad transition zone where the crystalline rocks of the Piedmont (i.e., the igneous
and metamorphic rocks that cause the rapids in the Roanoke River at Roanoke Rapids) become
buried by the marine sediments of the Coastal Plain.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Thin beds of Quaternary sediments were deposited on the surface of the Coastal Plain during the past
three million years (Riggs and Belknap 1988). This Quaternary history and the resulting surface veneer
of unconsolidated sediments directly dictates the general characteristics of the Coastal Plain, including
the regional morphology and character of the drainage systems and flooded estuaries, soil types, and
potential land use. Quaternary sediments were deposited by the coastal system, which rapidly migrated
back and forth across the Coastal Plain-Continental Shelf as sea-level fluctuated in response to repeated
episodes of glaciation and deglaciation. Within this rapidly changing coastal system, extremely varied
sediments, including gravel, sands, clays, and peat in all possible combinations, were deposited in river,
estuarine, barrier island, and continental shelf environments. Thousands of feet of sedimentary rock
underlie the refuge with sand and shale closer to the surface and limestone at greater depths.
SUBSURFACE RESOURCES
Sand and peat are the only subsurface resources occurring in economic quantities on the refuge.
There are no commercial sand pits adjacent to the refuge.
SOILS
Soil types identified on the refuge are Pungo muck,* Belhaven muck,* Scuppernong muck.* Ponzer
muck,* Dorovan muck,* Wasda muck,* Pettigrew muck,* Gullrock muck,* Longshoal muck,*
Arapahoe fine sandy loam,* Hyde loam,* Weeksville silt loam,* Cape Fear loam,* Portsmouth loam,*
Newholland mucky loamy sand,* Udorthents (sands), Tomotley fine sandy loam,* Perquimens silt
loam,* Augusta fine sandy loam, Altavista fine sandy loam, Argent silt loam*, Seabrook fine sand,
Roanoke loam*, Fortescue silt loam,* Arapahoe fine sandy loam,* Conetoe loamy fine sand, Yonges
loam,* Chowan silt loam,* Wysocking very fine sandy loam,* and State loamy fine sand (USDA, Soil
Conservation service, 1988) (Table 4). Soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in “Hydric Soils of
the United States” (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985) (Table 4) and (Figure 3). Hydric soils are
. . . "soils that in their undrained condition are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic (water loving) vegetation" (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985). These soils have
seasonally high water tables within a foot of the surface of the soil.
Pocosin wetlands are characterized by deep organic soils known as mucks or peats. The depth of
organic soil depth over mineral soil, though not evident at the surface, has a tremendous influence on the
potential uses of the land. Typically, the deeper the muck surface layer, the shorter the vegetation in the
native plant community growing on the soil. The dominant species in the plant communities are dense
shrubs tolerant of the wet, acid soils. Tall trees are unable to establish their deep root systems on the
deep organic soils. Wind easily topples trees that do grow on the deep organic soils. Over the years,
natural selection has favored trees that are shorter. Formation of peat is an ongoing process in areas
sufficiently wet to prevent oxidation of organic matter deposited by plants.
Soils with more than 51 inches of muck over mineral soil identified in the refuge are Pungo (66,675
acres; 65 percent of land), Dorovan (3,644 acres; 3.5 percent), and Longshoal (13 acres). The following
soils have surface layers of 16 to 51 inches of muck: Belhaven (16,490 acres; 16 percent),
Scuppernong (6,179 acres; 5.9 percent), and Ponzer (3,289 acres: 3.1 percent). These six soils make
up 95 percent of the terrestrial area of the refuge. They are excessively wet, characterized by layers of
peat over mineral soil, and are mostly unsuitable for agriculture (Skaggs et al., 1980, Lilly 1981). Forest
productivity is lower on these soils, compared to mineral soils with less than 16 inches of organic soil.
With appropriate drainage and bedding, productivity can be increased. However, the refuge would not
likely engage extensively in such practices on these deep organic soils due to accelerated oxidation of
peat and release of nitrogen and mercury – a negative impact on water quality.
18 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Pocosin Lakes NWR
Series Approximate
Acreage
Surface
Texture
Muck
Depth
Water Table
Depth
Flooding
Frequency
Dorovan 3,644 Muck 90” 0-1’ Frequent
Longshoal 13 Mucky Peat 72” 0-0.5’ Frequent
Pungo 66,675 Muck 65” 0-1’ Rare
Belhaven 16,490 Muck 45” 0-1’ Rare
Scuppernong 6,179 Muck 33” 0-1’ Rare
Ponzer 3,289 Muck 30” 0-1’ Rare
Wasda 710 Muck 15” 0-1’ Rare
Conaby 418 Muck 13” 0-1’ Rare
Gullrock 44 Muck 13” 0-1’ Rare
Pettigrew 539 Muck 12” 0-1’ Rare
Roper 218 Muck 10” 0-1’ Rare
Hyde 1,306 Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Cape Fear 648 Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Portsmouth 635 Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Perquimens 137 Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Roanoke 35 Loam None 0-1’ Never
Yonges 6 Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Weeksville 779 Silt Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Argent 41 Silt Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Series Approximate
Acreage
Surface
Texture
Muck
Depth
Water Table
Depth
Flooding
Frequency
Fortescue 37 Silt Loam None 0-0.5’ Rare
Chowan 2 Silt Loam None 0-0.5’ Frequent
Tomotley 286 Fine Sandy
Loam
None 0-1’ Rare
Arapahoe 33 Fine Sandy
Loam
None 0-1’ Rare
Wysocking 1 Very Fine
Sandy Loam
None 0-1 Rare
Newholland 401 Mucky Loamy
Sand
None 0-1’ Rare
Augusta 65 Fine Sandy
Loam
None 1-2- Never
Altavista 59 Fine Loamy
Sand
None 1-2- Never
Seabrook 37 Fine Sand None 2-3’ Rare
State 1 Loamy Fine
Sand
None 4-6’ Never
Conetoe 7 Loamy Fine
Sand
None >6’ Never
Udorthents 334 Sand None >6’ Rare
Total Land 103,069
Water 7,000
Total 110,069
20 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Characteristics of soils of Pocosin Lakes NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Four soils (1,929 acres, 1.9 percent) have less than 16 inches of muck over mineral soil: Wasda (710
acres, 0.6 percent), Pettigrew (539 acres), Conaby (418), Roper (218 acres), and Gullrock (44 acres).
The native vegetation on these soils is typical of that on mineral soils and the productivity of the soils
is similar to mineral soils. When drained, these soils are among the most productive agricultural soils
in the area. The USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, classifies Wasda, Pettigrew,
Conaby, Roper, and Gullrock as prime farmland soils. Part of the refuge farmland is in Conaby muck.
Mineral soils make up 4,850 acres (4.7 percent) of the land area of the refuge. The soil with the
largest area is Hyde (1,306 acres mostly in the Frying Pan Unit, 1.2 percent of land area), followed by
Weeksville (779 acres), Cape Fear (648), Portsmouth (635), Newholland (401), Udorthents (334),
Tomotley (286), Perquimans (137), Augusta (65), Altavista (59), Argent (41), Seabrook (37), Roanoke
(35), Fortescue (37), Arapahoe (33), Conetoe (7), Yonges (6), Chowan (2), Wysocking (1), and State
(1). Most mineral soils are more productive than organic soils for crops and forest trees. Most on the
refuge is poorly drained and would grow loblolly pine, bald cypress, Atlantic white cedar, or pond
pine, and those underlain by clayey subsoil would be good for bottomland hardwoods, such as water
oak, willow oak, and swamp white oak. The USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
classifies Altavista, Arapahoe, Augusta, Cape Fear, Conetoe, Fortescue, Hyde, Newholland,
Perquimens, Portsmouth, Roanoke, State, Tomotley, Weeksville, Wysocking, and Yonges as prime
farmland soils. Part of the refuge cropland is on Newholland, Portsmouth, and Seabrook soils.
The Udorthents, Augusta, Altavista, State, Conetoe, and Seabrook soils are well-drained to droughty
and are more suitable for native tree species, such as loblolly pine, and for upland oak species, such
as white oak and red oak. Udorthents are the dredge spoils from the Intracoastal Waterway and are
extremely droughty.
The volume of peat on the Albemarle peninsula is probably less than half the original amount due to
the effects of drainage, agriculture, and fire (Lilly 1995). There are descriptions of subsidence greater
or equal to 3 feet as a consequence of drainage and agriculture (Ruffin 1861, Dolman and Buol 1967,
Lilly 1981, Roberts and Cruikshank 1941, Whitehead and Oaks 1979). In general, drainage of
organic soils results in the loss of at least one-third of the peat (Farnham and Finney 1965), and
sometime much greater (Dolman and Buol 1967, Lilly 1981). Some of the initial loss in volume is due
to mechanical shrinkage (Dolman and Buol 1967, Skaggs et al., 1980). In addition, drainage makes
pocosins drier, increasing the frequency and severity of fires. Last, drainage causes peat to oxidize
rather than accumulate. If subjected to drainage, fire, and tillage over a long enough period of time,
all blackland soils will become mineral soils (Lilly 1981).
HYDROLOGY
Soil on the refuge is more than 99 percent hydric and is maintained as natural or managed wetlands.
These wetlands are in the coastal plain province. Water is the driving force of the Pocosin Lakes
NWR’s pocosin, marsh, and hardwood/pine forest communities. Water forms and maintains the
wetlands by transporting and redistributing sediments from watersheds upstream. It provides
seasonal access for aquatic organisms to the marsh and forest and transports nutrients and detritus
across the marsh. Sources of water to the Albemarle Sound system include precipitation and runoff
and groundwater that originate from it.
Groundwater is the source of the area’s water supply. The depth to freshwater is generally less than
100 feet in the vicinity of the Albemarle Sound and more than 400 feet in the center of the peninsula.
The freshwater is contained in the upper sandy and shaly aquifer, which is capable of yielding up to
1,000 gallons per minute. The lower limestone aquifer is capable of yielding thousands of gallons per
minute except near the Albemarle Sound where the water is salty. The maximum available
22 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
groundwater is estimated at one million gallons per day per-square-mile. The water is
characteristically very hard and may contain excessive iron. Water from shallow wells may be hard or
soft and may also contain excessive iron (T. M. Robison 1977).
WATER QUALITY
The water quality on most of Pocosin Lakes NWR is related directly to the water quality in Albemarle
Sound, Scuppernong River, Lake Phelps and Alligator River. Nutrient loading in the Albemarle
Sound, Scuppernong River, and Alligator River and related non-point source pollution will affect the
water quality on most of the refuge in the future.
There are sixteen facilities in the counties around the refuge in the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) (Table 5). The State of North Carolina has classified the water bodies
around Pocosin Lakes NWR for minimum water quality standards (Table 6). All the water bodies and
streams meet the standards established for the minimum uses.
The high water tables in the soils in the three counties represent a great potential for non-point pollution.
The residences in the three counties have onsite treatment of domestic wastewater. Those systems are
more likely to fail on soils with high water tables. Agricultural operations are also more likely to pollute on
the soils in the area. Nutrients and pesticides applied to crops have a great potential to reach the water
table before plants utilize the nutrients or the pesticides break down. The drainage of organic soil has the
potential to release nitrogen and mercury in the muck into the water table.
AIR QUALITY
The laws of the State of North Carolina specify that no source of air pollution shall cause any listed
ambient air quality standard (Section .0400) to be exceeded or contribute to a violation of any listed
ambient air quality standard (Section .0400) except as allowed by Rules .0531 or .0532 [.0401(c),
NCAC, Title 15A, Subchapter 2D - Air Pollution Control Requirements (North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources)].
Subchapter 2D lists ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides (measured as sulfur dioxide), total
suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and
particulate matter. Section 0.0520 (7) indicates that prescribed fires purposely set to forest lands for
forest management practices acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the
Environmental Management Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and
regulations of governmental entities having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that
addresses certain potential liabilities of prescribed burning even though permissible.
The area closest to the refuge that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors continuously is the
Virginia Beach-Norfolk metropolitan area. Despite the large population with the industry, traffic, and
power plants, the area did not violate any air quality standards in 2004, due to the breezes blowing
through the area from the ocean. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources monitors air sporadically at stations in Martin, Pitt, and Edgecombe Counties, west of the
refuge. No reading at any of the three stations violated air quality standards in 2004.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Table 5. Active National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in Tyrrell,
Washington, and Hyde Counties, North Carolina
Permit Number Applicant Type of Facility Receiving Stream
Tyrrell County
NC0086924 Tyrrell County Water Treatment Plant Bulls Bay
NC0087092 Tyrrell County Water Treatment Plant Riders Creek
NC0007510 Columbia Water Treatment Plant Scuppernong River
NC0020443 Columbia Waste Treatment Plant Scuppernong River
NC0085081 Dalton House Domestic Waste Treatment Scuppernong River
Hyde County
NC0068233 Hyde County Water Treatment Plant Lake Mattamuskeet
NC0077992 Hyde County Water Treatment Plant Pungo Lake Canal
NC0000744 Captain Charlie Industrial Waste Treatment Far Creek
NC0076571 Gullrock Seafood Industrial Waste Treatment Gray Ditch
NC0070211 Rose Bay Oyster Industrial Waste Treatment Rose Bay
NC0085002 Eastern Fuels Groundwater Remediation Far Creek
NC0035751 Regional Housing
authority
Domestic Waste Treatment Swanquarter Bay
Washington County
NC0002313 Plymouth Water Treatment Plant Conaby Creek
NC0020028 Plymouth Waste Treatment Plant Roanoke River
NC0027600 Creswell Water Treatment Plant Scuppernong River
NC0031925 Roper Water Treatment Plant Main Canal
24 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Table 6. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Pocosin Lakes NWR
Water Body or Stream Classification Minimum Uses
Albemarle Sound
Bulls Bay
SB – Saltwater Primary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life
Intracoastal Waterway
Little Alligator River
Goose Pond
SC – Saltwater
Sw – Swamp
Waters
Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life
Grapevine Bay
Rattlesnake Bay
The Straits
The Frying Pan
Coopers creek
Babbitt Bay
SC – Saltwater
Sw – Swamp
Waters
ORW-Outstanding
Resource water
Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life
Phelps Lake
Goose creek
Second Creek
B – Freshwater
Sw – Swamp
Waters
ORW-Outstanding
Resource Water
Primary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life
Pungo Lake C – Freshwater
Sw – Swamp
Waters
NSW- Nutrient
Sensitive Water
Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life
Gum Neck Creek
Southwest Fork, Alligator
River
Northwest Fork, Alligator
River
Juniper Creek
Alligator River
C – Freshwater
Sw – Swamp
Waters
ORW-Outstanding
Resource Water
Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life
Dunbar Creek
Basnight Creek
Grays Canal
Bush Harrell Canal
Riders Creek
Second Creek
Bee Tee Canal
Bunton Creek
(source to Bulls Bay)
Bonarva Creek
Scuppernong River
Transportation Canal
New Lake
C – Freshwater
Sw – Swamp
Waters
Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Visual Resources/Aesthetics
Pocosin Lakes NWR is part of an extensive complex of pocosins (shrub wetlands), forested wetlands,
and freshwater marshes interspersed with cropland. Farmers and logging companies have cleared
and drained many of these wetlands in the past, but conservation agencies and organizations have
acquired and protected them. They have restored the areas or allowed them to go through
succession to native vegetation. In addition to the 110,106-acre Pocosin Lakes NWR, the counties
have natural vegetative cover on 64,000 acres at the Mattamuskeet and Swanquarter NWRs, 47,000
acres at eight State game lands, 18,000 acres on the Buckridge National Estuarine Research
Reserve, and 4,531 acres at the Pettigrew State Park.
Visitors to the refuge have the opportunity to experience solitude, wildness, uninterrupted quiet, spirit
and adventure, and observe the signs and the sounds of activity in the pocosin, marsh, and forested
wetlands. Most people will only experience the refuge from gravel roads due to the prevalence of
deep, organic soil that will not support a person’s weight. The casual observer will see large
expanses of freshwater marsh and hardwood and pine forest. During the growing season, the
marshes appear alive with neotropical songbirds, raptors, wading birds, marsh birds, mink, otter, and
other wildlife species. The forests of loblolly pine, red maple, black gum, sweetgum, green ash, and
wax myrtle echo the sounds of songbirds, wood ducks, red wolves, bear, and deer. The pocosins of
evergreen shrubs attract songbirds and bears to their fruit-bearing branches.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
The term “pocosin” includes several distinct plant communities (Table 7) (Figure 4) (Richardson 1991,
Weakely and Schafale 1991) whose characteristics and dynamics are still poorly understood
(Weakely and Schafale 1991). In the great peatlands, fire frequency and depth of peat are two
master factors determining the distribution and structure of many plant communities. Much of the
land within Pocosin Lakes NWR is not forest; yet forests clearly grew there in the past. Swamp
forests are dynamic, not static (Drayton and Hook 1988, Hinsely 1999, Odum 1984). It is one thing to
note the presence of tree residue, but it is more difficult to say exactly when these stands existed.
Through the millennia, peat accumulated around these residues as they were deposited. Offsetting
the process of accumulation were the effects of subsidence, mostly in response to drainage, as well
as loss of peat in fires, both of which left material at the surface that might be very old. Some soil
profiles contain strata composed of very different plant species, each group with different
requirements for establishment and growth. Ruffin (1861) described a peat profile near Pungo Lake
in which there were three major layers of embedded woody material: pond pine (upper), cypress
(middle), and Atlantic white cedar (lower). Peat profiles near Pungo Lake also contain several distinct
layers of tree residue (Dolman and Buol 1967).
Species composition of the swamp vegetation in eastern North Carolina has undergone several major
changes through its history (Dolman and Buol 1968, Lewis and Cocke 1929, Whitehead and Oaks 1979).
Otte (1981) said he had never observed a pocosin (underlain by deep peat soils) that had been
dominated by a single vegetation type throughout the history of the wetland. No single vegetation type
has always existed on these sites. Analysis reveals many localized changes and successional
sequences during the last several thousand years, indicating a state of dynamic equilibrium and a modest
capacity for self-repair over long periods without disturbance, say several centuries (Whitehead and Oaks
1979). This tenuous equilibrium is constantly threatened by activities of man. Preserving pocosin
systems requires recognition of the many factors that permitted them to develop and of the variety of
forces that have maintained them for thousands of years (Whitehead and Oaks 1979).
26 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Table 7. Habitat types by approximate acreage for Pocosin Lakes NWR
Habitat Type Acreage
Pocosin 63,896
Bay Forest 4,280
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest 3,124
Mixed Pine Flatwoods 13,649
Hardwood Swamp Forest 14,045
Cypress/Gum Swamp 970
Marsh 987
Xeric Sandhill Scrub 276
Cropland 1,250
Moist Soil Areas (Managed Wetlands) 443
Natural Lake Shoreline 446
Open Water 6,740
TOTAL 110,106
Roads, Roadsides 970
Canals 909
Firebreaks 1,200
Administrative Areas 10
NOTE: Roads, roadsides, canals, firebreaks, and administrative areas occur within the
various habitat types listed above. Firebreak maintenance (mowing, burning, chemical
treatment) results in these acres being maintained in a pocosin (grass stage) habitat type.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of Pocosin Lakes NWR
28 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
South of Phelps Lake, in the vicinity of Boerma Road and County Line Road, the peat is 7 to 9
feet thick (Pungo soil) and contains thousands of tons of logs and stumps. The age of the woody
material is approximately 7,000 years just above the sand at the bottom of the peat and
approximately 3,400 years at mid-depth (Courtney Hackney, University of North Carolina-
Wilmington, personal communication). The woody material throughout the peat is Atlantic white
cedar (Hackney, personal communication).
Other references from Hinsely’s Forest Habitat Management Plan (1999) indicate that the vegetation
south of Phelps Lake on present-day refuge land was mostly pond pine pocosin. There is no
reference documenting the existence of Atlantic white cedar there in the last 150 years. However,
the Superintendent of Pettigrew State Park, Mr. Sidney Shearin, remembers observing Atlantic white
cedars south of Lake Phelps along Allen Road prior to the 1985 wild fires. The site is currently
dominated by typical pocosin and bay forest habitats.
Pocosins: There are 63,896 acres of typical pocosin wetlands on the refuge. Pocosin wetlands,
also called southeastern shrub bog, are characterized by high organic content peat soils and a dense
layer of shrub vegetation. Shrub species include fetterbush (Lyonia lurida), inkberry (Ilex glabra),
sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). An overstory of pond pine
(Pinus serotina), from scattered to densely stocked, is also often present. Pocosins have been
classified in many different ways. For example, Frost describes two types of low pocosin: true
ombrotrophic low pocosin (influenced by nutrient deficient organic soils deeper than 4 feet) and fire-maintained
low pocosin. The fire influenced low pocosin is maintained by frequent burn cycles from 1
to 7 years. Canebrakes and a large portion of the shrub-dominated pocosins on the refuge are fire-maintained
pocosins on shallower peat soils (< 4 feet). These fire-maintained sites often have more
nutrients available because of the shallower peat soils overlaying mineral soil. In the absence of
frequent fire, the canebrake succeeds to shrub pocosin and eventually to climax community with a
pine overstory and a shrub understory. Pitcher plant bogs occur throughout many of these pocosins,
especially where ground fires have created potholes in the soil. Due to past land management
practices (e.g., draining, clearing, timber harvest, agriculture, pasture, and wildfire), some of these
areas contain mostly grasses, ferns, and other herbaceous vegetation.
In this CCP, we divide the pocosin habitat, including the 362 acres of true ombrotrophic low pocosin that
occurs on the refuge, into three ecological successional stages based on the current vegetation. These
three stages include forest (tree) pocosin, shrub pocosin, and herbaceous (grass) pocosin. In the grass
stage, the recovering vegetation consists of low-growing grasses, forbs, ferns, and other herbaceous
vegetation. In the shrub stage, mid-story shrub species dominate the site. Pond pine saplings may also
be visible. In the forest (climax) stage, the site is characterized by a pond pine overstory, from widely
scattered to fully stocked, with an extremely dense shrub understory.
The Nature Conservancy has ranked pond pine canebrake, a type of pocosin on shallow peat soils (<
three feet), as a critically endangered ecosystem. Large tracts of this community type are found on the
eastern side of the refuge.
Key wildlife species of management concern include the endangered red wolf, the endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker, black bear, small mammals, brown-headed nuthatch, red-headed
woodpecker, American bobwhite quail, Chuck-will’s-widow, American woodcock, neotropical
migratory birds, canebrake rattlesnake, carnivorous plants, and green treefrog.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Bay Forest: Bay forest is a special type of pocosin wetland. There are 4,280 acres of bay forest on
the refuge. It has a dominant cover of loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), sweetbay magnolia
(Magnolia virginiana), and red bay (Persea palustris). Bay forests are late-successional communities,
replacing peatland Atlantic white cedar or pond pine woodland after a long absence of fire (Buell and
Cain 1943, Kologiski 1977). Other tree species, such as red maple (Acer rubrum), Atlantic white
cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), pond pine (Pinus serotina), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
may be present in the understory or canopy. Bay forests typically have a dense shrub layer
component. Shrub species include fetterbush (Lyonia lurida), inkberry (Ilex glabra), sweet gallberry
(Ilex coriacea), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia).
Key wildlife species of management concern in bay forests include: Swainson’s warbler, American
woodcock, and prothonotary warbler.
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest: Atlantic white cedar forest is a special type of pocosin
wetland. There are 3,124 acres of peatland Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) forest
on the refuge. The Nature Conservancy has ranked Atlantic white cedar as an imperiled
ecosystem. Historically, Atlantic white cedar was the most valuable tree on the Albemarle
Peninsula. The acreage of Atlantic white cedar today is probably less than five percent of the
original (Davis et al., 1997, Frost 1987). Less than 10,000 acres of Atlantic white cedar remain in
North Carolina, with more than half in Dare County (Davis et al., 1997). The occurrence of
Atlantic white cedar is affected by the frequency and intensity of fires and other disturbances.
Results are often unpredictable, resulting in conversion to hardwood swamps rather than Atlantic
white cedar. Where possible, land managers must carefully control disturbance in order to
encourage, not deter, cedar regeneration (Roman et al., 1990).
Atlantic white cedar forests are the product of a low frequency, relatively high intensity fire regime that
is probably related to their marginally moist-soil conditions. Too frequent fire either prescribed or as
the result of lower water tables, will convert such areas to pocosin shrub bogs. Infrequent fires result
in decreased importance of white cedar and pine (Christensen 1981). In other words, Atlantic white
cedar stands will succeed to bay forests following a catastrophic wildfire and/or long-term fire
suppression. The most extensive development of Atlantic white cedar forests occurred on medium-to-
deep peat soils overlying sandy soil, or in sandy creek bottoms with soils high in organic matter.
Fire intervals are 100 - 300 years (Frost 1995). One hundred years allow stands to mature and
accumulate an extensive seed bank in the upper few inches of peat. Three hundred years is the
approximate longevity of Atlantic white cedar, but at that age, too few trees still remain on the site to
maintain a good seed bank or prevent succession to other species (Frost 1995). Atlantic white cedar
stands can sustain themselves with fire intervals of 50 to 100 years; sometimes, small patches might
appear with fire intervals of 13 to 25 years (Frost 1995). Atlantic white cedar, a pioneer species,
often grows in dense, even-aged stands.
It appears that the limiting factors to Atlantic white cedar on the refuge are altered hydrology and the
absence of a seed source, which prevents it from naturally regenerating after disturbances, including
fire. For this reason, the Service should establish stands of Atlantic white cedar throughout the
refuge to serve as a future source of regeneration (Hinsley 1999). Several plantings at Pocosin
Lakes NWR have conclusively shown that seedlings grown to large transplants (3 feet in height) give
better results in the field, especially when subjected to browsing and heavy weed competition
(Hughes 1995, Hinsley et al., 1999). As of 2001, approximately 425 acres south of Phelps Lake have
been planted with Atlantic white cedar.
30 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Key wildlife species of management concern in Atlantic white cedar forests include the black-throated-
green warbler, American woodcock, Swainson’s warbler, and yellow-throated warbler.
Mixed Pine Flatwoods: Mixed pine flatwoods is another special type of pocosin wetland. There are
13,649 acres of mixed pine flatwoods forest on the refuge, mostly in the northeast corner in the Frying Pan
area, and in the area south of Columbia and west of State Route 94 where the organic soils are deeper than
16 inches. This habitat type contains loblolly (Pinus taeda) and pond pine (Pinus serotina) and a wide
variety of hardwood tree species. The hardwood species are soft mass species, such as red maple (Acer
rubrum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra).
Key wildlife species of management concern include the endangered red wolf, red-cockaded woodpecker,
black bear, white-tailed deer and small mammals (red wolf prey base), brown-headed nuthatch, red-headed
woodpecker, Chuck-wills’s-widow, American woodcock, prothonotary warbler, Swainson’s warbler, cerulean
warbler, wood thrush, yellow-billed cuckoo, northern parula, yellow-throated warbler, rusty blackbird, hooded
warbler, Kentucky warbler, yellow-throated vireo, summer tanager, yellow-crowned night-heron, acadian
flycatcher, Louisiana waterthrush, and eastern wood-pewee.
In areas with surface water, additional species of concern are the bald eagle, nesting and wintering
wood duck, wintering black duck, anhinga, and the following anadromous fish species: blue back
herring, alewife, and hickory shad.
Hardwood Swamp Forest: There are 14,045 acres of hardwood swamp forest, including examples
of nonriverine swamp forest and wet hardwood forest on the refuge. These habitat types contain a
variety of hard and soft mast bearing species of trees and ideally should contain a midstory of
younger trees along with understories of ferns, grasses, forbs, and leaf litter. The swamp forests
occur on soils with organic topsoil and have soft mast species, such as red maple (Acer rubrum),
swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). The wet hardwood forests occur on
mineral soil and have hard mast species, such as water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus
phellos), laurel oak (Quercus laurelifolia), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodafolia), and swamp
chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii).
Key wildlife species of management concern in the forests include: endangered red wolf, wood duck,
Swainson’s warbler, American woodcock, cerulean warbler, American black duck, white-tailed deer,
black bear, and other mammals.
Cypress/Gum Swamps: There are 970 acres of cypress/gum swamps on the refuge. This habitat
type varies greatly in response to past management practices, hydrology, and soils. In general, it is
some mixture of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp hardwood species, including swamp
tupelo (Nyssa biflora) in wetter areas, and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) in drier areas.
Bald cypress usually occurs in even-aged groups in all-aged stands (Matoon 1915), and rarely
constitutes more than 25 percent of the stand (Pinchot and Ashe 1897). Although much of the
swampland west of Lake Phelps and Pungo Lake had bald cypress and swamp tupelo in the early 1800s
(Ruffin 1839), today approximately 2,800 acres exist around Pungo Lake, and in Tyrrell County.
Key wildlife species of management concern in bald cypress/gum swamps include: red wolf, bald
eagle, American alligator, black bear, wood duck, Swainson’s warbler, cerulean warbler, and
American woodcock.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Marsh: This habitat type includes 987 acres of freshwater marshes along the Alligator River and
Intracoastal Waterway. The marshes are dominated by sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense). Invasion of
common reed (Phragmites australis) has been a major problem in many of the marshes.
Key wildlife species of management concern include the endangered red wolf, American alligator,
peregrine falcon, American black duck and other waterfowl, black bear, yellow rail, king rail, Virginia
rail, American bittern, least bittern, and northern harrier.
Xeric Sandhill Scrub: This habitat type includes 276 acres on the sandy spoil banks created by
excavating the Intracoastal Waterway along the southern edge of the refuge. It features an open
canopy of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) with an open to dense understory of scrub oaks and sparse to
moderately dense herb layer, including wiregrass (Aristida stricta). It is the least productive of the
longleaf pine-dominated communities, occupying the most xeric end of the gradient, but still subject
to frequent low intensity fires. There is low plant diversity and the absence of most scrub oaks, other
than turkey oak (Quercus laevis), helps distinguish this type.
Key wildlife species of management concern include the endangered red wolf, red-cockaded
woodpecker, black bear, white-tailed deer and small mammals (red wolf prey base), brown-headed
nuthatch, red-headed woodpecker, northern bobwhite, chuck-wills’s-widow, American woodcock,
prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler.
Cropland: There are 1,250 acres of cropland on the refuge, all of which is on the Pungo Unit. It is
managed primarily to provide grain and green browse for wintering waterfowl. The cropland is
managed through a Cooperative Farming Program. Local farmers are allowed to farm the ground in
exchange for leaving 20 percent (about 250 acres annually) of the crop standing in the field for
wildlife. The refuge normally takes its share in corn and specifies to the farmer which rows to leave.
Normally, about 200 acres of winter wheat are also planted behind corn and provides winter green
browse for swans and geese. Some corn and wheat is harvested, stored in grain bins, and used to
support waterfowl banding operations at refuges throughout eastern North Carolina.
Moist-soil Units (Managed Wetlands): There are 443 acres of moist-soil habitat on the refuge in
six moist-soil units (Smartweed, Jones Pond, Marsh A, Van’s Pond, Hyde Park, and Evan’s Pond).
There are also about 550 acres of other wetlands managed for waterfowl (Marsh C, North
Smartweed, and part of the Triangle Block). The acreages for these areas are included under their
appropriate habitat types, such as Hardwood Swamp Forest, Cypress/Gum Swamp, and Mixed Pine
Flatwoods. Water supply (which has historically been from rainfall only) for flooding the moist-soil
units in the fall has been a limiting factor in providing excellent habitat conditions for wintering,
migratory waterfowl.
32 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
The 84-acre Smartweed Impoundment is located between D-Canal Road and West Lake Drive. The
impoundment has been flooded annually since 1977, when dikes were constructed on its west and
south sides. Fifteen acres of the unit were in agricultural production from 1969 to 1978. In 1978,
excellent stands of smartweed (Polygonum spp.), wild millet (Echinochloa crusgalli), and fall panicum
(Panicum dichotomiflorum) were observed, resulting in a habitat management decision to convert the
unit to a moist-soil impoundment. In 1988, a dike was constructed to completely impound the area to
provide independent water management. The current habitat management strategy is to plow or
burn the impoundment at 2- to 5-year intervals to maintain and restore desirable, early ecological
successional plant species. If the unit is left undisturbed, these desirable species will be replaced
with undesirable, later successional species, such as cattail (Typha spp.), black willow (Salix nigra),
and wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus). The encroachment of invasive species, including sesbania
(Sesbania sp.), common reed (Phragmites austrailis), and alligator weed (Alternathera philoxeroides),
continues to be a management challenge in the Smartweed Impoundment. The refuge has used
herbicide treatments, including a glyphosate product labeled for aquatic use, and the herbicide,
Habitat, successfully to set back invasive species encroachments.
Water levels for the impoundment are controlled at a water control structure at the southern end and
the Hyde Park water control structure located 4 miles downstream. The structures are closed in
September to flood the impoundment from October to December. Water in the Smartweed
Impoundment gradually spreads from the lower elevation located at the south end. Approximately 2
to 3 feet of water in the south end are required to provide flooding for the north end of the unit. This
is the first moist-soil unit to flood each year.
The Service flooded the southern third of the 200-acre Jones Pond from 1973 to 1977, and has
completely flooded the pond each winter since 1978. Historically, the staff flooded the impoundment
from November through February to provide habitat for wintering, migratory waterfowl. To facilitate
flooding capabilities, the staff places boards in the Hyde Park water control structure in September to
provide gravity flow of water and to collect accumulated rainfall. In 2004, the Service installed an
artesian well and pump. This greatly increased water management capabilities in the Jones Pond
unit for waterfowl and shorebird management. The staff inundated the area by blocking water at the
Hyde Park structure. Boards were placed in the structure in September but flooding occurred from
November-February, depending on rainfall. In October 1992, the Service completed dike
construction to impound the entire unit. In 2004, the refuge installed a well and pump.
Vegetation in the area includes black willow (Salix nigra), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
smartweed (Polygonum spp.), fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum), sedges (Carex spp.), wool
grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and river cane (Arundinaria gigantea). The Service plows or burns the
area every 2 to 5 years depending on the extent of encroachment by the undesirable, later
successional species. The early detection of and rapid response to the exotic common reed
(Phragmites australis) have continued to successfully minimize encroachment of this highly invasive
species in Jones Pond. Herbicides labeled for aquatic use have been successfully implemented on
small patches of common reed as part of the management program for this unit.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Marsh A was created in 1971. Water management in this 84-acre unit is extremely limited because
the land elevation is too high to permit flooding in any but extremely wet years. The marsh was
periodically burned until burning was eliminated in 1981. No management or manipulation was
accomplished until the fall of 1988 when the area was double plowed. Marsh A was successfully
burned by prescription in 1999. Three potholes were dug in 1989 and the area flooded in November.
A small patch of the invasive common reed (Phragmites australis) continues to be managed with a
formulation of the herbicide glyphosate, labeled for aquatic use. Three potholes were dug in 1989
and the area flooded in November. Two thousand ducks used the area consistently during the years
1989-90 and 1990-91, and 500 ducks used the area in the 1996 and 1997 waterfowl seasons.
Van’s Pond was created in late summer of 1987. Although much of this 10-acre unit was bare due to
the lateness in the growing season, 250-500 tundra swans daily used the cleared area during most of
the winter of 1987-88. During the 1997-98 waterfowl season, 80 tundra swans and 100 ducks were
observed in the unit.
The Hyde Park structure controls the flooding of the area of Van’s Pond. Normally, the staff closes
the structure in September but the area normally does not flood until December – February,
depending on rainfall.
The 25-acre Hyde Park Pond has been flooded annually since 1973. The Hyde Park water control
structure, located at the southwest corner of the field, floods this pond, Jones Pond, and Smartweed
Pond. The staff closes the structure in September, but this area normally does not flood until
between December and February, depending on rainfall. This pond has the highest elevation on the
drainage system and is the last to flood and the first to be drawn down.
Initially, cooperative farmers “clean” farmed this area for corn, milo, and soybeans with conventional
tillage and application of pre-emergent herbicides before planting, cultivation in the early stages of the
crop’s development, and post-emergent herbicide use later in the crop’s development. When a few
excellent natural foods, such as giant foxtail (Setaria magna), were observed growing with the crops, the
staff conducted some experiments to grow corn and natural foods together. The experimental treatments
included the elimination of late tilling after crops are 12 inches high, the elimination of post-emergent
herbicides, and the use of no-till techniques to grow crops. Conclusions from the experiments showed
that the longest sustained high use by waterfowl occurred when this area was clean farmed and the staff
flooded the standing corn. Biologists have observed Canada geese in this unit.
The Service began initial waterfowl work on the 40-acre Evan’s Pond unit in 1993, when the Service
plowed the unit twice in July and August to set back succession and began pumping in December.
The old dike has several leaks that have been scheduled for repair since 1994.
34 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Natural Lake Shoreline: The majority of the 446-acre natural lake shoreline community on the
refuge occurs around Pungo Lake, Phelps Lake, and New Lake. High water levels driven by wind
tides prevent the establishment of trees. Vegetative cover in these areas includes rare, naturally
occurring non-estuarine marshes. This community features a marsh and shrub zone along the lake
shoreline. Common herbaceous species include broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), common three-square
(Scirpus americanus), and soft rush (Juncus effusus). The dominant tree species beyond the
shrub zone include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora). Common
reed or Phragmites (Phragmites australis) has encroached on the majority of the natural lake
shoreline around Pungo Lake. Phragmites is a noninvasive species native to the northeastern United
States, but invasive ecotypes entered the country from Europe as packing material on ships at the
turn of the century (Saltonstahl 2002). The invasive ecotypes have spread throughout the east and
are threatening marsh ecosystems throughout the area. The presence of Phragmites has also been
observed around Lake Phelps and New Lake. Efforts to control the spread and eradicate the
presence of Phragmites are essential to optimize natural lake shoreline ecosystems.
Key wildlife species of management concern on the natural lake shoreline include wood ducks and other
waterfowl, marsh and wading birds, neotropical migratory birds, and muskrat and other mammal species.
Open Water: The 6,740 acres of open water include Pungo Lake and New Lake. The 2,800-acre
Pungo Lake is a natural lake, which may have formed by ground fires that burned deep into the peat
soils. The resulting depression filled with rainwater and became a lake. Remnant logs and stumps
show evidence of historic Atlantic white cedar and bald cypress forests. Frequent fires converted
these forests to the more common pocosin species, including titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), inkberry (Ilex
glabra), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), red maples (Acer rubrum), and scattered pond pine (Pinus
serotina). The northern and western shorelines consist of swamp forest with a dominant species of
swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora)).
Pungo Lake can be lowered much easier than it can be refilled. Water inflow into the lake is from the
property line drainage ditch through a one-way flap gate structure located on the west side of the
lake. The property line ditch is not a significant water source, as it must be completely full before
water can flow into the lake. Rainfall is essentially the only source of water for the lake. On the
southeast part of the lake, a 60-inch culvert, with stopboard riser, allows water to be released.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
The lake water has a pH of 4.9 and is darkly stained by tannic acid and suspended organic matter
that limits sunlight penetration. The lack of sunlight penetration and low pH prevents germination of
aquatic plants in the lake. Potential waterfowl food production is along the natural lake shoreline.
The lake level was lowered yearly from 1964 to 1971, and in 1976, 1981, and 1985. The exposed
shoreline produced good stands of desirable natural foods, primarily American threesquare (Scirpus
americana), and undesirable stands of black willow (Salix nigra) and Phragmites (Phragmites
australis). There was seldom enough precipitation to refill the lake after the drawdowns.
Pungo Lake’s primary benefit to waterfowl has been for roosting and resting. Maximum acreage
should be maintained with water to accommodate the large number of birds that use it. Pungo Lake
receives extensive use by tundra swans, snow geese, ducks, and Canada geese. Duck numbers
peak when the lake is full and there is standing water in the lakeshore marshes and adjacent moist-soil
units. Biologists have observed peaks of 38,000 tundra swans, 10,000 Canada geese, 80,000
snow geese (2006/07), and 60,000 ducks on the lake within the past 13 years.
Recommended water management is to maintain a year-round full lake level (10 feet above mean
sea level) to ensure adequate water when migrating birds return in the fall; however, water levels in
the lake fluctuate throughout the year due to climatic conditions.
The refuge includes 3,940 acres of the 4,800-acre New Lake (sometimes called Alligator Lake), and
approximately half of its shoreline. The outflow of this lake is discharged through two water control
structures. A landowner plugged the canal that was channeled into the lake in 1985 to fight a large
wildfire in the summer of 1993. The lake was full for the first time since 1985 during the winter of
1995 and was full again at the end of 1997.
Natural Areas: In the early 1980s, the Coastal Energy Impact Program funded efforts to construct
natural area inventories for Washington, Hyde, and Tyrrell Counties. This work was undertaken
partly in anticipation of proposed peat mining activities in the region. Inventories excluded land
already within Federal ownership. The mission was “... to identify natural areas containing highly
unique, endangered, or rare natural features, or high-quality representations of relatively undisturbed
natural habitats, and which may be vulnerable to threats and damage from land use changes. The
resulting inventory and recommendations were designed to help State and Federal agencies, county
officials, resource managers, landowners, and developers work out effective land management and
preservation mechanisms to protect outstanding or exemplary natural areas....”(Lynch and Peacock
1982a, 1982b: McDonald and Ash 1981).
These inventories are useful in developing a picture of plant communities that previously existed in
certain areas and/or on certain soil types. Legrand and his associates prepared updated inventories of
natural areas in the Albemarle-Pamilico Peninsula (Legrand et al., 1992). Natural areas total 62,300
acres, representing 58 percent of the terrestrial area within Pocosin Lakes NWR. They suggested that
management activities be directed toward maintaining and/or conserving the unique botanical and fauna
of these areas. Under some situations, prescribed fire might be required. Due to the inaccessibility of
some areas, active management is probably not feasible.
Hyde County: An area south and southeast of New Lake, extending to the Intracoastal Waterway,
was called New Lake Fork Pocosin (9,300 acres total; 7,300 acres in Pocosin Lakes NWR) (Lynch
and Peacock 1982a). Prior to a severe fire that burned the entire area in 1982, it was mostly high
pocosin, with some pond pine woodland. Legrand and his associates also included this area and
suggested that the Service consider prescribed fire to perpetuate the type, especially if it could
restore the wetland hydrology (Legrand et al., 1992).
36 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Tyrrell County: The inventory of McDonald and Ashe included several natural areas within present-day
refuge property in Tyrrell County. The largest was Upper Alligator River Pocosin, the drainage
basin for the Northwest and Southwest Forks of Alligator River. The vegetation was mostly pond pine
pocosin. The area, described as “vast inaccessible,” was given a State Natural Heritage rating of
“high” (statewide significance) (McDonald and Ashe 1982).
McDonald and Ashe described a small area on the western side as “forest that was cut within the
last 15-20 years, but the loggers left behind some huge bald cypress trees (cull remnants of
earlier logging), most with their tops blown out, and some as large as 5 feet in diameter.” The
authors speculated that the area might contain a State-record tree. Other trees were mostly
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica).
Insect and Disease Pests of Habitats: In recent years, the forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma
disstria) has caused widespread defoliation in the State (Collins 2005). Prolonged flooding and
saturation on coastal plain soils adversely impacts the parasitic wasp that preys on the forest tent
caterpillar. The parasitic wasp spends part of its life cycle in the ground. Prolonged flooding kills
the wasp so it can no longer serve as a check on the populations of the forest tent caterpillar.
This may account for the large outbreaks resource managers have been observing the last
decade on the coastal plain.
The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar Linnaeus) is now well established as far south as northeastern
North Carolina. The North Carolina Division of Plant Industry and the USDA Forest Service closely
monitors gypsy moth populations. They utilize pheromone traps located throughout the State,
including refuge lands. When they detect large-scale outbreaks, they use integrated pest
management techniques to suppress the outbreak, but not necessarily eliminate the species from the
area (McManus 1989).
The southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) is becoming a more common pest of pines in
northeastern North Carolina. The beetles feed on the inner bark of stress-weakened trees. The needles
turn yellow or straw-colored within two or three weeks of the attack, before finally turning reddish-brown.
Land managers treat infected stands by cutting down a swath of trees around the area where the beetles
are actively feeding, thus removing their food and starving them. Managers must monitor their pine
stands and investigate any trees that appear infected (Townsend and Rieske-Kinney 2000).
Fire ants (Solenopsis spp) were introduced into the United States from South America during the
1940s (Tvedten 2005). This species is associated with disturbed, open habitats, including roadsides,
turf, farm fields, and firebreaks. The fire ant mounds are on average between 10 to 24 inches in
diameter and approximately 18 inches in height. During prescribed burns, the drier soil, which makes
up the ant mounds, often introduce ground fire in the peat soils on the refuge. This has resulted in a
continual management challenge for the refuge’s prescribed fire program.
WILDLIFE
Many wildlife species occur in a variety of habitats across the refuge. Surveys are needed to
document presence and establish population estimates for many of the classes of wildlife.
Amphibians: Although surveys have not been conducted, Pocosin Lakes NWR may provide habitat for
up to 36 species of amphibians. There are approximately 20 species of frogs and toads, including the
more common spring peeper, gray and barking treefrogs, southern toad, and bullfrog. Over 15 species
of salamanders, including the eastern newt and spotted salamander, may occur on the refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Reptiles: Over 40 species of reptiles, including lizards, snakes, turtles, and American alligator, occur
throughout the refuge. Eight species of turtles frequently observed on the refuge include the yellow-bellied
slider, painted turtle, spotted turtle, eastern box turtle, eastern musk turtle, eastern mud turtle,
common snapping turtle, and Florida cooter. There are at least 9 species of lizards frequently
observed on the refuge. The more common species include the green anole, broadhead skink, six-lined
racerunner and five-lined skink.
The refuge provides habitat for a diverse array of snakes, including four venomous snakes:
copperhead, pigmy rattlesnake, timber rattlesnake (canebrake), and cottonmouth. Other common
species of snakes observed on the refuge include black rat snake, redbelly water snake, and
eastern hognose snake.
Mammals: Pocosin Lakes NWR provides habitats for over 40 mammal species, including the
endangered red wolf. Other species frequently observed on the refuge include black bear, white-tailed
deer, Virginia opossum, raccoon, and the exotic nutria. Other more secretive mammals found
on the refuge include river otter, bobcat, mink, and long-tailed weasel.
Although very little is known about the flying mammals on the refuge, approximately nine species of
bats may occur on the refuge. Some of these include southeastern myotis, eastern pipistrel, red bat,
big brown bat, and eastern big-eared bat.
During 2003 and 2004, graduate student Catherine Tredick from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University conducted a study to determine population abundance and genetic structure of black
bears on Pocosin Lakes NWR, using noninvasive genetic techniques. Black bear density estimates
were derived from DNA samples extracted from hair samples. The estimated densities on Pocosin
Lakes NWR were some of the highest reported in the literature and ranged from 1.23 to 1.66 bears
per square kilometer in the areas sampled. The number of bears on Pocosin Lakes NWR in suitable
habitat (i.e., ~ 300 km2 of hardwood, pocosin, and cypress-gum forests) would range 369-498 bears.
However, this range is likely an underestimate because bears also inhabit areas of low-quality habitat
(i.e., low pocosin and marsh) at lower densities (C. Tredick 2005). Genetic variability and structure
was substantially higher on the refuge compared to other bear populations in North America (C.
Tredick 2005).
Migratory Birds: Throughout the year, over 200 species of migratory birds (e.g., shorebirds, marsh
birds, wading birds, waterfowl, and neotropical migratory songbirds) occur in the abundant habitats
found at Pocosin Lakes NWR. Additional surveys are needed to document the diversity of species
that migrate through the refuge.
Shorebirds and Marsh and Wading Birds: More intensive surveys are required to document
shorebird and marsh and wading bird use on the refuge. Climatic conditions, especially rainfall,
determine habitat availability to support most shorebird species on the refuge. The most abundant
and diverse shorebird species occur during drought years. The staff conducts shorebird surveys
depending on habitat availability (exposed mudflats) around the lake, firebreaks, and moist-soil units.
Waterfowl: Intensive surveys, including bi-monthly ground surveys and bi-monthly aerial surveys,
have documented waterfowl peak use and use days since the establishment of the Pungo Unit as
Pungo National Wildlife Refuge in 1963. Over 1,000 acres of moist-soil units, other managed
wetlands, and three lakes provide abundant wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. The refuge
provides breeding habitat for wood ducks, hooded mergansers, American black ducks, and mallards.
See Tables 8 – 13 for waterfowl use of the refuge.
38 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Neotropical Migratory Birds and other Land Birds: The refuge provides breeding, wintering, and
stopover habitat for neotropical migratory birds and other land bird species. The staff must perform
more intensive surveys to more accurately document population parameters for the various species
that occur on the refuge throughout the year.
Threatened and Endangered Species: Two federally listed species occur on the refuge. These are the
endangered red wolf and the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. The bald eagle, previously listed
as threatened, was recently removed from the list of threatened and endangered species. Biologists
have documented the presence of American alligators on land adjacent to the refuge. This species is
listed as “threatened” due to similarity of appearance to other endangered crocodilian species.
State listed species that do or could occur on the refuge include: star-nosed mole, Rafinesque’s big-eared
bat, Southern dismal swamp shrew, southern bald eagle, loggerhead shrike, Bachman’s
sparrow, black vulture, red-cockaded woodpecker, little blue heron, tri-colored heron, Cooper’s hawk,
American eastern peregrine falcon, glossy ibis, and American alligator.
Table 8. 1999-2000 Monthly peak waterfowl use on Pocosin Lakes NWR
Species
PEAK USE
October November December January February March
Snow Geese 0 3,502 45,000 36,009 22,360 23
Mallard 239 501 2,939 3,125 1,843 765
Green-winged Teal 432 779 2,530 1,720 4,280 1,132
Ring-necked Duck 15 161 864 38 18 0
Northern Pintail 3 172 791 613 314 3
American Wigeon 25 401 583 1,375 1,046 119
Black Duck 179 169 583 499 385 441
Canada Geese 310 100 380 645 488 135
Wood Duck 7 116 321 528 710 56
Ruddy Duck 22 160 371 80 3 3
Northern Shoveler 0 94 190 383 274 134
Bufflehead 4 87 168 13 10 27
Gadwall 35 33 25 124 0 38
Hooded Merganser 0 4 16 10 19 0
Blue-winged Teal 30 3 0 0 0 2
Redhead 0 0 0 25 0 0
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Table 9. 1999-2000 Monthly waterfowl use days on Pocosin Lakes NWR
Species
USE DAYS
October November December January February March
Snow Geese 0 27,618 707,854 813,016 539,980 356
Mallard 7,332 8,598 58,249 63,106 50,682 12,508
American Wigeon 11,036 11,334 29,971 40,920 73,834 24,955
Ring-necked Duck 279 2,304 11,718 703 193 0
Northern Pintail 465 2,418 10,986 9,992 4,408 46
Black Duck 3,022 2,160 9,691 7,130 4,485 6,913
Canada Geese 6,913 942 6,690 7,543 5,017 2,092
Northern Shoveler 0 912 5,326 6,045 5,104 3,240
Wood Duck 108 1,224 4,290 6,851 11,349 868
Ruddy Duck 512 966 2,982 827 48 46
Bufflehead 62 522 1,290 134 126 418
Hooded Merganser 0 48 273 103 203 0
Gadwall 542 666 236 1,829 0 852
Blue-winged Teal 465 18 0 0 0 31
Redhead 0 0 0 258 0 0
40 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Table 10. 1988-2005 annual peak waterfowl use on Pungo Unit
TOTAL
PEAK USE
Ducks Canada
Geese
Snow
Geese
Tundra
Swans Coots
1988-1989 35,000 4,500 15,000 30,000 20
1989-1990 60,000 10,000 17,000 34,000 30
1990-1991 26,200 1,436 16,000 20,000 5
1991 25,100 1,000 16,000 20,000 0
1991-1992 11,250 1,400 26,000 28,000 50
1992-1993 31,400 3,000 20,000 20,000 150
1993-1994 26,000 1,939 25,000 26,473 40
1994-1995 35,000 1,200 20,000 38,715 100
1994-1995 11,100 1,205 30,000 31,377 50
1996-1997 10,000 705 30,000 32,000 540
1997-1998 18,210 450 38,520 16,355 129
1998-1999 14,260 380 43,000 25,000 402
1999-2000 7,599 425 45,000 23,930 167
2000-2001 11,325 720 46,000 28,062 41
2001-2002 6,055 700 44,000 19,985 5
2002-2003 13,217 1,110 65,000 11,105 10
2003-2004 21,915 477 70,000 11,105 0
2004-2005 28,283 380 57,000 15,577 5
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Table 11. 1988-2005 annual waterfowl use days on Pungo Unit
YEAR
USE DAYS
Ducks Canada
Geese
Snow
Geese
Tundra
Swans
1988-1989 2,632,162 230,401 924,800 1,248,621
1989-1990 2,907,846 398,290 848,800 1,716,550
1990-1991 1,876,346 106,989 1,313,500 1,477,514
1991 2,090,760 103,495 1,277,150 1,496,439
1991-1992 834,680 103,915 1,406,365 1,904,175
1992-1993 1,959,909 130,529 1,245,300 1,734,334
1993-1994 1,235,086 89,694 1,685,375 1,623,989
1994-1995 2,513,940 78,716 1,043,666 1,562,838
1995-1996 837,529 56,157 1,419,140 1,984,691
1997-1998 888,740 35,516 1,548,799 2,087,401
1998-1999 570,563 34,727 2,017,493 818,669
1999-2000 540,946 20,085 1,992,877 1,451,992
2000-2001 527,363 12,504 1,579,964 592,300
2001-2002 374,310 60,620 1,341,091 359,950
2002-2003 281,232 14,926 1,321,375 696,666
2003-2004 1,261,648 38,071 2,407,533 1,317,500
2004-2005 434,712 22,496 2,512,536 787,443
42 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Table 12. 2002-2005 (aerial survey only) annual peak waterfowl use on Pocosin Lakes NWR
(including the Pungo Unit)
Year Ducks Canada
Geese Snow Geese Tundra
Swans
American
Coots
2002-2003 16,111 1,177 47,500 13,324 10
2003-2004 22,552 774 40,000 22,805 5
2004-2005 30,161 795 23,000 23,000 5
Table 13. 2002-2005 (aerial survey only) annual waterfowl use days on Pocosin Lakes NWR
(including the Pungo Unit)
Year Ducks Canada
Geese Snow Geese Tundra
Swans
American
Coots
2002-2003 814,758 75,354 1,876,450 822,260 100
2003-2004 1,879,796 69,718 2,272,300 2,850,600 202
2004-2005 1,059,211 34,696 1,318,854 1,104,580 183
Animal Damage Control: The majority of animal damage control is focused around feral hogs,
beavers, white-tailed deer, rabbits, black bears, and nutria. Feral hogs grub in the ground for food and
can cause significant soil disturbance and damage to native vegetation. Feral hog sightings in the
Frying Pan area began increasing around 2002, and they were