DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

MATTAMUSKEET NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Hyde County, North Carolina 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

July 2008 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................1

Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2

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

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

Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6

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

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

Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 7

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

Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 10

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 11

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 11

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 12

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................13

Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 16

Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems and Water Quality Impacts ............................................. 17

Invasive Species Introduction and Proliferation ................................................................ 17

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 18

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 18

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

Minerals ............................................................................................................................. 19

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 19

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

Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 21

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

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

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

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

Invasive and Non-native Plants (Exotics) .......................................................................... 29

Threatened and Endangered Plants ................................................................................. 29

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................30

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 34

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 36

Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 37

Demographics ................................................................................................................... 38

Employment ...................................................................................................................... 40

Forestry ............................................................................................................................. 40

Outdoor Recreation in the Area ........................................................................................ 40

Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 41

Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 42

Transportation ................................................................................................................... 43

Cultural Setting .................................................................................................................. 43
ii Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 44

Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 44

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 46

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 48

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 51

Planning Process and Public Involvement ................................................................................. 51

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 51

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 53

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 53

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 55

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 55

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 57

Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 57

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 59

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 59

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 59

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 59

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 60

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

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

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 75

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 89

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 95

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 95

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 95

Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 95

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 97

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 98

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 99

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 99

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 99

Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ...................................................................................... 100

Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 102

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 104

Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 104

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 105

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 105

Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 105

Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 106

Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 106

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 106

Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 106

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 107
Table of Contents iii

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 109

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 111

Formulation of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 111

Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 111

Alternative A - Current Management (No Action) ............................................................ 111

Alternative B - Proposed Alternative ............................................................................... 113

Alternative C – Moderately Expanded Program .............................................................. 115

Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 116

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ............................................... 117

Moderate Program Increases and Buffer Land Protection .............................................. 117

Optimum Program Increases and Buffer and Landscape Level Land Protection ........... 118

Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 119

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 127

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 127

Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 127

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 127

Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 127

Other Management ......................................................................................................... 128

Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................128

Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 128

Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 129

Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 129

Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 129

Alternative A - Current Management (No Action) ............................................................ 129

Alternative B - Proposed Alternative ............................................................................... 131

Alternative C – Moderately Expanded Program .............................................................. 133

Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 135

Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 136

Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 136

Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 136

User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 137

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 137

Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 137

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 137

Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 138

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Programs, Facilities, Cultural Resources, 

Environmental Justice, Environmental Resources, and Surrounding Communities ....... 146

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 148

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 149

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 151

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 151

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 153

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 163
iv Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 169

APPENDIX D. DRAFT COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION ............................... 183

APPENDIX E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 189

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 189

APPENDIX F. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 195

APPENDIX G. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 211

APPENDIX H. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 233

APPENDIX I. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................. 237

APPENDIX J. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 239

APPENDIX K. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 253

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 253

Maintenance Management System Needs .............................................................................. 258

APPENDIX L. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 277
Table of Contents v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Mattamuskeet NWR and other nearby national wildlife refuges ............................................. 8

Figure 2. Refuge vicinity map ................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 3. Unit 34: Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear Ecosystem .................................................. 12

Figure 4. Habitats and land use at Mattamuskeet NWR ...................................................................... 26

Figure 5. Visitor service facilities on Mattamuskeet Refuge ................................................................ 77

Figure 6. Current staffing chart of Mattamuskeet Refuge .................................................................. 101

Figure 7. Proposed future staffing chart of Mattamuskeet Refuge .................................................... 101

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Acquisition History of Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge.............................................. 10

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Mattamuskeet Refuge ........ 11

Table 3. Threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina ............ 15

Table 4. Soil characteristics at Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge .............................................. 20

Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding Mattamuskeet Refuge .................. 22

Table 6. Annual emissions (tons) of select criteria pollutants in Hyde County, North Carolina ........... 23

Table 7. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Mattamuskeet Refuge ............. 24

Table 8. Examples of vegetation in moist soil units with different levels of management .................... 28

Table 9. Waterfowl survey results, 2006 – 2007 ................................................................................. 31

Table 10. Hyde County agricultural statistics ....................................................................................... 37

Table 11. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 ................................................... 38

Table 12. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties ............................ 39

Table 13. Staff of Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island Refuges, 2005 .............................. 49

Table 14. Summary of projects ........................................................................................................... 96

Table 15. Refuge National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans ...................................... 102

Table 16. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Mattamuskeet Refuge ................ 119

Table 17. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Mattamuskeet Refuge ........................ 139
vi Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for 

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge (Mattamuskeet 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 was 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. This Draft CCP/EA 

describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and 

their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state and federal 

government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. 

Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the final CCP. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge 

purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with 

sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

y Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction; 

y Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

y Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education 

programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and 

y Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the 

Commission of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was 

renamed the Bureau of Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. 

The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology 

and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals 

to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to 

the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896. 
2 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of 

Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the 

Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. 

The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through federal programs 

relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and 

inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1). 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95 

million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest 

collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million 

acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United 

States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national 

fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service 

enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps 

foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state 

fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997 is: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.” 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the 

first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to 

complete CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are completed with full public involvement, help 

guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and recreation/education 

programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved CCPs will serve as the guidelines for 

refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be 

managed to: 

y Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y Consider the needs of wildlife first; 

y Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of 

the refuge system; 

y Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system; and 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

y 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 allow refuge managers authority to determine 

compatible public uses. 

The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting 

birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for 

American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after 

over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought 

conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges 

established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie 

wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes 

protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the 

Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species. 

Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in 

their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local 

communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, 

generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent 

in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 

120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 

refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); 

Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); 

Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna 

Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River 

(Louisiana) – the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief 

that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and 

transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each 

dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation 

expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data). 

Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, 

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more 

than $22 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. 

The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs are to be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, 

state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure active 

public involvement in their preparation and revision (every 15 years). 

All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide 

management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be 

consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including Service 

compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1). 
4 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System), congressional legislation, rresidential executive orders, and 

international treaties. Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by 

administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines 

established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and 

laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System and management of the Mattamuskeet NWR 

are provided in Appendix C. 

Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making 

decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural 

resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation 

between Mattamuskeet NWR and other partners, such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission (NCWRC) and private landowners. 

Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No 

refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs 

and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates 

are to: 

y Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

y Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

y Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

y Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and 

y Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses 

are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over 

other public uses in planning and management. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy 

The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow 

while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the 

consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found 

on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management 

direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their 

refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple 

landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of 

refuge resources, role of refuge within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available 

science, including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the 

environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection 

information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem 

levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected 

parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The 

conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and 

integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA. 

This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American 

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

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic 

institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure 

the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to 

bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives 

include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation 

for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is 

to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s’ levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. 

Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of 

waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of 

federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private 

companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit 

of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan projects are international in 

scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and 

wildlife species across the North American landscape. 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird 

conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land 

birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in 

conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be 

most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort 

throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird 

species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies, 

organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation 

goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach 

programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. 
6 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the 

conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird 

populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive 

species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from 

abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, 

marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are 

federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping 

cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan 

is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

A provision of the Improvement Ac, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure 

timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal 

governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas 

and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the 

overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of North Carolina. 

In North Carolina, the Service partners with the NCWRC. The NCWRC is charged with enforcement 

responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural 

resources. It also manages approximately 1.8 million acres of game lands in North Carolina. 

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

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

several boat ramps located in Hyde County. NCWRC’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 coastal North Carolina. Not only has NCWRC participated 

in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field reviews as part of the CCP process, it is also an 

active partner in the coordination, planning, and execution of various wildlife and habitat surveys. 

The NCWRC also assists refuge staff in providing special wildlife observation opportunities. A key 

part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of common mission 

objectives between the Service and the NCWRC, where appropriate. 

The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing 

opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State 

of North Carolina. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common 

mission objectives where appropriate. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Mattamuskeet NWR sits at the southern end of a broad, flat, and swampy peninsula in northeastern North 

Carolina. One of several national wildlife refuges in the area (Figures 1 and 2), it protects and manages 

50,180 acres of wildlife habitat in Hyde County. The Service named the refuge after North Carolina’s 

largest natural lake, 40,000-acre Lake Mattamuskeet, which comprises almost 80 percent of the refuge’s 

area. This lake averages only two feet in depth, but is 18 miles long and five to six miles wide. In addition 

to the lake, the refuge’s other main habitats are wet pine flatwoods, moist-soil units, natural lake shoreline, 

and cypress-gum swamp. The refuge is surrounded by cropland, marsh, and timber. The village of 

Fairfield (2000 population 1,215) lies at the northern edge of the refuge and the village of Engelhard (2000 

population 1,561) lies three miles southeast of the eastern edge of the refuge, and the village of Swan 

Quarter, the county seat, (2000 population 958) lies four miles southwest of the western edge of the 

refuge. Pamlico Sound, separating the mainland of North Carolina from the Outer Banks to the east, lies 

seven miles south of the refuge. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

HISTORY 

Settlers cleared and drained the area around Lake Mattamuskeet for agriculture early in the 

nineteenth century. The organic soil was productive cropland. A canal drained the lake to half its 

original size in 1830. New Holland Farms drained the shallow Lake Mattamuskeet beginning in 1914, 

with the construction of 130 miles of canals and the world’s largest pumping plant at the time. The 

bottom of the lake provided productive cropland, but maintaining the drained condition was 

impractical and too expensive and the company abandoned the operation in 1932. 

The U.S. Government acquired the land in 1934 under the authority of the National Industrial 

Recovery Act (48 Statute 195). Mattamuskeet NWR was established that same year under Executive 

Order No. 6924. Table 1 shows the refuge’s land acquisition history. The Civilian Conservation 

Corps converted the pumping plant into a hunting lodge (Mattamuskeet Lodge) with ten rooms that 

operated from 1937 until 1974. The Fish and Wildlife Service constructed impoundments to provide 

feeding and resting habitat for migrating and wintering wildlife. 

Following the refuge’s establishment, the numbers of puddle ducks and geese drawn to Lake 

Mattamuskeet appeared endless and peaked in 1960 when more than 100,000 Canada geese and 

200,000 ducks wintered there. A drastic decline in their numbers began soon after and continued 

until the mid-1980s. 

In the mid-1960s, the refuge initiated a long-term habitat enhancement project to optimize wintering 

waterfowl habitat. The project's focus was on refuge areas historically used by Canada geese and 

puddle ducks. Between 1967 and 1981, over 2,500 acres of low-quality marsh were impounded and 

restored to conditions that favored the production of waterfowl foods, in what are called moist-soil 

units. Currently, manipulation of water levels and mechanical vegetation control in the moist-soil units 

produce impressive stands of natural waterfowl foods, such as wild millet, panic grasses and 

spikerushes. In addition, dense beds of submerged vegetation desired by swans, diving ducks, and 

some puddle ducks, are produced naturally in Lake Mattamuskeet. 
8 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Mattamuskeet NWR and other nearby national wildlife refuges 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Figure 2. Refuge vicinity map 
10 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 1. Acquisition history of Mattamuskeet NWR 

DATE TRACTS ACRES COST COST

ACRE 

TOTAL 

ACREAGE 

TOTAL 

COST 

1934 1 49,514.71 $311,942.67 $6.30 49,514.71 $311,942.67 

1935 1 410.34 $2,585.14 $6.30 49,925.05 $314,527.81 

1939 4 219.02 $4,072.70 $18.60 50,144.07 $318,600.51 

1943 3* 8.57 $3.00 $0.35 50,152.64 $318,603.51 

1944 4* 7.69 $3.00 $0.39 50,160.33 $318,606.51 

1945 1* 16.1 $1.00 $0.06 50,176.43 $318,607.51 

1946 1* 0.66 $1.00 $1.52 50,177.09 $318,608.51 

1973 1# 1.0 -0- -0- 50,178.09 $318,608.51 

1976 1# 0.37 -0- -0- 50,178.46 $318,608.51 

1980 1# 1.72 -0- -0- 50,180.18 $318,608.51 

*Easement 

#Lease 

Mattamuskeet Lodge was placed on the National Register of historic Places in 1980. Nevertheless, the 

lodge fell into poor condition and the Friends of Mattamuskeet Lodge formed in 1990 to restore it. In 

1993, the Partnership for the Sounds joined the restoration efforts with the goal of using the lodge for 

wildlife education and research. In 1996, East Carolina University established the Field Station for 

Coastal Studies at Mattamuskeet in the lodge. The university restored six rooms with sixteen beds and a 

laboratory. Despite restoration efforts, severe structural problems were discovered in 1999, and the lodge 

was closed in 2000. A bill (H.R. 5094) passed by Congress and signed into law in 2006, authorized the 

transfer of the Mattamuskeet Lodge to the State of North Carolina. 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of Mattamuskeet NWR is to protect and conserve migratory birds and other wildlife 

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

... as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and wild animals, and (2) that such portion as the 

Secretary of Agriculture [Interior] may deem proper be reserved for use as a shooting area, to 

be operated under a cooperative agreement or lease .... With regard to the waters ... the 

Secretary of Agriculture [Interior] ... may enter into a cooperative agreement or lease ... said 

waters may be used for fishing purposes ... Executive Order 6924, dated Dec. 18, 1934 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929) 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

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

wildlife resources ... 16 U.S.C. §742f(a)(4) ... 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 restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ... 16 U.S.C. § 

742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

In 1979, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 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). 

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Mattamuskeet NWR 

Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank 

Cypress – Gum Swamp S3 G4 

Mesic Pine Flatwoods S3 G5 

S3 = Rare or uncommon in North Carolina 

G4 = Apparently secure globally 

G5 = Demonstrably secure globally 

The National Park Service designated a 153-acre area known as Sayler’s Ridge as a National 

Natural Landmark in 1983. The stand of wet pine flatwoods forest in the southwest corner of the 

refuge is a mature loblolly pine that has not been manipulated since the Service established the 

refuge in 1934. The stand is unique in that it has not been harvested for timber and is mature enough 

to be undergoing natural succession from loblolly pine to sweetgum and red maple. 

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

Mattamuskeet NWR as outstanding resource waters or high-quality waters. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Mattamuskeet NWR lies within a physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. 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 and creating a rich diversity of 

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

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

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

Island, Mattamuskeet, Roanoke River, Pocosin Lakes, Swanquarter, and the Back Bay NWR in 

Virginia, are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and Cape Fear Rivers. 

These have been designated as Ecosystem Unit # 34, the Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear 

Ecosystem, by the Service (Figure 3). 
12 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

development of the CCP. 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 CCP reflect the North American 

Figure 3. Unit 34: Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear Ecosystem 

Waterfowl Management Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the Joint Venture 

between NCWRC and the Service, Partners-in-Flight Plan, and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird 

Initiative (SAMBI). 

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

Coast Joint Venture is the joint venture formed between the NCWRC, the 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 migrating habitat for midcontinental wood duck and colonial bird populations. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a 

high priority of the Partners-in-Flight Plan for the South Atlantic Physiographic Region. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

plans and priority ranking systems to 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 to protect their land with easements. 

In 2001, Congress, recognizing the need for funding and planning to support the conservation, 

protection, and restoration of the full gamut of wildlife species, especially those not covered by 

traditional funding sources, including more than 1,000 federally threatened or endangered species, 

began providing annual funding allocations to supplement existing state fish and wildlife conservation 

programs. The new funding required each state and territory to develop a Wildlife Action Plan. The 

North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan was submitted in 2005 to meet this obligation. The action plan 

provides a conservation blueprint for agencies, organizations, industries, and academics across the 

state to advance the sound management of the state’s fish and wildlife resources into the future. It 

identifies critical fish and wildlife resources and priority conservation needs and promotes proactive 

conservation measures to ensure cost-effective solutions (keeping common species common) 

instead of reactive measures enacted in the face of imminent losses (NCWRC 2005). 

The action plan has five goals: (1) to improve understanding of the species diversity in North Carolina 

and enhance the state’s ability to make conservation or management decisions for all species; (2) to 

conserve and enhance habitats and the communities they support; (3) to foster partnerships and 

cooperative efforts among natural resource agencies, organizations, academia and private industry; 

(4) to support educational efforts to improve understanding of wildlife resources among the general 

public and conservation stakeholders; and (5) to support and improve existing regulations and 

programs aimed at conserving habitats and communities (NCWRC 2005). 

Mattamuskeet NWR lies entirely within North Carolina’s coastal zone, as designated by the Coastal 

Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. The CZMA requires federal agencies proposing activities 

within a state’s coastal zone to provide the relevant state authority (in this case, the North Carolina 

Division of Coastal Management within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) with 

a consistency determination prior to implementing the activity. This consistency determination is 

intended to document that the proposed activity, such as Mattamuskeet NWR’s proposed CCP, 

complies with the enforceable policies of North Carolina’s approved coastal management program 

and would be conducted consistent with this program. Appendix D contains this determination. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

Habitat loss and degradation due to development associated with human population growth are among 

the greatest threats to wildlife, fish, and overall biodiversity in North Carolina. According to the U.S. 

Census Bureau, the state’s population grew by 15 percent from 1990 to 1999, and growth has continued 

unabated in the new century. The National Resources Inventory conducted by the USDA’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service found that North Carolina ranked fourth in the country for total acres of 
14 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

land developed between 1982 and 1997 – and second in the country for the percentage increase in 

developed land (NRCS 2000). As the population grows and land is developed to provide homes, schools, 

roads, workplaces, and shopping centers for the new residents, fish and wildlife habitats have been 

modified, fragmented, degraded, and destroyed (NCWRC 2005). 

Direct habitat destruction is widely acknowledged as the greatest threat to biodiversity at the species and 

ecosystem levels (Noss and Peters 1995). Throughout the southeast, less than three percent of preEuro-American settlement upland longleaf pine communities (Frost 1993) and only one percent of presettlement canebreak and Atlantic white cedar communities remain (Frost 1987). An estimated half of 

North Carolina’s original wetlands have been lost due to development and conversion to cropland (Mitsch 

and Gosselink 1993). Widespread wildland fire suppression over the past century has contributed 

significantly to the alteration, changed structure (greater density), and succession of ecologically firedependent systems, such as longleaf pine forest and other early successional habitats. Land 

fragmentation due to highway development, land-use conversion (e.g., from forests to plantations, farms, 

golf courses, ball fields, and subdivisions), and alterations of landforms, such as beach renourishment 

and spoil deposition banks, are also significant threats (TNC 2000; TNC and NatureServe 2001). The 

USDA Forest Service estimates that forest acreage in North Carolina has fallen by one million acres (5.6 

percent) since 1990, primarily due to development (Brown 2004). 

Primarily as a result of the loss and degradation of habitat, there are more than 40 federally listed 

threatened and endangered animal species and 60 state listed threatened or endangered animal 

species in North Carolina. In addition, there are 115 state species of special concern, and many 

more at risk of being added to that list. North Carolina contains eight of the top twenty-one most 

endangered ecosystems in the country, based on extent of decline, present area (rarity), 

imminence of threat, and number of federally listed threatened and endangered species 

associated with each type (Noss and Peters 1995): 

y Southern Appalachian spruce-fir forest 

y Longleaf pine and savanna 

y Eastern grasslands, savanna, and barrens 

y Coastal communities in the lower 48 states 

y Large streams and rivers in the lower 48 states 

y Cave and karst systems 

y Ancient eastern deciduous forest 

y Southern forested wetlands 

Beyond the borders of North Carolina, the South Atlantic Coastal Plain in general has changed 

markedly over the last two centuries as civilization spread throughout the area. Scientists have 

estimated that land conversion has cleared 40 percent of the natural vegetation. The greatest 

changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for urban development and 

agriculture (Hunter et al., 2001). 

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

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

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

and coastal dunes to fragments ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a 

few large areas that have maintained many of the original functions and values of forested habitat. 

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

Species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, threatened, or 

endangered, include the piping plover, sea turtle, red wolf, Bachman’s sparrow, Carolina parakeet 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

and passenger pigeon. The black rail and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat are federal species of concern. 

A complete list of threatened and endangered animals in North Carolina is in Table 3. 

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

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

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

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

Table 3. Threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina 

Status Common Name Scientific Name 

Endangered Manatee, West Indian** Trichechus manatus 

Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill** Eretmochelys imbricata 

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

Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback** Dermochelys coriacea 

Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana 

Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum 

Endangered Tern, Roseate** Sterna dougallii 

Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus 

Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae 

Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis 

Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis 

Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon 

Endangered Wolf, Red* Canis rufus 

Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded** Picoides borealis 

Threatened*** Alligator, American* Alligator mississippiensis 

Threatened Plover, Piping** Charadrius melodus 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead** Caretta caretta 

Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa 

* Presence Documented on Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

** Other Species Listed in Hyde County, North Carolina 

*** Listed by Similarity of Appearance 

and/or those that depend on good water quality. Habitat loss has also affected species dependent on 

coastal marshes and exposed sandy areas on beaches and sandbars and within dune ecosystems. 

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

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 
16 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

recover and sustain their existence. On the Outer Coastal Plain, songbirds such as seaside sparrow, 

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

habitat. The secretive marshbirds black rail and yellow rail require brackish marsh. The threatened 

piping plovers, red knots, least terns, black skimmers, and American oystercatchers are shorebirds 

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

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

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

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

connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts 

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 reestablishing travel 

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

Habitat loss on the Outer Coastal Plain is more permanent than in the interior. Conversion of 

marshes for commercial development is virtually irreversible. Conversion of pocosins and nonriverine hardwood forests to agriculture results in the oxidation of the organic soils on which those 

plant communities evolved. 

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

Destruction and degradation of habitat are widely regarded as the greatest threats to aquatic species in 

the United States. Physical modifications, such as channelization and dredging, aquifer depletion, 

impoundment and dam construction, and flow modification, have contributed directly to the decline of 

aquatic species in the south (Walsh et al., 1995; Etnier 1997). Increases in the area of impervious 

surfaces within rapidly urbanizing watersheds, and subsequently increased peak stormwater flows, have 

caused changes in streambank erosion, sediment transport and stream energy, which in turn have led to 

limitations in the amount of suitable aquatic habitat and stream bed material. The Nature 

Conservancy identifies altered surface hydrology (e.g., flood control and hydroelectric dams, inter-basin 

transfers of water, drainage ditches, breached levees, artificial levees, dredged inlets and river channels), 

and a receding water table as among the most significant sources of biological and ecological stress, 

especially in the Coastal Plain (TNC 2000; TNC and NatureServe 2001; NCWRC 2005). 

In addition to the loss of vast acreage of wetlands, there have been substantial alterations in the South 

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

access to marshes, drainage ditches, degradation of aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation and 

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

generation reservoirs, river channel modification, flood control levees, and deforestation. 

The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of wetlands and 

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

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

and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ditch banks and throughout marshes and decreases the exposure of intertidal areas that would be 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

available with normal lunar tidal cycles. 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. 

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

compatible manner. The material is not always compatible for placement on the closest potential site, 

such as beaches where the material must be a suitable substrate for invertebrate populations and 

shorebird and turtle nesting. 

Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created 

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

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

alterations associated with navigation and flood control. 

SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS 

Related to the problem of hydrological alterations above is another threat – siltation or sedimentation 

of aquatic ecosystems. Deforestation and hydrologic alteration have degraded aquatic systems, 

including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an 

accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in aquatic systems. Sediment now fills 

many water bodies, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point 

source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic 

resources. The Service lists six species of aquatic organisms as threatened and twelve species as 

endangered in North Carolina (Table 4). 

Point and non-point sources of pollutants compound threats to aquatic systems. Point source 

pollution is delivered primarily in the form of municipal wastewater, industrial effluent, and industrial 

stormwater discharges. Most water quality problems in North Carolina, however, arise from non-point 

source pollution associated with land use activities such as development projects, forestry and 

agricultural practices, and road construction (NCDWQ 2000; SAMAB1996). 

INVASIVE SPECIES INTRODUCTION AND PROLIFERATION 

Non-native and invasive species introductions of both plants and animals threaten native wildlife in 

North Carolina, as elsewhere. Introductions have occurred in a number of different ways, ranging 

from intended stockings, to range expansions, to the pet trade, to accidental releases. Impacts on 

native species are equally varied; some non-natives out compete native species (e.g., kudzu and 

Japanese stiltgrass), while others cause hybridization (e.g., red-eared sliders breeding with native 

yellow-eared sliders). Still others cause direct mortality to native resources (e.g., red imported fire 

ants, hemlock wooly adelgid). 

Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems (discussed in the previous two sections) 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 often interferes with 

or precludes recreational use. Common reed (Phragmites australis) is the most dominant of these 

plants on the Outer Banks and the refuge and has a negative impact on the marshes in the area. In 

recent years, feral swine have become established in a number of places on the Albermarle-Pamlico 
18 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Peninsula and will quite likely become established throughout the entire peninsula. This will have 

severe negative impacts to virtually all habitats and wildlife. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

Habitat at Mattamuskeet NWR results largely from wetland community development following the 

Wisconsin Ice Age about 15,000 years ago. Lower sea level during this time period resulted in large, 

fast flowing river systems cutting through the coastal plain terrace. As ice caps began melting, sea 

level rose and it is believed that river flows slowed, depositing organic and silt sediments in the areas 

between streams. As shallow water areas developed, aquatic vegetation invaded thereby increasing 

organic deposition. With a warming trend at the end of the ice age, boreal forests began to be 

gradually replaced with swamps, bogs, marsh, and pocosin habitats. Logging and land clearing 

activities over the last 300 years have greatly altered all habitat types. 

CLIMATE 

Mattamuskeet NWR’s climate is characterized by hot, humid summers with temperatures 

occasionally climbing above 95 degrees Fahrenheit, and moderate winters with temperatures seldom 

going below 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The annual average precipitation is 52 inches, with a period of 

heavy rainfall from July through September. Every few years, a hurricane or tropical storm crosses 

the county, bringing 1 to 3 days of intensive rainfall. Snowfall is rare and seldom exceeds two inches; 

average annual snowfall is 0.7 inch. On rare occasions, portions of the lake freeze, but never for a 

long period. Marsh areas frequently freeze in January and February. 

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

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

variation in temperature from winter to summer. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cold spells, but snowfall is uncommon. 

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

the average at dawn is about 80 percent. The sun shines 65 percent of the time in summer and 50 

percent of the time in winter. The prevailing wind is from the north to northeast. Average wind speed 

is highest, 12 miles per hour, in winter. 

The average last freezing temperature in spring is March 24. The average first freezing temperature 

in the fall is November 21. The average growing season is 241 days. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

Mattamuskeet NWR is the product of wetland community development following the Wisconsin Ice 

Age 15,000 years ago, the last of the Ice Ages during the Pleistocene Epoch. Prior to this Ice 

Age, the level of the Atlantic Ocean in the southeast was higher than it is presently. During the 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Wisconsin Ice Age, the sea level dropped to its current level and exposed large areas of the 

continental shelf. As a result, fast-flowing rivers cut through the coastal plain terrace to the 

Atlantic Ocean. During the next several thousand years, as the ice receded, sea levels gradually 

raised. As this occurred, river flows were slowed and organic sediment loads were deposited in 

the inter-stream areas as flowing systems shifted to slow-moving streams. Aquatic plants began 

to grow in these shallow bodies of water, adding to the accumulation of sediment and aquatic 

debris. Simultaneously, a climatic warming trend accompanied the end of the Ice Age. This 

warming trend helped to eliminate the cooler climate boreal forests and replace them with 

swamps, bogs, marshes, and pocosin habitats. 

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

prehistoric Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The terrace slopes from 10-16 foot elevations (above mean sea 

level) at the base of the scarp gently eastward to 1-2 feet elevation at the end of the land peninsulas. 

The Suffolk Scarp separates the Pamlico Terrace of the main estuarine region from the higher Inland 

Coastal Plain around the western-most segment of the Albemarle Sound system. 

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

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

dominant bottom sediment of the area sounds. This sediment contains up to 15 percent organic 

matter and is deposited within the standing waters of the estuaries. 

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

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

usually occurs landward of the main break in the bottom slope at a depth of about three feet, and 

extends to the shoreline. The sediments in front of the marshes generally have little sand. They are 

characterized by high organic contents and contain peat blocks, logs, and stumps. 

MINERALS 

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

the vicinity of the refuge. 

SOILS 

Soil types identified on the refuge are: Belhaven muck*, Ponzer muck*, Conaby muck*, Engelhard 

very fine sand*, Weeksville loam*, New Holland mucky loamy sand*, Udorthents, Fortescue silt 

loam*, Hydeland silt loam*, Portsmouth mucky sandy loam*, Wysocking very fine sandy loam*, and 

Acredale silt loam* (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 2001) (Table 4). Soils with an asterisk are 

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

soils are those, "...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. 

The wetlands typical of the area are characterized by deep organic soils known as mucks or peats. 

The depth of organic soil over mineral soil, though not evident at the surface, has a tremendous 

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

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

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

deep root systems in the deep organic soils. Wind easily topples trees that do grow on the deep 
20 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

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

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

There are no soils with more than 51 inches of muck over mineral soil identified on the refuge. 

The following soils have surface layers of 16 to 51 inches of muck: Belhaven (1,130 acres; 13 percent 

of the land area of the refuge), and Ponzer (30 acres: 0.3 percent). These soils are excessively wet, 

but rarely flood. They are characterized by layers of peat over mineral soil, and are mostly unsuitable 

for agriculture (Skaggs et al., 1980; Lilly 1981). The productivity of the maple, gum, and bald cypress 

forests is lower on these soils, compared to mineral soils with less than 16 inches of organic soil. 

With appropriate drainage and bedding, productivity can be increased. However, the refuge would 

not likely engage extensively in such practices on these deep organic soils owing to accelerated 

oxidation of peat and release of nitrogen and mercury – a negative impact on water quality. 

Table 4. Soil characteristics at Mattamuskeet NWR 

Series Approximate 

Acreage 

Surface 

Texture 

Muck 

Depth 

Water Table 

Depth 

Flooding 

Frequency 

Belhaven* 1,130 Muck 40” 0-1’ Rare 

Ponzer* 30 Muck 21” 0-1’ Rare 

Conaby* 80 Muck 13” 0-1’ Rare 

Engelhard* 3,125 Very Fine 

Sand None 0-1’ Rare 

Weeksville* 1,430 Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

New Holland* 1,245 Mucky Loamy 

Sand None 0-1’ Rare 

Udorthents* 645 Sand None 0-6’ Rare 

Fortescue* 290 Silt Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Hydeland* 210 Silt Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Portsmouth* 195 Mucky Sandy 

Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Wysocking* 40 Very Fine 

Sandy Loam None 0-1’ Rare 

Acredale* 5 Silt Loam None >6’ Rare 

Total Land 8,425 

Impoundment

s 2,755 

Water 40,000 

Total 51,180 

 *Hydric soil 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Conaby soil (80 acres, 1.0 percent) has less than 16 inches of muck over mineral soil. The native 

vegetation on these soils is the maple, gum, and baldcypress forest typical of that on wet mineral 

soils and the productivity of the soils are similar to mineral soils. When drained, these soils are 

among the most productive agricultural soils in the area. The USDA, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service classifies Conaby as a prime farmland soils. 

Mineral soils make up 7,165 acres (85.7 percent) of the land area of the refuge. The soil with the largest 

area is Engelhard very fine sand (3,124 acres mostly in the north-central part of the refuge, 36 percent of 

land area), followed by, Weeksville loam (1,427, 16 percent), New Holland (1,245, 15 percent), 

Udorthents (644, 8 percent), Fortescue (289, 3 percent), Hydeland (212, 2 percent), Portsmouth (199, 2 

percent), Wysocking (42, <1 percent), and Acredale (5, <1 percent). Most mineral soils are more 

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

rarely flood. They would grow loblolly pine, baldcypress, swamp blackgum, red maple, sweetgum, water 

oak, willow oak, and swamp white oak. The USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies 

Acredale, Engelhard, Fortescue, Hydeland, New Holland, Portsmouth, Weeksville, and Wysocking as 

prime farmland soils if drained. The refuge’s cropland is on Engelhard soils. 

The Udorthent soils are well-drained to droughty and are more suitable for native tree species such 

as longleaf pine, loblolly pine, and upland oak species such as white oak and red oak. Udorthents 

are the dredge spoils from the canals and ditches and are extremely droughty. 

HYDROLOGY 

Ground water provides the freshwater resources for the area. Studies have shown that the ground 

water reservoir consists of two types of aquifers: a water table aquifer which extends from the land 

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

and between the silt and clay beds. The water table aquifer ranges in thickness from 10 to 50 feet 

and averages 15 feet. The water table itself averages 3 feet above mean sea level. 

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

the soils, rainfall infiltrates the soil and enters the water table aquifer with little or no surface runoff. 

However, after the ground has become saturated during periods of intensive rainfall, some runoff 

occurs in roadside ditches and small intermittent fresh water ponds. 

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

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

gradational nature of sediments below the water table aquifer. 

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

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

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

changes due to flooding, tidal movement, and rainfall. 

WATER QUALITY 

There are three National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted sites that 

discharge into waters adjacent to the refuge. Two are seafood-processing plants and one is a 

domestic water supply treatment plant. 
22 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

The State has classified North Carolina water bodies and streams according to their water quality and 

the uses that quality supports. The classifications for the waters surrounding the Mattamuskeet NWR 

are listed below in Table 5. 

Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding Mattamuskeet NWR 

Water Body or Stream Classification Best Uses 

Boundary Canal 

Rose Canal 

Swindells Canal 

Florida Canal 

Burrus Canal 

Carters Canal 

Jarvis Canal 

C– Low Quality 

Freshwater 

SW – Low Velocity 

Water 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

Lake Mattamuskeet 

Rose Bay Canal 

Outfall Canal 

Quarter Canal 

Gray Ditch 

Waupopin Canal 

Fairfield Canal 

SC– Low Quality 

Saltwater 

Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming) 

AIR QUALITY 

Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary air 

quality standards to protect public health. EPA has also set secondary standards to protect public 

welfare. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems, including plants and animals, from harm, 

as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air 

pollutants (also called “criteria pollutants”). They are Ground-Level Ozone (O3), Particulate 

Matter (PM), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Lead 

(Pb). Areas that meet the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants are said to be “in attainment,” while 

areas that exceed the NAAQS are said to be “non-attainment areas.” The area closest to the 

refuge that an environmental agency monitors for all of the criteria pollutants is the Virginia 

Beach-Norfolk, Virginia, metropolitan area. EPA monitors carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

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

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

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

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

better air quality than expected is due to the breezes blowing through the area from the ocean. 

Closer to the refuge, data from the state show that Hyde County is in attainment both for ground-level 

ozone and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter) (North Carolina Division of Air 

Quality, 2005). Based on EPA's most current data, Hyde County ranks among the cleanest or best 

20 percent of all counties in the country. This is based on an average individual's estimated added 

cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants (Scorecard 2005). Table 6 presents annual emissions of 

criteria pollutants for Hyde County. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Table 6. Annual emissions (tons) of select criteria pollutants in Hyde County, North Carolina 

CO NOx* PM-10 SO2 VOCs* 

Mobile Sources 8,836 1,095 303 150 3,325

Areas Sources 9,521 178 1,690 87 1,614

Point Sources 0 14 0 1 0

All Sources 18,358 1,287 1,993 238 4,939

Ranking*** Highest 60-

70% 

Lowest 20-

30% 

Lowest 10-

20% 

Lowest 30-

40% 

Highest 70-

80% 

* Nitrogen oxides, including NO2

** Volatile Organic Compounds, a precursor to ozone

*** Rank of county compared with all counties in USA; a lower ranking is better (fewer 

 pollutants emitted) 

 Source: Scorecard, 2005. 

Prescribed burning on the refuge has the potential to have a short-term adverse impact on air quality. 

The State of North Carolina specifies that prescribed fires purposely set in marshes for marsh 

management practices acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the Environmental 

Management Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and regulations of 

governmental entities having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses 

certain potential liabilities of burning even though permissible. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Mattamuskeet NWR offers a great variety of habitats and wildlife species; however, effort on the part of 

the observer is often required in order to see and appreciate the resources. There is certainly a grand 

opportunity for visitors to see and experience habitats and wildlife not available in other places. From the 

shorelines of Lake Mattamuskeet, visitors can watch sunrises, sunsets, forest silhouettes, and other 

scenic vistas. One of the most popular and first sights seen by refuge visitors is the view from the 

causeway (Route 94) through Lake Mattamuskeet. For many, this is the first exposure to tundra swans. 

Trails, roadways, and fishing areas; opportunities for canoeing and kayaking into dense and unique 

habitats; all make this refuge a popular spot. The causeway through the lake, entrance road, and 

wildlife drive south of the lake offer scenic vistas of wildlife management areas and good, close-up 

examples of an impoundment managed for waterfowl and shorebirds. 

Mattamuskeet Lodge is Hyde County’s most famous landmark. It is the county’s tallest man-made 

structure and represents significant events in the county’s history from large-scale drainage and land 

clearing for agriculture to the popularity waterfowl hunting as a recreational pursuit. Area visitors will 

see images of the lodge throughout the county. 

U.S. Highway 264, as it passes just south of Mattamuskeet NWR, and North Carolina Route 94, as it 

passes through the refuge, are part of the Alligator River Route of the North Carolina Scenic Byway. 

Motorists in the area frequently hope that they will spot black bear and the far more elusive American 

alligator, red-cockaded woodpecker and red wolf. The Charles Kuralt Trail also highlights the refuge. 

This auto trail was established to help people enjoy the wildlands and 11 national wildlife refuges of the 
24 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

mid-Atlantic coastal plain of North Carolina and Virginia, and to commemorate the famous broadcast 

journalist and native North Carolinian who shared the delights and wonders of off-the-beaten-track spots 

like these with his fellow Americans (Northeastern North Carolina 2007). 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

Human development activities have profoundly affected plant communities on the refuge over time. 

Some of these activities occurred before the Service established the refuge and some have occurred 

since. Most notable today are the road/canal systems, public highways, farmland, and the refuge 

maintenance/support facilities. However, the undisturbed swamp forest and wetlands on the refuge 

contains many important wildlife and ecological resources. Since clear-cutting, peat mining, and 

agricultural conversion have developed much of the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula, this area remains as 

important wildlife habitat in eastern North Carolina. Lake Mattamuskeet is the dominant habitat feature on 

the refuge. Other principal habitats are moist-soil units to support waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading 

birds; freshwater marshes to support marsh birds and wading birds; and wet pine flatwoods to support 

mammals and songbirds. Hyde County, in which Mattamuskeet NWR lies, is a stronghold for the black 

bear in North Carolina and the mid-Atlantic coast. In terms of listed species, the refuge also has the 

potential for habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, currently hosts bald eagles, and was a 

site for reintroduction of the red wolf. More recently, the staff has utilized prescribed fire to maintain plant 

communities and a variety of successional stages on the refuge. 

There are 12 habitat types/land uses found on the refuge (Figure 4 and Table 7). These cover types, 

for the most part, are classified as wetlands based upon vegetation, degree of soil saturation, and 

hydroperiod. All cropland is classified as prior converted wetland. 

Table 7. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Mattamuskeet NWR 

Habitat Acreage 

Open Water 40,276

Freshwater Marsh 2,046

Nonriverine Swamp Forest 1,933

Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 1,210

Wet Pine Flatwoods 960

Moist Soil Unit Impoundment 1,997

Cypress-Gum Impoundment 572

Cypress-Gum Swamp 266

Cropland 191

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Field 189

Administrative Areas 401

High Pocosin 139

Total Acres 50,180
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Open Water 

Lake Mattamuskeet is the prominent habitat feature of the refuge (Table 7 and Figure 4). The 

40,276-acre lake is a shallow basin ranging from 0.5 - 3 feet deep. The source of water for the lake is 

rainfall and surface runoff from adjacent agricultural land. Water pH ranges from neutral to slightly 

acidic. In Lake Mattamuskeet submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is an important habitat 

component. The most common SAV is wild celery, redhead grass, and musk grass. 

It is difficult to exaggerate the true importance of the lake and surrounding impoundments and 

wetlands to regional wintering waterfowl. This refuge is indeed a magnet that attracts a majority of 

the current swans and pintails inventoried along the entire Atlantic Coast. Literally tens of thousands 

of tundra swans, geese and wading/shore birds, and hundreds of thousands ducks utilize this nucleus 

during fall, winter, and spring migrations. 

Freshwater Marsh 

The majority of the 2,046 acres of marsh lies on the southern edge of Lake Mattamuskeet. Most 

natural marshes have a natural fire frequency of one to three years, but some areas have endured 

fire exclusion during the past half century or longer. As a result, the unburned areas have a lack of 

species diversity, as only one to three species of marsh grasses predominate in the wetter or lower 

marshes, and encroaching brush has now dominated the high marshes. On Mattamuskeet NWR, 

sawgrass and cattail historically dominated unburned marshes but these marshes are now dominated 

by phragmites (Phragmites australis). Marshes with natural fire frequencies have a diversity of 

sedges, rushes, bulrushes, and wildflowers. 

Dead grass makes up a large component of marsh stands that have not been burned, limiting plant 

productivity and nutrient availability and adversely affecting wildlife habitat. Infrequent natural fire or 

prescribed burning results in invasion by shrubs that occupy 500 acres of marsh. Invasion by 

common reed has been a major problem in the marshes and it occupies 900 acres. Control of 

invasive species requires a combination of fire, mowing, flooding, and herbicide applications. 

The marshes are essential habitats for rails, bitterns, salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow, and seaside sparrow. 

Peregrine falcons and northern harriers hunt in the marshes. Waterfowl such as American black ducks use 

the marsh for food and cover. Marshes are also vital nursery areas and habitats for many saltwater species 

as well as species of freshwater fish, crustaceans, and mollusks (Table 7 and Figure 4). 

Nonriverine Swamp Forest 

This habitat type occurs on 1,933 acres of shallow organic soils found primarily in the southeastern 

and northeastern edges of Lake Mattamuskeet (Table 7 and Figure 4). Various soft mast-producing 

hardwood trees typical of bottomland hardwoods dominate this forest. A long history of poor logging 

practices has further degraded this habitat type. However, a tree canopy of sweetgum (Liquidambar 

styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda) dominate the forest in the natural state. Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), persimmon 

(Diospyros virginiana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and serviceberry (Amelanchier canadensis) 

may also be found. Dominant understory vegetation includes American holly (Ilex opaca), deciduous 

holly (I. decidua), blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweet 

and bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra and coriacea), and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida). The ground layer may 

have cane, netted and Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), 

ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens). Common woody 

vines are greenbrier (Smilax spp.), grape (Vitis spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia 

creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and cross vine (Bigninia capreolata). 
26 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 4. Habitats and land use at Mattamuskeet NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 

Forests of mixed hardwoods and pines are found on 1,210 acres in the western half of the 

southern edge of Lake Mattamuskeet. Red maple, red bay (Persea borbonia), and swamp tupelo 

are dominant hardwood trees with an average height of 50 to 60 feet. Pond pine (Pinus serotina) 

and loblolly pine (P. taeda) are the pine species present. Dominant shrubs are fetterbush (Lyonia 

lucida), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana). Typically little or no 

herbaceous vegetation is present. River cane (Arundinaria gigantea) may be found in some 

locations (Table 7 and Figure 4). 

Wet Pine Flatwoods Forest 

Forests of mixtures of loblolly pine and hardwood trees are found on 960 acres in scattered areas 

throughout the refuge (Table 7 and Figure 4). Red maple, red bay, and black gum trees are 

dominant hardwood species with an average height of 50 to 60 feet. Loblolly pine is the primary pine 

species present. Dominant shrubs are waxmyrtle, fetterbush, bitter gallberry, and sweet bay. Little or 

no herbaceous vegetation is present (Noffsinger et. al 1984). Chinese privet (Ligustrum chinense) 

and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are invasive weeds of concern. Cane may be found 

in some locations. The refuge staff manages areas with enough pine straw with prescribed fire to 

control understory vegetation and reduce fuels that could pose a wildfire hazard. The National Park 

Service has designated a 150-acre old growth stand as a National Natural Area. 

Moist-Soil Unit Impoundments 

The Service developed approximately 1,933 acres as moist soil management units on the southern 

edge of Lake Mattamuskeet in the late 1960s and early 1970s. 

Water management in the moist-soil units is done to promote optimum growth conditions for 

vegetation adapted to growing in a moist environment that produce good waterfowl food. This 

generally entails a slow drawdown of water in the spring. However, each unit is drawn down at a 

different time to create a diversity of habitats. Drawdowns may begin as early as March and end as 

late as early June. A slow drawdown is generally preferred to avoid flushing nutrients and coliform 

bacteria from the farm fields. Some units may be completely dried out during the spring and early 

summer so that treatments such as burning, disking, and planting can be conducted to encourage 

moist soil plant growth and/or set back noxious weeds and perennial plants. Monitoring determines 

the quality of the vegetation in each unit and the results of monitoring dictates whether the unit 

requires more intensive management (Table 8). Once treatments are complete, moist soil conditions 

are maintained during the remainder of the summer. During years with very dry summers, water may 

be pumped into moist soil units to facilitate growth of moist-soil plants. In early fall, the units are 

gradually flooded to encourage use by waterfowl (Table 7 and Figure 4). 

Cypress-Gum Impoundments 

This vegetation type is encompassed by three forested impoundments totaling 572 acres which are 

located adjacent to moist soil units and are flooded semi-permanently to function as a very wet 

cypress-gum swamp containing open water, freshwater marsh, and moist-soil plants. These 

wetlands provide important breeding habitat for wood ducks and wintering habitat for greenwing teal 

and ringneck duck. They also provide habitat for turtles, frogs, water snakes, and many species of 

wading birds. Once every three to five years the forested impoundments are drawn down to reduce 

the carp population and to encourage moist-soil plant growth. 
28 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 8. Examples of vegetation in moist-soil units with different levels of management 

Intensive Management – Good/Fair 

Waterfowl Foods Minimal Management – Poor Waterfowl Foods 

Barnyardgrass 

Dwarf spikerush 

Fall panicum 

Flat Sedge, yellow nut 

Foursquare 

Seedbox 

Smooth beggarticks 

Southern naiad 

Smartweed 

Water hyssop 

Walter’s wild millet 

Alligatorweed 

Broadleaf cattail 

Centella 

Cocklebur 

Common reed (Phragmites) 

Dog Fennel 

Early whitetop fleabane 

Morning Glory 

Sesbania 

Woolgrass 

Cypress-Gum Swamp 

This cover type is found primarily on 266 acres of islands located in the southwest portion of lake 

Mattamuskeet. Dominant tree species are bald cypress, black gum, red maple, and red bay. Other 

tree species may include Carolina water ash and green ash. An occasional loblolly or pond pine may 

be found scattered throughout. Average canopy height of these trees varies depending upon 

hydroperiod and past logging practices but can be 100 to 120 feet. Large trees suitable for denning 

by many wildlife species may be found throughout this forest type. These den trees add a very 

important component to the overall habitat. The den trees house species such as neotropical 

migratory songbirds, wood ducks, bats, raccoons, and black bear. Red bay, greenbrier, titi, and 

fetterbush make up the shrub layer. Very little if any herbaceous vegetation is present in the 

understory (Table 7 and Figure 4). 

Cropland 

The 191 acres of cropland (excluding 189 acres under the Conservation Reserve Program) provide a 

high-energy food (corn) close to moist soil sites with minimal daily disturbance to help meet the needs 

of ducks and geese. In North Carolina, the availability of high energy foods is severely reduced 

during critical periods (December, January, and February) due to the practice of harvesting such 

crops in September or earlier. This lack of high-energy foods (hot foods) is a potential limiting factor 

for geese, swans, and ducks in North Carolina during critical weather events. Private lands play an 

important role in supplying habitat needs of migratory birds, but cropland on the refuge provides a 

more reliable and long-term habitat and sanctuary need. 

The cropland is rented out to local farmers (cooperative farmers) who farm the land and leave a 

portion of the crop standing in the field as a rental payment. The rent payment in crops provides 

approximately 95 acres of high-energy food (corn), which is thus available for waterfowl. The farmers 

operate under a Cooperative Farming Agreement that specifies the use of a crop rotation which is 

approved by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, focusing on corn, soybeans, and 

wheat (Table 7 and Figure 4). 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Fields 

A total of 189 acres of cropland which was prone to wetness and yielded poorly was taken out of 

production in 2001 and allowed to grow into a natural stand of grasses and forbs. Broomsedge 

bluestem, tall fescue, goldenrod, asters and other herbaceous species predominate. Some sections 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

also have wax myrtle and bacharus shrubs. White-tailed deer, gray fox, marsh rabbits, cotton rats, 

red-winged blackbirds and northern harrier are some of the more common species which use the 

area. Occasionally, red wolves hunt in the area for food. Periodic fire and/or mowing are used to 

maintain the area as a grasslalnd and prevent it from growing into forest. The area provides a unique 

habitat on the refuge as most of the refuge is forested or wetland. 

Administrative Areas 

The refuge requires dikes, roads, parking lots, office and maintenance/storage buildings, residences, 

and lawns to provide safe and efficient access to the refuge, facilitate visitation, house employees, 

and store vehicles and equipment used in management. The staff does not manage these areas 

intensively for wildlife. Roadsides and lawns do fragment natural habitat and create corridors along 

which exotic and invasive plants thrive and spread. However, they also provide habitat for robins, 

nesting turtles, rabbits, and kestrels. 

High Pocosin 

The high pocosin community is associated with deep to intermediate-depth organic soils, primarily in 

a transitional zone between low pocosin and the pond pine pocosin. The shrub layer is the dominant 

feature of this community. However, shrubs tend to be taller (10-15 feet) than those in low pocosins 

and trees, mostly pond pine (Pinus serotina), may grow up to thirty to forty feet. Bitter gallberry (Ilex 

glabra) and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) dominate this shrub layer with Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia 

virginica) being the most abundant herbaceous plant. Other shrub species may include wax myrtle 

(Morella cerifera) and groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), especially on edges and in areas of 

disturbance. Red bay (Persea borbonia) and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) may be found, but 

are uncommon. High pocosin occupies almost 140 acres, mostly on deep organic soils on the 

eastern half of the southern edge of Lake Mattamuskeet (Table 7 and Figure 4). 

INVASIVE AND NON-NATIVE PLANTS (EXOTICS) 

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) is an invasive plant currently found in the refuge’s canals 

and impoundments. Common reed (Phragmities australis) is found throughout various refuge areas 

including lakeshores, marshes, moist soil units, and disturbed sites. Recent intensive control efforts 

have significantly reduced the presence of this species in moist soil impoundments but extensive 

stands remain along the shoreline of the lake. 

The Service planted roadsides to tall fescue and lawns to Kentucky bluegrass, Bermuda grass and 

white clover as there are no native grasses or legume species that tolerant frequent mowing at low 

heights. Low mowing heights minimizes seed production and the potential for the exotic species to 

escape into natural habitats. The corridors along roads and levees do facilitate the spread of other 

exotic species such as thistle (Cirsium sp.), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), white poplar (Populus alba), 

Chinese privet (Ligustrum chinense), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) which thrive 

and spread on roadside environments and the edges of natural habitats. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANTS 

Although there have been no comprehensive botanical surveys, there are no known federally listed 

plants on the refuge. However, Sensitive Joint Vetch, Aeschynomene virginica, a federally 

threatened species, does occur near the refuge and may possibly occur on the refuge. 
30 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

WILDLIFE 

Mattamuskeet NWR lies in the middle of the Atlantic Flyway and provides a valuable wintering area 

for the waterfowl using this migration route, which extends from Canada southward. Thousands of 

Canada geese, snow geese, tundra swan and 22 species of ducks overwinter on the refuge annually. 

Although celebrated primarily for its waterfowl, Mattamuskeet NWR also provides habitat for formerly 

listed species such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Deer, bobcats, otters, black bear, 240 

species of birds and other wildlife species are indigenous to the area. The refuge and its surrounding 

waters support many species of resident and migratory fish and wildlife. Of these, 48 species are fish 

(Hester and Copeland 1975; Johnson et al., 1980), 145 are birds, 48 are reptiles and amphibians, 

and 40 are mammals. The refuge supports wildlife species that are important from both a regional 

and a national standpoint. Its large size and vegetative diversity make the refuge a haven for species 

that require aquatic and wetland habitats. 

Birds 

Mattamuskeet NWR provides habitat for a wide variety of birds. Because of the refuge's large size 

and plant community diversity, habitat is provided for forest-dwelling species as well as marshdwelling species. This somewhat unique complex of various wetland habitat types results in the 

presence of some unique avian forms such as the Wayne’s black-throated green warbler, a distinct 

form of prairie warbler, and an unusually dense population of worm-eating warblers (Watts and 

Paxton, 2002). There are approximately 250 species of birds that visit regularly with about 40-50 

additional species considered accidental visitors. 

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

resting area for numerous species of wintering waterfowl. Tundra swans, coots, and more than 25 

species of ducks winter either on the refuge or in the sounds and rivers adjacent to the refuge. 

Populations of migratory waterfowl peak during the months of November through February. In 

addition to waterfowl, large numbers of hawks, owls, and many species of passerine birds may be 

seen. Avian species composition changes throughout the year since most birds are migratory. 

Waterfowl. Lake Mattamuskeet provides 40,000 acres of open water for resting, feeding, and escape 

cover. The moist soil management units support large numbers of waterfowl. The wood duck is the 

most abundant year-round species. This species is most often associated with the lakeshores, 

wooded swamps, ditches, and canals. The most prevalent wintering species are found in moist-soil 

units and refuge marshes and include northern pintail, green-winged teal, gadwall, widgeon, mallard, 

and black duck (Table 9). Other species wintering or migrating on the refuge and surrounding waters 

may include blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, shoveler, scaup, canvasback, ruddy duck, red head, 

bufflehead, hooded merganser and red-breasted merganser. Tundra swan numbers increased 

steadily to a peak of about 25,000 birds on average. There is a flock of resident Canada geese on 

the refuge. Both migratory Canada geese and snow geese use the refuge. The refuge is an 

important wintering area for the Atlantic Population of Canada (AP) Geese. Although this population 

has increased significantly in the Atlantic Flyway over the last decade, the numbers of AP geese 

wintering in northeastern North Carolina have not returned to historic levels. 

Breeding Birds. The species that breed on the refuge are characteristic of species that inhabit other 

coastal plain communities. They include warblers, nuthatches, thrashers, and blue-gray 

gnatcatchers. Wading birds such as the great blue heron are common and breeding has been 

documented in at least one rookery on the refuge. Bald eagles and ospreys have also historically 

nested on the refuge and viable nests remain. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Table 9. Waterfowl survey results, 2006 – 2007 

Species 12/19/06 1/10/07 

Northern Pintail 27,060 45,773

American Green-Winged Teal 55,247 96,627

Blue-Winged Teal 12 8

Tundra Swan 27,839 28,000

Lesser Snow Goose 2,500 11,700

Canada Goose 5,889 4,236

American Wigeon 16,246 7,675

Mallard 1,548 1,583

Ring-necked Duck 27,698 30,425

Ruddy Duck 345 233

Northern Shoveler 169 719

Black Duck 3,465 3,764

Gadwall 732 1,364

American Coot 64,595 26,905

Redhead 110 7,920

Canvasback 55 247

Lesser Scaup 60 440

Hooded Merganser 7 40

Red Breasted Merganser 42 20

Wood Duck 57 0

Total Waterfowl 233,678 267,679

Wintering Birds. The most common winter species are the American robin, yellow-rumped warbler, 

red-winged blackbird, sparrows, and northern bobwhite. Robins feed heavily on berries of redbay 

and greenbrier and roost in large concentrations along canals and ditches. Myrtle warblers use 

vegetated canal banks and forest edges. They feed heavily on wax myrtle berries. Northern 

bobwhite and red-winged blackbirds overwinter primarily in the agricultural fields on the refuge. The 

song sparrow, fox sparrow, swamp sparrow, white-throated sparrow, and savannah sparrow inhabit 

the agricultural grassland filter strips. Mourning doves and crows winter on the refuge in smaller 

numbers, making use of the farm fields. The American kestrel and the red-tailed hawk prey in the 

open areas of the refuge, while the northern harrier hunts over the marshes and fields. 
32 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Transient Species. The refuge lies in the path of the Atlantic Flyway, a major migration route running 

north and south along the Atlantic Seaboard of North America. The refuge provides resting and 

foraging areas for many migrant species which winter farther south. Species which migrate through 

the refuge during the fall include: blue-winged teal; raptors such as the broad-winged hawk and 

merlin; shorebirds; and a variety of perching birds (passerines) such as the western kingbird, bank 

swallow, Swainson's thrush, warblers (yellow, magnolia, Cape May, black-throated blue, blackpoll 

and palm) bobolink, northern oriole, and rose-breasted grosbeak. 

Mammals 

Of the 47 species of mammals commonly occurring in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, 42 of 

these occur on the refuge. Common land mammals include several species of mice and rats, bats, 

rabbits, opossums, and white-tailed deer. Semi-aquatic furbearers such as the muskrat, river otter and 

non-native nutria are also common. Numbers of beaver are increasing. The white-tailed deer population 

has remained relatively constant at low numbers in recent years. However, deer herd health checks at 

five-year intervals show that the population is at or very near carrying capacity for pocosin habitat. The 

black bear population is among the highest density bear populations in the southeast. Numerous 

sightings of eastern cougar have been reported but none have been confirmed. 

American Black Bear. The Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula has one of the largest concentrations of 

black bear found in the southeastern United States. Hyde County annually has one of the top two 

highest levels of bear harvest of all counties in North Carolina. Approximately 10,000 acres of the 

refuge has forested wetlands which are used by black bears. These forests occur as a narrow strip of 

land around Lake Mattamuskeet, thus their value and use by black bear is largely determined by land 

use practices on adjacent private property. Most adjacent private property is farmed and/or used for 

waterfowl impoundments, thus bear habitat is quite limited on the refuge. The southwest portion of 

the refuge has the greatest bear population on the refuge; this is also where the largest tracts of 

forest occur on the refuge as well as on neighboring private property. 

White-tailed Deer. The white-tailed deer is one of the most sought after game species in the region. 

White-tailed deer are considered to be browsers because they primarily consume woody vegetation. 

However, whitetails will eat almost any available form of plant life. Because of this adaptability, it is 

impossible to single out one habitat as greatly superior to others. Interaction of deer and habitat is a 

combination of food preference and utilization, quantity and quality of food, and availability of cover 

(Halls 1984; Halls and Ripley 1961). However, best estimates suggest a much lower carrying 

capacity for pocosin habitat than other habitat types. For example, Monschein (1981) reported best 

estimates for pocosin habitat is about six deer per square mile; about 18 deer per square mile along 

pocosin borders; and 35-40 deer per square mile for coastal bottomland hardwoods. Basic 

differences involve the quantity, quality, and availability of food. 

Since establishment of the refuge, periodic abomasal parasite counts, necropsy findings, laboratory 

tests, and general physical condition indicate that the health of the deer population is fair to good. It 

was concluded in 1985, 1992, and 1998 by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Study that the 

Mattamuskeet deer were within an optimal stocking density for the nutritional capacity of the habitat. 

The refuge conducts two 2-day hunts in October of each year to help keep the deer population 

healthy. Annual harvest during the past 10 years was between 50 and 80 deer, with approximately 

1/3 female and 2/3 male. 

Furbearers. Mattamuskeet NWR provides habitat for several fur-bearing species. Raccoon, nutria, 

muskrat, otter and mink make use of the canals and streams that run through the refuge. The gray 

fox primarily uses edge habitats, feeding on small mammals as well as blackberries and other fruits. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Bobcats are common predators on the refuge and are most commonly observed around the farm 

unit, along the edges of pocosin areas, and in swamp forests. They may be found throughout the 

refuge because of the presence of the marsh rabbit, the bobcat's main prey. 

In addition to the mammals already mentioned, the refuge supports populations of the gray squirrel, 

cottontail rabbit, opossum, and several rodent and insectivore species. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

There are 61 species of reptiles and amphibians reported for the refuge. Reptiles and amphibians 

are most numerous and diverse around permanent and semi-permanent open water, marshes, 

creeks, lakes, and canals. They also thrive in disturbed or modified and transitional areas. Some of 

the species that inhabit the area are the brown, banded, and plain-bellied water snakes; common 

snapping, red-bellied and eastern painted turtles; the southern leopard frog; and a wide variety of 

snakes. Four venomous snake species have been documented on the refuge: the cottonmouth 

moccasin, canebrake (timber) rattlesnake, pygmy rattlesnake, and copperhead. 

American Alligator. The refuge is near the northern extent of the American alligator's natural range in 

North America. This formerly threatened reptile occurs in refuge marshes, slow-moving streams, and 

man-made canals. They prefer areas where water turbidity is low, water quality is high, and an adequate 

food source is present. Canals and drainage ditches provide the primary alligator habitat on the refuge. 

Fish 

The fishery on and surrounding Mattamuskeet NWR is diverse and productive. The refuge's interior lakes 

and streams support species characteristic of blackwater or oligohaline systems. Fish that inhabit the 

refuge include resident species, migratory species, anadromous species, and one catadromous species. 

Resident species such as largemouth bass, black crappie, white bass (white perch), a variety of 

sunfish (bream), and catfish inhabit Lake Mattamuskeet and the associated canals on the refuge. 

These and other freshwater species provide a large portion of the diet of migratory species, which are 

important to both sport and commercial fishermen. Migratory species that use the refuge include 

Atlantic croaker, spot, Atlantic menhaden, and the southern and summer flounders. Most of these 

species are commercially harvested elsewhere. Anadromous species are those that spawn in the 

refuge's freshwater streams and estuary, inhabit these areas as juveniles, mature offshore, and 

return to these streams to spawn as adults. These species include striped bass, alewife, and 

blueback herring. The American eel, Anguilla rostrata, is the primary catadromous species on the 

refuge. This species spawns in the Sargasso Sea, travels to the East Coast of the United States, and 

matures in freshwater streams and lakes. 

Insect and Disease Pests 

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

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

populations. They use pheromone traps located throughout the Hyde County mainland and barrier 

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

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

area. Although the refuge is within the quarantine area of northeastern North Carolina, there have 

not been any outbreaks of the gypsy moth requiring treatment other than on Roanoke Island. 

Since the mid-1990s Southern pine beetle outbreaks and cutting controlling buffers have resulted in the 

conversion of over 5,000 acres of mostly pond pine habitat to shrub habitat. Without prescribed fire, this 

acreage will most likely remain as shrub habitat unless pond pine is planted after site preparation. During 

2002 and 2003 the spread of southern pine beetle infestations was greatly diminished. 
34 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Fire ants are well-established on the refuge and occur in large densities on levees, roadsides, and 

lawns. They can out-compete native ants in these areas and can easily kill flightless baby birds and 

other small slow-moving animals. 

Invasive and Non-Native Animals (Exotics)

At the present time little is known about the impact of exotic organisms to native wildlife on the 

refuge. Feral cats and dogs can be found on the refuge but population size and use of the refuge 

is little understood. 

The nutria was introduced from South America many years ago but has spread throughout the 

southeast and is now naturalized. It is very abundant on the refuge. Although the nutria can be 

destructive to levees and vegetation, the species is used as a food source for by alligators and other 

native predators. The impacts of nutria to waterfowl and other waterbirds are not known and are an 

important research need. 

Feral swine are established within a few miles of the northwest corner of the refuge. It is quite likely 

they will inhabit the refuge within the next few years. They will have a profound effect on virtually all 

habitats on the refuge and will quite likely reduce population levels of many species including 

waterfowl. Nearly 50 percent of all waterfowl on the refuge occur in the managed impoundments; 

thus any destruction of moist soil plants by feral swine will have a direct negative impact on waterfowl. 

Coyotes are not native to North Carolina but are nevertheless becoming much more common 

throughout the state. Other canines including the native gray fox and the reintroduced red wolf are 

negatively influenced by coyotes. A continued increase in the coyote population will likely affect 

many other species as well. 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species 

Several federally listed species occur, or may occur, in the area. Among them are the red-cockaded 

woodpecker, red wolf, and American alligator. The red wolf occurs throughout the refuge. 

The red-cockaded woodpecker has not been documented to occur on the refuge in recent times. 

However, there are active colonies on the nearby Gull Rock Gamelands Area. No recent surveys 

have been conducted but suitable habitat may be present in the southwestern portion of the refuge. 

The Service first reintroduced the red wolf on the refuge in 1987. Since the initial releases, wolves 

have reproduced in the wild and may be found throughout the refuge and four surrounding counties. 

Depending upon circumstances within and between packs, there can be from one to two packs of 

wolves on the refuge at any given time. An estimated 100 wolves now inhabit a 1.7-million acre area 

in eastern North Carolina. 

The American alligator is listed as threatened by similarity of appearance with the American crocodile 

in North Carolina and is found in aquatic habitat throughout the refuge. The Service has documented 

nesting in recent years on the refuge, but the current population is not known. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Access To "Indian Sacred Sites" to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic 

resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible 

for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and 

remains that are related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of 

traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP as a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an 

American Indian tribe. Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that 

is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest. 

Mattamuskeet NWR follows these legal mandates to protect the public’s interest in preserving the 

cultural legacy that may potentially occur on the refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken 

that involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment, such as tractors, graders, and 

bulldozers, the refuge contracts with a qualified archaeologist or cultural resources expert to conduct 

an archaeological survey of the site. The results of these surveys are submitted to the Service’s 

Regional Historic Preservation Officer in Atlanta, Georgia, as well as the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO), which, in North Carolina, is the Office of Archives and History in the Department of 

Cultural Resources. The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will 

be impacted, that is, whether any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places will be affected. If cultural resources are actually encountered during construction 

activities, the refuge is to notify the SHPO immediately. 

There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The staff conducts 

management activities so as to avoid compromising sensitive sites and requests an investigation 

before they plan any development. The most important cultural resource site is Mattamuskeet 

Lodge. The Lodge is on the National List of Historic Places and has been the symbol of the 

county for decades. The Service closed the Lodge because of structural problems. However, an 

act passed by Congress in 2006 (H.R. 5094), the “Lake Mattamuskeet Lodge Preservation Act,” 

conveyed the lodge to the State of North Carolina, and permits the State to use the property, 

adjacent to the refuge headquarters, as a public facility dedicated to the conservation of the 

natural and cultural resources of North Carolina. 

The inhabitants of Hyde County at the time of European settlement were Coastal Algonkians 

called the Machapungo and Mattamuskeets. By the early 1700s, most of the Indians lived on a 

reservation in the eastern part of the county. In 1711 the number of Indians was about 30, and 

by 1761 only six remained. 

English explorers first arrived in the county in 1585. The early history of the county was dominated by 

maritime trade and featured the exploits of Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard the Pirate. The 

first settlers were castaways from ships. 

The North Carolina General Assembly formed Hyde County from Bath County in 1705 and originally 

named it Wickam County. It named the county Hyde County in 1712 in honor of Edward Hyde, the 

first governor of North Carolina. 

In the 1800s, residents built many plantation homes in the county. The best known is the Octagon 

House in the eastern part of the county. With its rich soil with an organic topsoil layer, Hyde County 

has always had a good reputation for agricultural production, especially in corn. People traveled to 

the county from across the state for corn. 
36 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

In the early 1800’s, the State of North Carolina owned most of Lake Mattamuskeet. In 1825, the State 

Legislature vested title to the lake to the State Literary Board; further, the board was given authority to 

improve these lands and sell them to support public education in North Carolina. Thus, in 1837, the board 

contracted the construction of a seven-mile canal draining Lake Mattamuskeet to Pamlico Sound, using 

slave labor from Hyde County’s plantations. When the canal connecting the lake to the sea was opened, 

gravity drained the water above sea level into Pamlico Sound (Forrest 1999). 

However, since lower portions of the lake were at or below sea level, not all of the lake could drain to 

the sea. The net effect of the canal was to reduce the size of Lake Mattamuskeet by more than half, 

from 120,000 to 50,000 acres and decrease its depth from a range of 6-9 feet to 2-3 feet. The stateestablished Mattamuskeet Drainage District attempted to drain Lake Mattamuskeet completely with 

more drainage canals and a pumping plant in 1910 to promote crop production. The short-lived 

community of New Holland, and a hotel the New Holland Inn, were established in the 1910s. 

However, the cost of maintaining the water levels necessary for crop production exceeded the profits 

from the crops. In 1932, the developers abandoned the ill-planned, ill-fated operation. The large 

pumping plant built for the project was first converted by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) into a 

hunting lodge and is now Mattamuskeet Lodge. 

In 1934, the lake and the surrounding area became the Mattamuskeet NWR. The lake attracts 

large populations of wintering waterfowl and the area is a haven for hunters and bird-watchers. 

Agriculture has remained the most important part of the county’s economy and lifestyle. The 

acreage in cropland increased dramatically in the 1970s when soybean prices increased 

substantially. Much of that land was difficult to drain and maintain water levels necessary for 

production, and has been abandoned. 

In the later part of the twentieth century, conservation agencies and organizations began to purchase 

areas less suited for agriculture and production forestry due to the deep organic soils. They manage 

those areas for wildlife habitat, the protection of unique ecological communities, and outdoor 

recreation. Recreation based on natural and cultural resources is a growing part of the local lifestyle. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Mattamuskeet NWR lies within Hyde County, North Carolina. Hyde County is located in the 

northeastern part of the state, and is bounded by the Tyrrell County and Albemarle Sound to the 

north, Beaufort County to the west, and the Pamlico Sound to the south. Recently made more 

accessible to the mainland by bridges and ferries and primarily supported by tourism, coastal 

Hyde and Dare Counties have seen an influx of tourists, visitors, and residents over the last few 

decades. This considerable population growth and development of the barrier islands has 

brought substantial economic benefit to a region historically rural and impoverished. As a result, 

the refuge, with its location just north of U.S. Highway 264, has seen greater recreational and 

public use due to this increase in visitors. However, the region’s natural resources of land and 

water have experienced increasing demands, often with negative impact. As one of the few 

remaining tracts of intact natural land, the refuge and, consequently, its management 

considerations, have become even more critical. 

For many decades, Hyde County’s Ocracoke Island, on the Outer Banks east of Pamlico Sound, has 

been in the forefront of economic growth and development in North Carolina, and historically, 

unemployment has been lower than the state average. Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks of 

Dare, Currituck, and Hyde counties every year. The next closest areas of significant economic 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

growth are Greenville, North Carolina, 100 miles west of the refuge and Virginia Beach, Virginia, 100 

miles north of the refuge. 

Despite the growth on the Outer Banks, Hyde County is still predominantly rural. Like other rural 

areas throughout the country, outdoor activities are both popular and necessary. Hunting, 

recreational fishing, and bird watching are popular pastimes and commercial fishing is an important 

element of the economy. The importance of Mattamuskeet NWR and its appropriate management is, 

therefore, easily understood. 

LAND USE 

Today Hyde County is 60 percent forested (235,800 acres), 24 percent cropland (95,327 acres), and 

11 percent marsh (44,729 acres). 

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms increased eight percent from 95,327 acres to 103,089 acres; 

the average size of farms decreased 25 percent from 953 acres to 716 acres; full time farm operators 

increased 22 percent from 74 farms to 90 farms; total market value of agricultural products sold 

decreased slightly from $32,996,000 to $32,868,000; and average market value of agricultural 

products sold per farm decreased 31 percent from $329,965 to $228,251 (Table 10). 

With one major exception (cotton), agricultural commodity production in Hyde County declined from 1997 

to 2002 (Table 11). Land in production for corn, soybeans, and wheat decreased, as did hog and cattle 

inventory and hogs and cattle sold. Land in cotton production, however, increased 444 percent. 

In 2002 corn and soybeans accounted for 31,059 and 30,013 acres of cropland, the largest crops in 

the county. Cotton and wheat have also been important crops in Hyde County (USDA 2002). 

Table 10. Hyde County agricultural statistics 

Number of Farms 144

Acres in Farms 103,089

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 716

Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,264,802

Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,819

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $208,106

Total Cropland (Acres) 91,524

Market Value of All Products Sold $32,868,000

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $228,251

Market Value of Crops Sold $32,151,000

Market Value of Livestock Sold $717,000

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 90
38 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Operators with Another Occupation as Principal Occupation 54

Hogs in Inventory 3,300

Hogs Sold 7,160

Beef Cows in Inventory 180

Beef Cows Sold 99

Land in Corn (Acres) 31,059

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 30,013

Land in Cotton (Acres) 22,906

Land in Wheat (Acres) 10,614

Source: 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture 

Table 11. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1997-2002 Change 

Corn (acres) 31,059 31,990 Decreased 3% 

Soybeans (acres) 30,013 36,381 Decreased 17% 

Cotton (acres) 22,906 4,212 Increased 444% 

Wheat (acres) 10,614 18,989 Decreased 44% 

Hog Inventory 3,300 9,890 Decreased 67% 

Hogs Sold 7,160 25,059 Decreased 71% 

Cattle Inventory 180 427 Decreased 58% 

Cattle Sold 99 142 Decreased 30% 

Source: 2002 and 1997 USDA Census of Agriculture 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Hyde County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 5,826 in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000). The county population increased 7.7 percent between 1990 and 2000 (U.S Census Bureau 

2000). The town of Swan Quarter, population 958, is the county seat. Engelhard is the largest town 

in the county with a population of 1,561. Most of the population in the county is widely dispersed 

throughout the rural areas of the county. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

The population is about 63 percent white, 35 percent black, two percent Hispanic, 0.3 percent Native 

American, and 0.4 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the mean family income was 

$23,568, substantially below the state average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 24.8 percent of the 

population, well above the state average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average 

unemployment rate in 2004 was 7.2 percent, well above the State of North Carolina unemployment 

rate of 5.5 percent (North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004) (Table 12). 

Table 12. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties 

County Average 

Income1

Poverty 

Rate (%)1

Average 2004

Unemployment 

Rate (%)2

2000 

Population1 Population Trend1

N. Carolina $35,320 12.6 5.5 +21% since 1990 

Vicinity of Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Hyde $23,568 24.8 7.2 5,826 -37% since 1900 

Other northeastern North Carolina counties 

Beaufort $28,614 17.4 6.9 44,958 +6% since 1990 

Bertie $22,816 12.6 8.2 19,773 Same as 1990 

Camden $35,423 12.2 3.8 6,885 +16% since 1990 

Carteret $34,348 11.8 4.7 59,383 +13% since 1990 

Chowan $27,900 18.7 4.9 14,526 +7% since 1990 

Craven $33,214 13.8 4.9 91,436 +12% since 1990 

Currituck $36,287 10.8 2.8 18,190 +32% since 1990 

Dare $35,258 8.1 5.1 29,967 +32% since 1990 

Gates $30,087 15.4 4.2 10,516 Same as 1900 

Halifax $24,471 23.6 8.1 57,370 Same as 1950 

Hertford $23,724 23.1 8.0 22,601 Same as 1960 

Martin $26,058 20.1 7.1 25,593 Same as 1940 

Northampton $24,218 23.1 7.3 22,086 Same as 1980 

Pamlico $28,629 16.8 4.7 12,934 +14% since 1990 

Pasquotank $29,305 19.0 4.7 34,897 +11% since 1990 

Perquimans $26,489 19.5 4.8 11,368 Same as 1920 

Tyrrell $21,616 25.7 7.8 4,149 -17% since 1900 

Washington $27,726 20.5 7.3 13,723 Same as 1960 

1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of the United States

2 North Carolina Economic Security Commission, December, 2004
40 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

EMPLOYMENT 

Lodging and food service and retail trade are the largest employers in Hyde County, employing 277 

and 223 of the county’s 1,044 employees with an annual payroll of $22.4 million in 2000 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns 2000). This is due in large part to the tourists 

attracted to the Outer Banks of Hyde County (North Carolina Economic Security Commission 2002). 

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

lodging and food service, retail trade, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, wholesale trade, 

health care, finance, forestry and fishing, and real estate, administrative and support services, and 

recreation (U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census 2000). 

FORESTRY 

Timber has always been a source of wealth for Hyde County. However, much of the timber was 

cleared in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops. Today, Hyde County is 

approximately 60 percent forested, with 235,800 acres of forestland. In comparison, 60 percent of 

North Carolina is also forested, so the percentage of land forested in the county is identical to the 

state. Fifty-two percent of the county’s forest is in pine, 32 percent is in oak-gum-cypress, 11 percent 

is in oak-hickory, and five percent is in oak-pine (USDA Forest Service 2002). In 2000, private 

landowners were the largest forest landowners with 55 percent of the county’s forestland. The 

federal government owned 28 percent, forest industry owned 15 percent, and the state government 

owned two percent (USDA Forest Service 2002). 

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE AREA 

Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Hyde County has 

always had plentiful fish and game, due to its diversity and abundance of lands, waters, and habitats. 

Early in the twentieth century, sportsmen established clubs to protect game and wildlife. Later, as part of 

a comprehensive wildlife management program, the Service established Mattamuskeet National Wildlife 

Refuge to preserve and restore habitat for native wildlife and migratory birds. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service also manages the Swanquarter, Pocosin Lakes, and Alligator River national wildlife refuges and 

the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission manages the Gullrock Game Lands and the Dare 

County Bombing Range as game lands to provide hunting opportunities in the area. 

Recreation in the area is also based on the water in the ocean, sounds, rivers, and lakes. Swimming 

in the ocean and sunbathing on the beach are the anchors of recreation on the Outer Banks. Boat 

ramps provide access to the river and sound. Numerous outfitters provide boats and guided tours. 

The North Carolina Coastal Plain Paddle Trails Guide lists a trail through the Mattamuskeet National 

Wildlife Refuges (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 2001). Many vendors sell and rent 

canoes, kayaks, sailboats, surfboards, and sailboards. There are numerous opportunities to fish in 

the surf, from piers, in small boats in the sounds and streams, and from large boats in the ocean. 

Heritage tourism and sightseeing are also very important, with sites such as the Lost Colony at 

Roanoke Island, the Wright Brothers Memorial at Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills, the Cape Hatteras 

and other lighthouses, and the historic village of Ocracoke all drawing large numbers of tourists from 

around North Carolina, the East, the USA in general, and even internationally. 

A variety of agencies and organizations provide environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities: the Fish and Wildlife Service at Alligator River, Pocosin Lakes, and Pea Island NWRs, 

the National Park Service at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

on Roanoke Island, and the Wright Brothers Memorial, the State of North Carolina at Pettigrew, 

Goose Creek, and Jockey’s Ridge state parks and the State Aquarium, the Partnership for the 

Sounds at the Estuarium in Washington, the town of Manteo at Roanoke Island Festival Park, and the 

Nature Conservancy at Nags Head Woods. 

Many of the festivals in the area are focused on natural resources including Wings over Water 

throughout the county and Wildfest in Manteo. There is at least one fishing tournament every month 

from May to November. The Nature Conservancy at Nags Head Woods holds weeklong ecocamps 

throughout the summer. 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS 

Fish and wildlife are the focus of the refuge, but they are also important to the local economy. A 

considerable commercial fishery is present in Pamlico Sounds and the adjoining streams and canals. 

Striped bass, red drum, flounder, speckled trout, and gray trout are the major species harvested. 

Secondly, hunting and fishing are economically important to local businesses, both directly as the 

local population spends money and indirectly as an attraction that draws sportsmen and 

sportswomen from outside the county. 

Unfortunately, environmental degradation has reduced the viability of valuable fishery spawning 

grounds and habitat quality for many wildlife species in Lake Mattamuskeet and Pamlico Sound. In 

recent years, Mattamuskeet NWR has increased efforts to remove silt from canals, which will provide 

deep water refuge for fish during dry years and provide spawning habitat for species, such as 

crappie, which require deep water to spawn. The canals also serve as silt traps and when 

consistently cleaned out can reduce the amount of silt being deposited in Lake Mattamuskeet. Silt 

reduction in the lake will help improve water clarity and benefit the growth of aquatic plants and the 

waterfowl and fish which feed on them or use them as cover. Silt reduction may also allow sand 

spawning areas used by bass and sunfish to remain available to fish for many more years. 

 

In a 2004-2005 study for the Service, an East Carolina University researcher surveyed 1,675 visitors 

to eight national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia – Alligator River, 

Mackay Island, Pea Island, Roanoke River, Pocosin Lakes, Back Bay, Great Dismal Swamp, and 

Mattamuskeet (Vogelsong 2006). The study concluded that that these refuges are valuable assets 

not only to residents of surrounding communities but also as destinations by the non-residents who 

visit them from afar. In addition to attracting visitors to the region, visitors value the wildlife habitat 

functions of the refuges and feel that they are a good use of the lands on which they are located. 

Other highlights of the study include the following: 

y The majority of respondents at each refuge were white, well educated and fairly affluent. 

y Mean household income exceeded $50,000 and mean age was 51 years. 

y On average, respondents arrived at the refuges in groups of 2.89 people and in 1.17 vehicles. 

y An economic impact analysis revealed that the total direct economic impact in terms of visitor 

expenditures is estimated as $166,612,257.55. In addition, a significant portion of the 

$324,620,191.31 spent by visitors not directly associated with the refuge can also be 

attributed to the presence of the refuges in the region. 
42 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y Although refuges are visited by both locals and tourists, approximately two-thirds of the 

respondents indicated that they considered themselves to be tourists. Additionally, the majority of 

the sample indicated that the refuges were their primary purpose in visiting the region. 

y Only 56 percent of respondents knew that the Service is responsible for managing the refuge 

they were visiting. 

y Respondents indicated that fishing was the number one primary activity they planned to 

participate in while on their visit. This was followed by bird/wildlife watching, “other,” and hunting. 

y The majority of visitors to the refuges reported that they were highly satisfied with their visits. 

y Visitor desires for additional amenities and or facilities were centered on wildlife. The two potential 

additions that they ranked highest in terms of increasing their frequency of visitation were 

additional wildlife viewing opportunities and additional wildlife viewing areas. Additionally, 

respondents overwhelmingly chose protecting habitat at the expense of visitor services. 

The Service has also surveyed all wildlife dependent recreation participants in North Carolina. There has 

been a study of visitors to the interpretive facilities of a non-government organization in northeastern 

North Carolina. There are also numerous studies of the economic activity generated by ecotourists and 

birdwatchers to national wildlife refuges and other areas throughout the United States. 

The Service surveyed participants in wildlife dependent recreation in North Carolina in 2001. The survey 

documented an average expenditure of $69 per day by anglers, $74 per day for hunters, and $199 per day 

for wildlife observers and photographers. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001) 

The Partnership for the Sounds sponsored a study of the economic impact of their facilities. The study 

demonstrated that the average visitor spent $108 per visit, with a range of $63.70 to $332.55 per day 

(Vogelsong 2001). A similar study of visitors at the Chincoteague NWR in Virginia also showed a range 

of expenditures from $62 to $101 per day (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997). 

With improved facilities and staffing, Mattamuskeet NWR can continue to provide important “goods 

and services” in the economic life of the community. Eco-tourism, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental interpretation are increasingly being seen as a desirable industry 

throughout the United States and indeed, the world. As the population increases and development 

spreads – and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife decreases – the refuge will become even 

more important to the local community. It can benefit the community directly by providing recreational 

opportunities for the local population, and indirectly by attracting tourists from outside the county to 

generate additional dollars for the local economy. 

TOURISM 

Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks of Dare, Currituck, and Hyde counties every year. 

Tourism in the area is based on the outdoor recreation opportunities described above and the cultural 

attractions in the area. Roanoke Island, on which Manteo is located, was the birthplace of Virginia 

Dare, the first English child born in America. Manteo also features Roanoke Island Festival Park with 

a historic visitor’s center and the Queen Elizabeth II (a composite design of a 16th-century wooden 

ship, named after one of the seven vessels that sailed the ocean when Sir Walter Raleigh first 

brought colonists to Roanoke Island in 1587), Elizabethan Gardens managed by the National Park 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Service as a replica of a formal English garden, and Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, the actual site 

of the first English settlement in the New World. 

Other cultural attractions include the National Park Service’s Wright Brothers Memorial, Bodie Island 

Lighthouse, and Cape Hatteras Lighthouse; North Carolina Maritime Museum, the Frisco Native 

American Museum; and the Chicamocomico Lifesaving Station. 

Cultural resources are the basis of many events that attract tourists: historical workshops, lectures, 

and programs at the North Carolina Maritime Museum; tours of historic homes and their gardens; 

readings of books on historical themes; Virginia Dare’s Birthday, National Aviation Day and Week at 

the Wright brothers Memorial; Freedman’s Colony Celebration at Festival Park, and an Antique Fair 

at Festival Park. 

Mattamuskeet NWR serves as an additional attraction to tourists visiting the area. If refuge facilities 

were improved and staff were available and dedicated to assist visitors, tourism would likely increase 

in the area. This would generate more income for the local economy. 

TRANSPORTATION 

In its early days, residents of the area relied on water transportation. The rivers and streams that 

crisscross and border the county served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication 

between almost every community in the area. Some of the important waterways in the area were the 

Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds and the Alligator River. While today these waterways are no longer 

necessary for most transportation needs of the county, they are still important for recreation. 

U.S. Highway 264 runs just south of the refuge and connects population centers in central North 

Carolina and Interstate 95 to Hyde County. U.S. Highway 94 runs north and south from Columbia 

and Tyrrell County to the refuge and connects Hyde County with U.S Highway 64. A number of 

smaller roads connects the various communities in the area. 

Visitors can reach Mattamuskeet NWR via U.S. Highway 264 or North Carolina Route 94. Most 

refuge levee roads are not open to vehicular traffic. The refuge has 15 miles of gravel roads. Travel 

off the roads by foot or boat is primarily limited by a visitors’ willingness to exert themselves and their 

preparedness for mosquitoes, chiggers, and ticks. 

CULTURAL SETTING 

Hyde County is a rural county in predominantly rural northeastern North Carolina. Cultural 

opportunities in the immediate area are limited to the history-based facilities outlined in the tourism 

section, theater at local high schools and parks, music at local fairs, festivals, and nightclubs, and art 

at local fairs, festivals, and small art galleries. Since 1936, there has been a summer-long production 

of “The Lost Colony” annually at the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site commemorating the first 

English settlers on Roanoke Island in Dare County, more than 100 of whom disappeared sometime 

between 1587 and 1590. Greenville, North Carolina, and East Carolina University, located 60 miles 

west of the refuge, offer the nearest opportunities for large theatrical or musical performances. 

Norfolk, Virginia, located 100 miles to the north, has the area’s largest art museums and venues for 

performing arts with national touring collections and companies. 
44 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The Mattamuskeet NWR currently covers 50,180 acres. The approved acquisition boundary is also 

50,180 acres. 

There are many other protected areas in the vicinity of the refuge that conserve and manage large 

blocks of land in eastern North Carolina. The Service manages the 16,411-acre Swanquarter NWR, 

110,106-acre Pocosin Lakes NWR, and 152,260-acre Alligator River NWR. The NCWRC manages a 

total of 88,217 acres in Tyrrell, Hyde, Dare, and Washington Counties: 31,057-acre Gull Rock Game 

Land, 41,200 acres of the Dare County Bombing Range as Game Lands, 617-acre Scuppernong 

Game Land, 1,825-acre Lantern Acres Game Land, 614-acre Pungo River Game Land, 5,426-acre 

Bachelor Bay Game Land, 5,482-acre Van Swamp Game Land, 600-acre J. Morgan Futch Game 

Land, and 1,394-acre New Lake Game Land. 

The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation manages the Pettigrew State Park (1,273 acres 

of land and 16,600 acres of water on Lake Phelps) in Washington County; the 1,665-acre Goose 

Creek State Park in Washington County; and the 426-acre Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Dare County. 

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management protects the 18,000-acre Buckridge Coastal 

Reserve in southeastern Tyrrell County. 

The Conservation Fund owns the 9,700-acre Palmetto Peartree Preserve in northeastern Tyrrell 

County. The Nature Conservancy protects the 653-acre Scuppernong River Preserve in 

northwestern Tyrrell County. 

As noted earlier in this chapter, Mattamuskeet NWR is located within North Carolina’s designated 

coastal zone. The CZMA requires federal agencies in North Carolina to provide the Division of 

Coastal Management with a consistency determination on their proposed projects and plans. 

Appendix D contains this determination for the Mattamuskeet NWR CCP. 

On Mattamuskeet NWR proper, Service staff conducts a number of activities and programs to 

conserve and protect land and wildlife resources. With regard to conserving migratory waterfowl, the 

primary purpose for which the refuge was established in the 1930s, the refuge provides the foraging, 

sanctuary, and other biological needs of an estimate 20-30 percent of North Carolina’s tundra swans 

(20,000-30,000 swans); 40,000-60,000 northern pintails and green-winged teal; 5,000 Canada geese 

(the Atlantic population); and 40,000-60,000 other ducks, including 2,000-4,000 black ducks, during 

fall and winter periods. The staff also protects fish and their habitats, as well as cooperating with 

universities, the NCWRC, and other agencies to monitor fish health. The NCWRC establishes fish 

creel and length limits on Lake Mattamuskeet for many species, in cooperation with the refuge. 

With regard to management of other birds at Mattamuskeet NWR, the refuge conducts winter counts 

of bald eagles. Staff also participates in the annual Christmas bird count and supports songbirdrelated studies, which increase knowledge of the status of local and migratory populations of 

passerine birds, and marsh and wading birds. Active management is undertaken for migrating 

shorebirds by conducting the drawdown of some of the moist soil units (rotating) to benefit shorebirds 

during spring migration. 

The only active management of native mammals on the refuge is for white-tailed deer and the 

reintroduced red wolf. Staff cooperates with the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study in 

studies of deer herd health once every five years and with the red wolf recovery program. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

The refuge also manages other wildlife consistent with refuge purposes. The non-native nutria is 

controlled opportunistically. To conserve and protect crustaceans, while allowing for their beneficial 

use by refuge visitors, a creel limit is in place for the recreational harvest of blue crabs No active 

management or research is conducted for other aquatic invertebrates. However, assistance is 

provided to university and state partners involved with studies of reptiles and amphibians. 

Table 7 lists the main habitats found at Mattamuskeet NWR. The refuge actively manages or 

maintains some of these habitats, including open water habitat, freshwater marsh along the 

lakeshore, moist-soil units, forested habitats, and cropland. Lake Mattamuskeet’s submerged aquatic 

vegetation (principally wild celery, redhead grass, and musk grass) are an important part of the open 

water habitat. Lake Mattamuskeet is filling in with silt and becoming shallower over time with the 

accumulation of sediments and organic matter. Consistent removal of silt from canals, particularly the 

canals which drain the lake, will slow down this process. However, over the long term, the open 

water habitat of the lake will be replaced by marsh habitat. 

The refuge also maintains approximately 2,000 acres of moist-soil units along the south boundary of 

the refuge. Common reed (Phragmites) is an aggressive invasive plant which is actively controlled by 

the annual application of herbicide on approximately 350 acres. In addition, approximately 50 acres 

of alligatorweed are sprayed in canals and impoundments. The moist-soil units consist of 11 

impoundments. These impoundments are managed on a rotational basis, with some containing 

water throughout the summer to provide foraging habitat for wading birds, while others are drained in 

the spring to produce moist-soil plants for waterfowl. 

Three impoundments totaling 572 acres are managed as semi-permanent wetlands. Cypress and 

gum trees dominate these units but open water, emergent aquatic vegetation, and moist-soil plants 

are interspersed throughout. The units are important breeding areas for wood ducks and are used 

heavily by foraging wading birds. They are drawn down once every 3 to 5 years to reduce the carp 

population, allow the trees to increase seed production, and produce moist-soil plants. 

Approximately 2,436 acres of forested habitats, including mixed pine hardwood (1,210 acres), wet 

pine flatwoods (960 acres), and cypress gum swamp (266 acres), are located on the refuge. These 

areas are not actively managed. 

Using a cooperative farming program, 291 acres of cropland is annually planted with corn and 

soybeans. The farmer harvests 50 percent of the crop while the refuge receives 50 percent of the 

crop, which is left unharvested and standing in the fields for wildlife. In February, after the waterfowl 

hunting season is over, standing corn in the fields is mowed to increase foraging by waterfowl. 

A total of 189 acres of cropland was entered into the Conservation Reserve Program in 2001. The 

cooperative farmer helps maintain this area as a grassland by mowing the fields once every few 

years to prevent succession to forest. 

The refuge protects 50,180 acres of land and waters. All lands within the approved acquisition 

boundary have already been acquired. However, there are minor acquisition needs including the 

purchase of current access easements and leases, such as access to the Lake Landing Area and the 

Rose Bay boat ramp. Acquisition to provide road access from the North Lake Road to the MI-11 or 

MI-10 impoundments should also be considered. None of these purchases would constitute more 

than a minor boundary expansion and would only be acquired from willing sellers. 

The refuge also manages cultural resources in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act through cooperation with the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer and 
46 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

the North Carolina SHPO, which requires surveys for cultural resources that may be impacted by 

undertakings involving excavation on the refuge. The refuge has many important and significant 

historic and cultural resources, especially related to the intensive efforts in the last century to promote 

agriculture and settlement in the local area by draining the lake and converting the lakebed to 

cultivated farmland. 

Mattamuskeet NWR staff cooperated with the State of North Carolina and historic preservation 

interests in the preservation of the historic Mattamuskeet Lodge through the transfer of the lodge and 

the surrounding 6.25 acres to the State of North Carolina on August 17, 2007. Federal legislation, 

which authorized this transfer, stipulated that the restoration and use of the facility shall promote 

environmental and historical interpretation and education. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The 5-mile-long Highway 94 causeway across Lake Mattamuskeet is the most visited area on the 

refuge. Two fishing piers, a wildlife observation platform with viewing telescope, and five bridges are 

available for public use and are frequented by fishermen and bird watchers. This area is the only 

portion of the refuge which is available for night use. 

Water control structures on Central, Lake Landing, and Waupoppin Canals are popular sites for 

catching blue crabs and fishing. 

A photography blind along the shore of Lake Mattamuskeet is located along the west side of Central 

Canal and provides good opportunities to photograph wading birds and waterfowl. 

The 2-mile-long Entrance Road and adjoining 1.5-mile-long Wildlife Drive offer a close-up view of a 

managed wetland impoundment. Turtles, nutria, and wading birds are often observed throughout the 

year, while large numbers of ducks, coots, and swan frequent the area in the winter. 

Lake Mattamuskeet is available for fishing, canoeing, and kayaking from March 1 through October 

30. Two public boat ramps are available, one on Central Canal near the refuge office and the other 

on the west side of the lake on Rose Bay Canal. The lake is closed to boats during the winter to 

prevent disturbance to waterfowl. 

Fishing 

Mattamuskeet NWR receives 18,000 anglers annually. Most people fish along canal banks, bridges, 

or the Highway 94 Causeway. Boaters mostly use the lake in the spring and fall when water depths 

in the shallow lake are generally the highest. Boat fishermen generally seek largemouth and striped 

bass, while bank fishermen mostly seek catfish, white perch, and crappie. Crappie fishing is 

especially popular in the spring when spawning fish move into the deeper canals attached to the lake. 

Blue crab fishing at the water control structures and bridges is extremely popular from May through 

October and is enjoyed by all age groups. Bow fishing for carp and other rough-fish is permitted in 

accordance with state regulations. 

 

Hunting 

Quota hunting for white-tailed deer and waterfowl is allowed on portions of the refuge. The Service 

selects hunters through a random drawing of applicants for deer and resident goose hunting. The 

State of North Carolina receives application requests for waterfowl hunting on the refuge through their 

Special Hunts Program. Hunting for white-tailed deer and resident Canada geese is primarily 

conducted to control population levels. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

The refuge provides 100 permits for resident Canada goose hunting from Monday through Saturday 

throughout the state’s September season. The goose hunts are conducted in September to prevent 

harvest of migratory geese. The refuge holds two, two-day mid-week permit deer hunts in October of 

which each hunt allows 150 hunters. The deer hunts are conducted in October to prevent 

disturbance to wintering waterfowl. 

The refuge waterfowl hunts occur in twelve, two-day periods from mid-December through January. A 

total of 192 permits are issued each year; however, permit holders may bring two guests so the actual 

number of waterfowl hunters is approximately 500. In recent years, application requests for the 

waterfowl hunt have been between 1,300 and 1,500. As a result, the refuge asked the NCWRC to 

manage the application process as part of their Special Hunts Program as the refuge did not have 

adequate staff to manage this part of the hunt program. Waterfowl hunting occurs at sixteen blinds 

along three miles of shoreline on the south side of Lake Mattamuskeet. 

A youth waterfowl hunt is conducted on the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving. Sixteen youth 

are selected and are allowed to bring a friend and parent. The youths are also provided a tour of the 

refuge and taught basic waterfowl identification skills. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

During the fall and winter, concentrations of Canada geese, tundra swans, and ducks of many 

species are a delight to both wildlife observers and photographers. The formerly threatened bald 

eagle may also be observed during the fall, winter, and early spring. During the summer months, 

many species of songbirds and marsh birds are a common sight. Occasionally, broods of black and 

wood ducks can be observed in the canals and around the lake's edge. Osprey, wood duck, and bald 

eagle nests are occasionally visible. Year-round residents include the white-tailed deer, marsh and 

cottontail rabbits, gray squirrels, and many other mammals, as well as amphibians and reptiles. 

Species less observed are the bobcat and river otter.

The black bear population in northeastern North Carolina is one of the largest on the East Coast and 

lucky visitors to the refuge occasionally glimpse a wild bear. More fortunate visitors observe a red 

wolf or an alligator; however, these observations are usually a result of just being in the right place at 

the right time. Birdwatching is a major attraction due to the wintering and migrating waterfowl; 

however, there is also a wide variety of wading birds and songbirds on the refuge. A number of plant 

species, terrestrial and hydrophytic, as well as the large mature loblolly pine trees of the Sayler’s 

Ridge Natural Area along Rose Bay Canal, are also readily observed. 

Tens of thousands of visitors take advantage of the opportunity to observe and photograph wildlife at 

the refuge. Opportunities to observe waterfowl and wading birds in Lake Mattamuskeet and refuge 

impoundments are available along the Highway 94 causeway and observation platform over the lake, 

the refuge entrance road, and the wildlife drive along on the back side of the Entrance Road 

impoundment. Boating, canoeing, and kayaking opportunities are available for unique wildlife 

observation opportunities. There is an eight-mile paddling trail in Lake Mattamuskeet for canoeists, 

kayakers, and rowers. 

Environmental Education 

Mattamuskeet NWR does not currently offer planned environmental education programs because 

there is no environmental educator or park ranger on staff. On-site tours are provided at the request 

of teachers if staff is available at the time of the request. University professors also utilize the refuge 

as an outdoor classroom and research site. There are currently no visitor center or education 

facilities at Mattamuskeet NWR. The administrative office is on the refuge next to Mattamuskeet 

Lodge and has literature about the refuge for sale and viewing. The refuge participates actively in an 
48 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

intern program, affording more specific environmental education opportunities to college students. 

The bookstore at the Pea Island NWR on the Outer Banks of Dare County offers numerous books on 

the wildlife specific to Mattamuskeet NWR. 

The Mattamuskeet Lodge is currently being renovated by the NCWRC and a new refuge office with a 

visitor contact area is also under construction. These two facilities should create new opportunities to 

enhance the environmental education program. 

Interpretation 

Annually, six thousand users visit the interpretive kiosks along the refuge Entrance Road and at the 

Highway 94 wildlife viewing platform. Additional kiosks explaining the history of Lake Mattamuskeet 

and the Mattamuskeet Lodge are situated between the lodge and the headquarters. Pamphlets 

providing information on the refuge are available at the refuge headquarters. 

The refuge staff conducts approximately 10 tours annually of the moist-soil unit impoundments to 

view wintering waterfowl. Birding clubs, conservation groups, and school groups comprise most of 

the tours. 

Public Outreach and Involvement 

Volunteers from the general public or organizations are welcomed to the refuge. The refuge offers 

special educational opportunities to the scores of local residents and visitors who volunteer to assist 

the refuge with projects. 

 

An intern program provides unique experiences for college students and graduates geared towards 

careers in environmental sciences. This program also instills a sense of pride and public stewardship 

among the volunteers, ensures them of their role in ownership of the land, and heightens awareness 

about the critical need for enlightened, intelligent management of natural resources. 

The staff organizes, promotes, and conducts one open house annually, issues 4-7 news releases, 

maintains 3 websites, and collaborates with news media. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Staff at Mattamuskeet NWR also manages Swanquarter and Cedar Island NWRs. Approximately 

eight permanent full-time employees work at Mattamuskeet NWR, 85 percent or more of their time. 

The refuge’s current staffing and positions are shown in Table 13. 

Mattamuskeet NWR enjoys productive partnerships with the NCWRC, Partnership for the Sounds, TNC, 

Mattamuskeet Foundation, Hyde County, Ducks Unlimited, East Carolina University, North Carolina 

Department of Corrections, and about 10 volunteers. 

At present, the refuge headquarters and visitor contact station are in a small building and attached trailer 

about two hundreds yards from Mattamuskeet Lodge (Figure 2). A short distance from the office, the 

refuge also maintains several CCC-era buildings and four private single family dwellings, which are used 

as staff housing. By 2010, a new shop, office, and two residences are planned to be completed. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Table 13. Staff of Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island NWRs, 2005 

Position Status % of time on 

Mattamuskeet 

% of time on 

Swanquarter 

% of time 

on Cedar 

Island 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13 PFT 85 5 10 

Assistant Manager, GS-0485-12 PFT 85 5 10 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0025-09* PFT 43 5 2 

Administrative Support Assistant, GS-0303-09 PFT 92 3 5 

Heavy Mobile Equipment Operator, WG-5803-

10 

PFT 100 0 0 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5725-10 PFT 100 0 0 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-08 PFT 95 5 0 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-08 PFT 0 0 100 

Forestry Technician, 

GS-0462-05 (Fire) 

PFT 80 10 10 

PFT = permanent full time, TFT = temporary full time, Fire = funded by fire budget 

* Law Enforcement position is shared with Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 
50 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

III. Plan Development 

PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Public scoping was originally conducted in 2001, and re-initiated in June 2007, after the CCP process was 

temporarily halted. A Biological Review was carried out in July 2002, for all the national wildlife refuges, 

including Mattamuskeet, in the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem of northeastern North 

Carolina and southeastern Virginia. A diverse team of federal and state personnel undertook a holistic 

examination of habitat and wildlife management programs at these refuges, including Mattamuskeet 

NWR. The team then considered how the refuge might fit into accomplishing a number of relevant 

system-wide and landscape conservation needs. The Biological Review team included staff from the 

refuge, as well as Service fish and wildlife biologists from the Division of Ecological Services and Division 

of Migratory Birds. In addition, wildlife biologists from NCWRC participated. The team’s 

recommendations, goals, objectives, and strategies set forth in its July 2002 report entitled, Biological 

Review of National Wildlife Refuges of the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem, in Northeastern 

North Carolina and Southeastern Virginia, were instrumental in the planning process. 

The Visitor Services Review was conducted in December 2006, by Service public use and outreach 

specialists from the Service’s Regional Office and two other refuges in Region 4. The review team 

toured the refuge, identified and discussed the current status of public use programs, debated the 

pros and cons of various recommendations for enhancing and improving these programs, and 

prepared a report listing and prioritizing its recommendations. 

The CCP core planning team, which consists of the refuge manager, assistant refuge manager, and a 

contractor with experience in comprehensive conservation planning met for the first time in March 

2007, for a tour of the refuge and an overview of its habitat and wildlife resources, public use 

programs, facilities, and opportunities. The core planning team also conducted additional internal 

scoping and prepared a preliminary schedule and plans for public involvement. The core planning 

team developed a mailing list of the public, landowners, state and tribal agencies, non-profit 

organizations, and local governments. Letters were sent notifying these parties of the planning 

process being initiated, and encouraging their participation in the scoping of issues in preparation for 

developing the Draft CCP/EA for this refuge. 

The NCWRC was invited in July 2007, to join the planning team tasked with preparing the Draft 

CCP/EA. The state had earlier participated in the Biological Review. Three representatives of the 

NCWRC contributed to the development of a vision and goals, objectives, and management 

alternatives for the Draft CCP/EA, including the district fishery biologist, waterfowl biologist, and a 

staff person from the Outer Banks Center for Wildlife Education. The North Carolina Division of 

Coastal Management, East Carolina University, North Carolina Cooperative Extensive Service, 

Partnership for the Sound, and The Nature Conservancy were also represented on the CCP planning 

team and helped craft the vision, goals, objectives, and management alternatives for the 

Mattamuskeet NWR Draft CCP/EA. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as applicable local ordinances, 

regulations, and plans. It identified the following issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish 

and wildlife conservation, habitat enhancement, restoration, recreation, and management of 

threatened and endangered species: 
52 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y Wildlife species of management concern, including: 

- Tundra swan 

- Canada goose 

- Snow goose 

- American black duck 

- Northern pintail 

- Canvasback 

- Wood duck 

- Brown-headed nuthatch 

- Black-throated green warbler 

- King rail 

- Yellow rail 

- Solitary sandpiper 

- Semi-palmated sandpiper 

- Short-billed dowitcher 

- Peregrine falcon 

- Bald eagle 

- Osprey 

y Maintaining and managing diverse habitats, including open water, wet pine flatwoods, moistsoil units, natural lake shoreline, cypress-gum swamp, cropland, non-riverine swamp forest 

(mature loblolly pine) 

y Providing the water quality, quantity, salinity, and vegetative composition most conducive to 

meeting the foraging, loafing, sanctuary, pair-bonding, molting, and cover requirements of 

ducks, geese, swans and wading/marsh birds of the Atlantic Flyway, especially tundra swans, 

northern pintails, and green-winged teal. 

y Loss of open water on the Lake Mattamuskeet. 

y Control of invasive species such as phragmites and cattails. 

y Worn-out or dysfunctional pumps and pump stations that inhibit adequate water manipulation 

on impoundments and moist-soil units. 

y Forest management including thinning, planting of oaks, and group selection silvicultural 

system to ensure a future oak component and mast production. 

y Managing prescribed fire and monitoring effects on wildlife and habitat. 

y Management of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

y Management of non-priority public uses such as canoeing, hiking, and picnicking. 

y Resource protection, including cultural resources, water and lake quality, sedimentation, pest 

control. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

y Law enforcement issues, including hunting violations, fishing/boating violations, 

dumping/littering, poaching, reptile collecting, trespass, vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse, 

drainage ditches, and wildlife disturbance. 

y Reduce illegal artifact collecting. 

y Review cropland management and explore options for grassland and old field management. 

The planning team also directed the process of obtaining public input through public scoping 

meetings, open planning team meetings, comment forms, and personal contacts. All public and 

advisory team comments were considered in drafting the CCP; however, some issues important to 

the public fall outside the scope of the decision to be made within this planning process. The team 

considered all issues that were raised throughout the planning process, and has developed a plan 

that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues. The team identified 

those issues that, in the team’s best professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A 

summary of the significant issues identified by the public from 2001 to present follows. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

y Announce waterfowl migration updates on local news 

y Continue conducting research on black bears to determine home range and harvest potential 

y Continue surveys and monitoring 

y Control nutria in canals 

y Develop a trapping program for furbearers, predators, beavers, and nutria 

y Develop beaver management guidance 

y Develop species list for all fish using the lake 

y Evaluate food chain impacts of fire ants on other species 

y Evaluate water management impacts to fish and wildlife on each refuge 

y Examine water quality and silting in canals leading to the lake 

y Improve fish access to the lake 

y Speed up beaver eradication 

y Stock Florida largemouth bass in the lake 

y Study and evaluate anadromous fish populations 

y Use money to raise ducks and geese 

y Quit importing predators such as eagles (bald and golden), red wolves, coyotes, alligators; 

these species are a destroyer of our main wildlife species: ducks, geese, deer, quail, wild 

turkeys, rabbits, etc. 

y Allow more or longer deer hunting on refuge for population control 

y Conduct annual restocking with various species of fish 

y Allow trapping of non-native and native animals species such as nutria and beaver 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

y Clean out and regularly maintain duck boxes

y Connect larger blocks of land through corridors for black bear

y Control non-native and invasive species like the common reed

y Coordinate with local landowners to maintain lake at appropriate levels

y Coordinate with non-profit agencies to ensure that land conservation needs are met

y Determine whether FWS is purposely flooding adjacent land
54 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y Determine whether high lake levels are converting adjacent uplands to wetlands

y Evaluate need for increased growth of cypress around lake

y Evaluate the impacts to adjacent landowners from management practices

y Improve fish habitat

y Increase current eradication budget

y Lower water levels in the lake

y Monitor effect of water levels on duck populations in the lake

y Increase funding to accommodate programs

y Provide education on how the lake works and the role FWS plays in lake level maintenance

y Review and coordinate on the Wetland Reserve Program

y Study summertime water temperature and DO (dissolved oxygen) in canals

y Survey canals for deepwater habitat

y Blast canals with dynamite

y Clean out silted canals to restore their water carrying capacity

y Conduct commercial thinnings

y Conduct regular prescribed burns

y Consider a ‘refuge workday’

y Control beavers to help control ditch problems

y Cooperate with other agencies to share all available data

y Coordinate with NCWRC to provide early successional habitat for bobwhite quail

y Engage in cooperative research efforts with other agencies (i.e., black bear)

y Evaluate data for use in general management

y Evaluate salt intrusion into lake from water control gates

y Evaluate the size and effectiveness of existing firebreaks

y Evaluate the validity of timber harvest for the purpose of fire control

y Include people in the planning process

y Increase data collection efforts

y Involve local citizens from each county in the planning process

y Maximize wildlife benefits inside impoundments, using mechanical and chemical means

y Obtain more funding to manage land in possession

y Obtain staff and equipment to fully implement prescribed burn program

y Re-design water control gates

y Speed up structure replacement process by using old design

y Use fire in the role it played naturally

y Use forestry techniques such as thinnings, for support and benefit of wildlife

y Prevent saltwater intrusion into the lake

y Address strange weed problems 

y Address drainage to the lake and drainage from the lake

y Study and manage appropriate lake water level

y Address wash on NC 94 Lake Road by maintaining with vegetation and rock

y Procure funding for continued maintenance of the four main outfall canals to the lake

y Repair dikes where damaged 

y Maintain water control structures or replace using good low country engineering technology 

y Consider more water control structures 

y Seek more federal funds for canal maintenance and prioritize monies received towards this 

maintenance rather than habitat enhancement 

y Expand control of non-native plant species such as phragmites 

y Do a better job managing the forest resources 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

y Use a conservation outlook and strategy, not preservation 

y Continue to allow private landowners to maintain their individual drainways to the lake and 

manage lake water levels so as not to impede drainage of surrounding private lands 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

y Acquire more land

y Charge reasonable and low user fees to offset tax losses, returning them to the county

y Consider buying more easements

y Control trespassing

y Control waterfowl baiting on adjacent land

y Cooperate to obtain funding for improved wildlife management, rather than acquisition

y Cooperate with private landowners to manage land for wildlife

y Coordinate with county managers

y Coordinate with other agencies prior to acting on land management practices

y Create more wilderness

y Create wilderness areas

y Create wildlife corridors

y Develop a connecting corridor between Swanquarter and Mattamuskeet, through acquisition

y Develop and enforce a ‘no wake zone’ within 300 feet of other boats

y Develop economic cost/benefit analysis of the refuge’s impact on local economy

y Develop education program on other refuges in the area

y Develop public use education programs on what wilderness designations mean

y Do not acquire more land

y Do not consider corridors in refuge management

y Do not create more wilderness

y Evaluate and educate public on tax revenue cost sharing program

y Evaluate economic magnitude of current income producing refuge public uses

y Evaluate management limitations of wilderness designations

y Evaluate the condition of continuously flooded uplands adjacent to the lake

y Improve lake safety

y Include history and interpretative material on the lake, the lodge, and surrounding area

y Incorporate local culture and heritage of the area into refuge programs

y Increase law enforcement

y Maintain existing lands with current budget

y Prohibit certain size boats and motors on the lake

y Provide lists of permitted activities in wilderness areas

y Re-evaluate existing surveys used to acquire private property

y Restore Mattamuskeet Lodge

y Secure funds for lodge restoration

y Transfer lodge ownership to another agency

y Use advice from local experts when developing plans

VISITOR SERVICES 

y Add a boat ramp on NC 94

y Champion ecotourism

y Allow horseback riding
56 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y Allow nighttime bass fishing in the summer

y Attract ecotourism

y Consider rotating or moving blind to varying locations

y Consider sailing, kayaking, canoeing on lake

y Consider windsurfing, remote control model boats

y Continue other public use activities

y Continue providing access to Bell Island fishing

y Continue use of the lodge

y Coordinate with NCWRC in managing the black bear hunts 

y Coordinate with NCWRC on hunting activities

y Determine whether mountain bikes could use the road system

y Develop appropriate signage indicating where existing facilities are

y Develop canoe and kayak trails for public use

y Develop more public facilities

y Develop other areas on the refuge for hunting

y Develop program to improve view of the lake by eradicating common reed

y Develop public education programs on positive effects of refuge management practices

y Develop public school programs on wilderness area

y Don’t dig a ditch to catch mud around new boat ramps

y Educate and involve more youth in hunting programs

y Evaluate camping platform needs for outfitters

y Evaluate the potential for quail hunting on the refuge

y Expand public uses other than hunting and fishing

y Improve existing blind

y Improve public outreach to reduce general feelings of mistrust

y Increase education and outreach

y Increase facilities and programs

y Increase hiking trails

y Increase programs to attract more people

y Increase public access

y Increase public waterfowl hunting

y Increase refuge involvement with public use activities

y Increase signage regarding road access

y Increase the number of duck blinds

y Increase volunteer program

y Maintain east side of the causeway to improve view

y Make more roads available

y Make public use more convenient

y Open the refuge roads and trails to horseback riding

y Prohibit certain size boats and motors on the lake

y Recognize the importance of the refuge to Hyde County

y Renovate the lodge or surrender it to another agency

y Post signage for swan observation

y Bring back Nature Week, which was an environmental educational day camp begun about 

1988 for grades 1-5.

y Implement other environmental education programs to bring the public to the Refuge to watch 

and know about Nature. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

 

y Fully staff the refuge

y Separate management of Mattamuskeet and Swanquarter from Cedar Island 

y Keep management styles flexible 

y Utilize volunteers for maintenance, manpower and equipment

y Work with other agencies to maximize the benefit of their work 

y Provide more competitive salaries 

y Use funds for better maintenance instead of acquisition

y Maintain the infrastructure of the lake: canals, dikes, water control structures & pumps 

y Staff has greatly improved relations between the refuge and area residents and should 

continue to do so.

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The results of the wilderness review are included in Appendix I. 

In sum, no lands at Mattamuskeet NWR meet the stringent criteria for being designated by Congress 

as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The refuge does not contain 5,000 

contiguous roadless acres, nor does it “generally appear to have been influenced primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” 
58 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats and considers the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. Fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. A requirement of the 

Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. 

Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The 

Service has identified six priority wildlife-dependent public uses. These uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Described below is the proposed action for managing Mattamuskeet NWR over the next 15 years. 

This proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used 

to achieve the refuge vision. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: Alternative A – Current Management 

Direction (No Action Alternative), Alternative B – the Proposed Action, and Alternative C – Moderately 

Expanded Program. Each of these alternatives is described in the Alternatives section of the EA. The 

Service chose Alternative B as the proposed management direction. 

Implementing the proposed alternative will not result in major changes to either administration of the 

refuge or the types of wildlife, habitat, and public uses found there. A number of programs and efforts will 

be enhanced, with the expected outcome that wildlife, habitat, and people will all benefit to some degree. 

VISION 

The vision for Mattamuskeet NWR is as follows: 

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge will function as a vital part of National Wildlife Refuge System 

to remain a premier wintering area for ducks, geese, and swans on the Atlantic Flyway. The refuge 

will maintain breeding habitat for a variety of migratory birds, will maintain an extensive network of 

moist-soil units, and will protect and enhance healthy wetland and aquatic ecosystems, while 

considering and striving to mitigate the effects of climate change and rising sea levels. It will also 

protect Service trust species, including threatened and endangered species. 

The refuge will continue to provide quality recreation opportunities for hunting and fishing, and will 

increase public use in wildlife observation and environmental education and interpretation. The refuge 

staff will cooperate with partners and volunteers to achieve the refuge’s goals. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service will continue to conduct research in cooperation with government agencies, non-governmental 

agencies, universities, and others. The refuge will have adequate staff and facilities to realize this vision. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns, 

and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public and are 

presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated 

with the various strategies. 
60 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of 

Mattamuskeet NWR. The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies 

within the next 15 years. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Goal 1: Maintain, enhance, and where necessary, restore healthy populations of migratory birds, 

wildlife, and fish, including federal and state endangered and threatened species. 

Discussion: This goal is explicitly derived from the purposes of Mattamuskeet NWR, emanating from 

several different legal authorities, which direct the refuge to protect and conserve migratory birds and 

other wildlife resources. 

Objective 1-1: Migratory Waterfowl – Provide the foraging, sanctuary, and other biological needs of 

20-30 percent of North Carolina’s tundra swan (15,000-26,000); 40,000-60,000 northern pintail and 

American green-winged teal; 10,000 Canada geese (Atlantic Population); and 80,000-120,000 other 

ducks, including 2,000-4,000 black duck, during fall and winter periods. 

Discussion: As pointed out in Chapter II, Mattamuskeet NWR makes a very important contribution 

to wintering swan, duck, and goose populations in North Carolina. At present, the refuge provides for 

the foraging, sanctuary, and other biological needs of approximately 20-30 percent of North 

Carolina’s tundra swan (15,000-26,000 swan); 40,000-60,000 northern pintail and American greenwinged teal; 5,000 Canada geese (Atlantic Population); and 40,000-60,000 other ducks, including 

2,000-4,000 black ducks, during fall and winter periods. Thus, this objective would maintain the 

refuge’s capacity for North Carolina’s tundra swan, northern pintail, and American green-winged teal, 

but increase the refuge’s capacity to provide foraging, sanctuary, and other biological needs of 

migratory Canada geese and ducks other than northern pintail, American green-winged teal, and 

black duck, including American wigeon, mallard, ring-necked duck, gadwall, northern shoveler, 

redhead, canvasback, and lesser scaup. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to conduct monthly aerial and ground surveys during the migration period 

(October-March) annually. Consider bimonthly surveys. 

y Continue to conduct midwinter waterfowl survey. 

y Continue to conduct the tundra swan productivity survey following guidelines set forth in 

the standard operating procedures, which are provided by the Ad Hoc Eastern Population 

Tundra Swan Committee. 

y Continue to monitor trends in the resident Canada goose population on the refuge and 

take actions to reduce this population if migratory waterfowl are negatively impacted. 

y Continue to collect harvest data on waterfowl collected during public hunts. 

y Continue to conduct preseason wood duck banding annually. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

y Conduct winter banding and marking of tundra swan, Canada geese, and ducks as 

requested. 

y Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

y Conduct needed research projects related to waterfowl. 

y Continue to maintain and monitor 100 wood duck nest boxes during the nesting season 

(February-July). 

y Construct and erect new wood duck boxes as needed. 

y Monitor and investigate mortality of tundra swan and other species from disease annually. 

y Note unusual waterfowl observations by the staff and the public. 

y Intensively manage moist-soil impoundments to benefit waterfowl. 

y Maintain and intensively manage crop fields to benefit waterfowl and provide high-calorie 

foods (hot foods) during late winter. 

y Maintain winter closure of public access to eastern impoundments and the back levees of 

the western impoundments to limit disturbance to waterfowl. Also, limit guided tours to 

these impoundment areas to no more than one tour per week to each area during the 

winter closure period. 

y Monitor the increasing lesser snow goose population on the refuge and study/observe 

possible negative impacts to other migratory waterfowl. If necessary, develop strategy to 

reduce negative impacts. 

Objective 1-2: Fish – Continue to protect fish and their habitats and expand cooperation with 

universities and other agencies to monitor fish population status; increase applied research especially 

with regard to baseline surveys and carp management. 

Discussion: The refuge supports several categories of fish species, including residents, migratory, 

anadromous, and one catadromous species. Resident species, such as largemouth bass, black crappie, 

white bass (white perch), a variety of sunfish (bream), and catfish inhabit Lake Mattamuskeet and the 

associated canals on the refuge. These and other freshwater species provide a large portion of the diet of 

migratory species, which are important to both sport and commercial fishermen. Migratory species that 

use the refuge include Atlantic croaker, spot, Atlantic menhaden, and the southern and summer 

flounders. Most of these species are commercially harvested elsewhere. Anadromous species are those 

that spawn in the refuge's freshwater streams and estuary, inhabit these areas as juveniles, mature 

offshore, and return to these streams to spawn as adults. These species include striped bass, alewife, 

and blueback herring. The American eel, Anguilla rostrata, is the primary catadromous species on the 

refuge. This species spawns in the Sargasso Sea, travels to the East Coast of the United States, 

and matures in freshwater streams and lakes. 
62 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Protect and monitor anadromous and catadromous fish and their habitats associated with 

Lake Mattamuskeet. 

y Monitor fish health periodically in cooperation with cooperating agencies and universities. 

y Cooperate with agencies and universities to conduct baseline surveys of waters on the 

refuge to document species composition. 

y Remove silt from outlet and “rim” canals to maintain and restore deepwater habitat 

necessary for many fish species during droughts as well as spawning crappie. Also, 

needed to prevent buildup of silt in Lake Mattamuskeet which contributes to lake turbidity 

and reduces the availability of sandy areas used by spawning bass and sunfish. 

y Fish stocking as needed and in cooperation with the NCWRCS, especially for largemouth 

bass. 

y Increase enforcement of size and creel limits. 

Objective 1-3: Crustaceans – Maintain existing creel limit for recreational blue crab harvest and 

continue to prohibit crab pots on the refuge. In addition, work with the Coastal Habitat Protection 

Plan (CHPP) to assure appropriate regulatory protection for the outlet canals. 

Discussion: The blue crab is common in North Carolina coastal waters, including Pamlico Sound and 

tributaries. Its harvest is important both commercially and recreationally in the state; in 2004 over 34 

million pounds of blue crabs were harvested commercially, with a dockside value of $23 million, the 

highest of any commercial finfish or shellfish in North Carolina (Division of Marine Fisheries 2007). 

The refuge supports a healthy blue crab population and a popular recreational crab harvest only (no 

commercial harvest). Crabbing is conducted from canal banks and water control structures. Refuge 

regulations prohibit crab pots, and only five hand lines and/or hand-activated pots per person are 

permitted at any one time. The possession (creel) limit is 12 blue crabs per person per day and the 

minimum length (width) limit is fives inches from point to point of the carapace (shell). Crabs caught 

on the refuge are for personal use only and may not be sold. 

Strategies: 

y Ensure a law enforcement presence on the refuge during crab and fishing season to 

encourage compliance with creel limits. 

y Actively cooperate with the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries in conservation 

and management of this important species on the refuge. 

y Ensure that signs listing creel limits are posted and visible at popular crab fishing sites and 

that fishing regulation brochures are readily available. 

y Cooperate with agencies and universities to study the impact on the refuge blue crab 

population due to the commercial harvest of blue crabs in the four outlet canals between 

Lake Mattamuskeet and Pamlico Sound. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

Objective 1-4: Aquatic Invertebrates – Assist partners with studies and conduct periodic baseline 

surveys of invertebrates in managed wetlands (moist-soil units). 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA plan improves on the current management by collecting baseline 

data of invertebrate species occurrence in the managed wetlands as funding allows. These 

invertebrates are important sources of food and protein for all birds that use moist-soil units, including 

ducks, shorebirds, and wading birds. 

Strategies: 

y Initiate development of baseline data of invertebrate species occurrence in the managed 

wetlands as funding allows. 

y Manage refuge resources to protect invertebrate species. 

y Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

Objective 1-5: Raptors – Continue winter counts of eagles on refuge. Re-initiate nest counts of ospreys. 

Increase habitat management of cropland in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). 

Discussion: Bald eagles and ospreys have historically nested on the refuge and viable nests of 

osprey continue at present. The refuge conducts mid-winter counts of bald eagles that congregate 

around Lake Mattamuskeet. Staff used to carry out counts of nesting osprey, but these were 

discontinued when the biologist position was eliminated. Under this objective, osprey nest counts 

would be resumed once the biologist position is restored. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to use same protocols for counting eagles, so that methodology is consistent 

and results over the years can be compared to establish trends. 

y Use same protocol for nest counts of osprey as before, for the sake of continuity and to be 

able to establish trends, if any, over time. If newer or improved census methodologies 

have become available, evaluate these and whether they can be integrated with earlier 

methodologies prior to implementing. 

y When feasible and indicated, cooperate with partners on these endeavors. 

y Compile, evaluate, store, and publish or publicize trends over time. 

y Explore ways to improve management of CRP grassland to increase foraging value for 

raptors. 

Objective 1-6: Passerine Birds – Continue to participate in annual Christmas bird count and support 

passerine-related studies on refuge. Also, implement passerine point counts in different refuge 

habitats to evaluate habitat management actions. 
64 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: The perching (passerine) species that breed on the refuge include warblers, 

nuthatches, thrashers, and blue-gray gnatcatchers. The most common wintering species are the 

American robin, yellow-rumped warbler, red-winged blackbird, and five or more species of sparrows. 

Being situated in the path of the Atlantic Flyway, a major migration route running north and south 

along the Atlantic Seaboard of North America, the refuge provides resting and foraging areas for 

many transient species, that is, migratory birds which winter farther south. Among the passerines 

which do so are the tree swallow, warblers (yellow, black-throated blue, northern parula, black and 

white, and palm), bobolink, Baltimore oriole, American redstart, and oven bird. 

This Draft CCP/EA substantially improves on the current management by proposing to perform point 

counts on all major habitat types, monitor land bird response to habitat management when additional 

staff is available, and monitor and maintain 20 to 40 prothonotary warbler nest boxes annually.

Strategies: 

y Conduct point counts to collect data on habitats in addition to the wet pine flatwoods 

habitat when additional staff is available. 

y Continue to participate in annual Christmas bird count. 

y Monitor land bird response to habitat management when additional staff is available. 

y Install, monitor, and maintain 20 to 40 prothonotary warbler nest boxes annually. 

y Record unusual land bird observations by the staff and the public. 

y Encourage participation by volunteers and partners. 

y Cooperate with other agencies and universities to conduct studies. 

Objective 1-7: Shorebirds – Manage one or two moist-soil units (rotating) to benefit shorebirds 

during spring migration. In addition, evaluate alternative strategies to manage a portion of moist-soil 

units to benefit fall migration of shorebirds. Also, conduct surveys of managed areas. 

Discussion: The refuge provides habitat which benefits a host of shorebirds, including dowitchers, 

dunlins, plovers, sandpipers, and yellowlegs. Shorebirds forage for aquatic invertebrates in the moist 

and saturated soils of mudflats and vegetated wetlands. Shorebird diets consist of polychaete and 

oligochaete worms, insect larva, and aquatic insects, such as water boatmen. Other food items 

include amphipods, copepods, crustaceans, and mollusks. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct spring (April-June) and fall (July-September) ground surveys every 10 days in 

suitable habitat annually. 

y Participate in annual Christmas bird count. 

y Note unusual shorebird observations by the staff and the public. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

y Manage water levels of at least 10 percent of impoundment acreage to provide foraging 

habitat for migrating shorebirds. 

y Moist-soil unit being managed to benefit shorebirds during spring migration should be 

drawn down slowly between early April and late May. 

Objective 1-8: Marsh and Wading Birds – Continue to participate in Christmas bird count. In 

addition, reinstitute ground surveys for marsh and wading birds. 

Discussion: Mattamuskeet NWR furnishes open water, mudflat, marsh, and wetland habitat that benefit 

many species of marsh and wading birds. Marsh birds that either breed on, migrate through, or winter at 

the refuge include the American and least bitterns; white and glossy ibis; American coot; pied-billed grebe; 

king, Virginia and sora rails. Wading birds found on the refuge include the great, snowy, and cattle egret 

and the great blue, green, little blue, tri-colored and black-crowned night herons. 

Strategies: 

 

y Conduct breeding season (April-May) callback survey for marsh birds every 10 days along 

two survey routes in managed impoundments and along lakeshores. 

y Participate in annual Christmas bird count. 

y Note unusual marsh and wading bird observations by the staff and the public. 

y Conduct spring and summer surveys for wading birds in managed wetlands annually. 

y Conduct annual nesting survey of great blue heron colony. 

Objective 1-9: Mammals – Continue to cooperate with the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife 

Disease Study in studies of deer herd health once every five years. Continue cooperation with red 

wolf recovery program. 

Discussion: Forty-two species of mammals are known to occur on the refuge but only two are 

actively managed – the white-tailed deer and red wolf. The white-tailed deer population is currently at 

high levels. White-tailed deer are considered to be browsers because they primarily consume woody 

vegetation, but will eat almost any plant matter. Because of this adaptability, it is impossible to single 

out one habitat as greatly superior to others. However, best estimates suggest a much lower carrying 

capacity for pocosin habitat than other habitat types. Pocosin habitat is reported to support about six 

deer per-square-mile compared to about 18 deer per-square-mile along pocosin borders and 35-40 

deer per-square-mile for coastal bottomland hardwoods. 

The Service first reintroduced the red wolf to the refuge in 1987. Wolves have since reproduced in 

the wild and may be found throughout the refuge and four surrounding counties. Depending upon 

circumstances within and between packs, there may be from one to two packs of wolves on the 

refuge at any given time. An estimated 100 wolves now inhabit a 1.7-million-acre-area in eastern 

North Carolina. 
66 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Conduct herd health checks on white-tailed deer every five years in cooperation with 

Southeastern Wildlife Disease Study Group. 

y Continue to collect harvest data on all deer for permitted deer hunt annually. 

y Conduct deer population estimate annually, determine optimum deer population size and 

means to manage at optimum levels. 

y Cooperate with the Red Wolf Recovery Program by providing facilities, equipment, staff, 

and logistical support as requested. 

y Note unusual mammal observations by the staff and the public. 

y Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

y Prior to each annual refuge deer hunt, communicate with NCWRC regarding local disease 

issues as well as NCWRC surveillance or other information needs. 

y Coordinate with NCWRC regarding collection protocol for deer harvested on the refuge so 

refuge deer data can be compared to other data collected in the state. 

Objective 1-10: Reptiles and Amphibians – Continue to assist partners with studies of reptiles and 

amphibians. 

Discussion: Mattamuskeet NWR reports 61 species of reptiles and amphibians. They are most 

abundant and diverse around permanent and semi-permanent open water, marshes, creeks, lakes, 

and canals. They also thrive in disturbed or modified and transitional areas. Four venomous snake 

species have been documented on the refuge: the cottonmouth moccasin, canebrake (timber) 

rattlesnake, pygmy rattlesnake, and copperhead. The refuge is near the northern edge of the 

American alligator's natural range in North America. This formerly threatened reptile is found in 

marshes, slow-moving streams, and man-made canals. Alligators prefer areas where water turbidity 

is low, water quality is high, and an adequate food source is present. The refuge’s canals and 

drainage ditches provide good alligator habitat. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor and manage refuge resources to protect federal and state listed reptile and 

amphibian species. 

y Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

y Increase law enforcement efforts to address the illegal harvest of reptiles and amphibians 

on the refuge. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Goal 2: Protect and enhance terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats associated with the Lake 

Mattamuskeet environment in the context of climate change and rising sea levels. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Discussion: Lake Mattamuskeet is by far the dominant habitat feature on the refuge, and is crucially 

important to wintering waterfowl and an array of other wildlife species. However, the lake is 

surrounded by marsh, bottomland forest, managed wetlands, and croplands, all of which contribute to 

the lake’s and refuge’s value to wildlife. The refuge will actively manage some of these habitats and 

more passively manage the others. 

Objective 2-1: Open Water Habitat – Maintain 40,276 acres as open water habitat in Lake 

Mattamuskeet and associated canals. In addition, cooperate with the North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to develop and implement a submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV) monitoring program for the lake. 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA improves on the current management by providing for regular monitoring 

of salinity and water levels and the identification of the need for other studies, such as monitoring of SAV 

in the lake and potential effects of climate change and sea level rise. Lake Mattamuskeet provides much 

more than habitat for wintering waterfowl. The water level in the lake controls the ability of neighboring 

landowners to drain their land. The flapgates in the water control structures are designed to open when 

the water levels in the lake are higher than the water levels in the outlet canals and close when the outlet 

canals are higher than the lake. The outlet canals are the only means to remove water from the lake. 

Canal maintenance is thus critical to manage lake levels. Periodic removal of silt from the canals also 

reduces the deposition of silt in the lake. The lake is also the site of most of the public use (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) on the 

refuge. It is the centerpiece of the national wildlife refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Collect weekly salinity readings and record weekly lake water levels annually. 

y Maintain two automatic water level loggers. 

y Conduct annual vegetation surveys lake-wide, including SAV, with DENR. Consider past 

SAV survey data and monitoring sites in design of any new surveys. 

y Maintain flapgates on outlet canals. 

y Remove silt from outlet and rim canals and maintain a minimum depth of 5 feet in the midchannel of the canals. 

y Identify needed studies and pursue funding to initiate. 

y Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 

y Collaborate with USGS to develop program to monitor for effects of sea level rise. 

Objective 2-2: Freshwater Marsh (fringe around lakeshore) – Maintain approximately 2,300 acres 

of freshwater marsh on the refuge and continue to control common reed (Phragmites) and conduct 

prescribed burns periodically. 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA continues the current management. The freshwater marsh includes 

900 acres of common reed (Phragmites australis) and 500 acres of marsh dominated by shrubs. 
68 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Proper management will maintain all marsh acreage in native herbaceous vegetation, which provides 

the greatest benefit to native wildlife. 

Strategies: 

y Annually review treatment needs to control common reed and apply as necessary. 

Treatments may include herbicides, mowing, burning, discing, and flooding or a 

combination of these treatments. 

y Annually review prescribed fire needs and apply prescribed fire in accordance with the 

refuge Fire Management Plan. 

y Monitor effects of phragmites treatments and prescribed fire to determine effectiveness 

and continually explore new methods to achieve goals, particularly methods that reduce 

herbicide use. 

Objective 2-3: Managed Wetlands – Maintain approximately 2,500 acres of the refuge in 15 moistsoil units and semipermanent forested wetlands. 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA improves on current management by managing for mudflat habitat 

for shorebirds, increasing control efforts of common reed and alligatorweed, and replacing pumps 

and water control structures. These managed wetlands will provide greater wildlife benefits, 

particularly for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds and marsh birds. 

Strategies: 

y Manage impoundments for migratory birds. 

y Manage to produce submerged aquatic vegetation, native emergent annual seedproducing vegetation, and mudflats. 

y Conduct annual vegetation transects for all moist-soil impoundments so the effectiveness 

of management actions can be evaluated and management needs documented. 

y Monitor water levels weekly. 

y Aggressively control common reed and alligatorweed annually and strive to keep acreage 

of these noxious weeds under 200 acres. 

y Maintain, and rehabilitate as necessary, existing pump stations, water control structures, 

internal and external canals, and levees to manage impoundment water levels efficiently. 

y Solicit assistance from NCWRC, Ducks Unlimited, and others as necessary to ensure that 

impoundment infrastructure is properly maintained. 

y Assist cooperating agencies and universities with studies as needed. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

y Annually prepare a detailed water management plan which outlines timing of drawdowns 

and other treatments, utilizing data collected from annual vegetation surveys and 

waterfowl surveys. Plan should also outline a 5-year schedule to coordinate drawdown of 

the impoundments such that habitat needs for a variety of waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds, and other water birds are available annually. 

Objective 2-4: Forested Habitats – Maintain existing areas of mixed-pine hardwood (1,300 acres), 

wet pine flatwoods (1,000 acres), and cypress gum swamp (266 acres non-impounded, 572 acres 

impounded). In addition, investigate desirability and feasibility of restoring Salyer’s Ridge pinewoods. 

Discussion: Bottomland hardwood forest habitat on the refuge exists as small pockets of hardwood 

trees (tree species consisting of red maple, water oak, willow oak, swamp cottonwood, and 

sweetgum) associated with wet pine flatwoods and mixed loblolly pine/hardwoods. These “pockets” 

of hardwood trees occur on levee spoil banks and on mineral soil flats. Some opportunity exists to 

expand these hardwood stands (50-150 acres) by plantings (water, willow, swamp chestnut oaks, 

and green ash) and removal of overstory (cypress, sweetgum) trees to allow for light penetration to 

the forest floor. The lake dynamics (i.e. frequent flooding of soils within 300 feet of the lake shore 

and competition from more flood tolerant tree species hinders hardwood tree establishment. 

Cypress-gum swamps are important habitat for cavity nesting wildlife species. Water tupelo trees are 

important nectar sources for bees. 

The Draft CCP/EA improves on current management by providing for active forest management in 

wet pine flatwoods and mixed pine hardwoods to manipulate canopy coverage and promote 

understory development. The Draft CCP/EA also provides for active forest management to 

manipulate canopy coverage and promote understory development. 

Strategies: 

y Patrol cypress-gum swamp to prevent vandalism and timber theft. 

y Explore the value of occasional prescribed burning and other forest management 

practices in wet-pine flatwoods and mixed-pine hardwoods and enact management 

practices if necessary to support trust species in wet-pine flatwoods and mixed-pine 

hardwoods. 

y Investigate ways to improve the value of cypress-gum impoundments for waterfowl and 

other trust species. 

y Cooperate with North Carolina Forest Service and Alligator River NWR staff to monitor 

and treat southern pine beetle activity in wet-pine flatwoods and mixed-pine hardwoods. 

y Cooperate with the National Park Service in monitoring the Salyer’s Ridge National 

Natural Landmark. 

Objective 2-5: Cropland – Maintain 191 acres of cropland in corn and soybeans. Also, investigate 

other options for cropping and/or early successional habitat and future use of CRP cropland. 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA maintains a minimum acreage of cropland. The refuge cropland 

provides grain that furnishes high-energy food for wintering waterfowl to restore reserves lost during 

their migration south and to build reserves for their migration north. 
70 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Conduct farming in accordance with best management practices. 

y Study methods to increase utilization of cropland area by waterfowl and decrease 

management costs. 

y Increase control of brush along edges of field ditches to increase use of fields by 

waterfowl. 

y Clean out silt from field drainage ditches to improve drainage and thus permit more 

efficient farming and improved yields. 

y When the contract on the cropland in the CRP (189 acres) expires in 2011, seriously 

consider not renewing the contract. This will allow more management options on the tract 

but will also likely reduce the refuge rent share on the farmed cropland from 50 percent to 

25 percent. After contract expiration, consider actively farming some of the CRP cropland 

to replace crops lost due to new cooperator agreement. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Goal 3: Protect refuge resources by limiting negative impacts of human activity and invasive species 

on and around the Mattamuskeet NWR. 

Discussion: Resource protection entails a broad range of activities that all aim to protect habitat, 

wildlife populations, and cultural resources from a variety of potential threats to their quality and 

quantity. Land protection refers to obtaining an interest in land – and the resources on it – that can 

be either some form of conservation easement up to fee simple title. Given the prominence of water 

resources to the refuge’s identity and purposes, it is crucial to protect water quality and minimize 

contaminants that can impair it and harm wildlife and people. As a federal land management agency, 

the Service is required by law to preserve cultural resources; the area contains many known historic 

resources and properties. Effective law enforcement is indispensable on the refuge. Controlling 

invasive plants and animals is necessary to protect the integrity of native ecosystems and indigenous 

plant and animal communities. 

Objective 3-1: Land Protection – Maintain existing refuge size of 50,180 acres. Explore 

opportunities for minor purchases of road easements, canal access, etc. 

Discussion: The Service has acquired all of the land within the refuge’s approved acquisition 

boundary. The boundary did not extend to any roads, limiting access to the refuge by the public and 

the staff. There is also a trend towards the development of land adjacent to Lake Mattamuskeet that 

is not well suited to septic tanks. An expanded acquisition boundary will give the Service the 

opportunity to acquire land to improve access and ensure water quality. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Strategies: 

y Develop a minor expansion proposal, less than 10 percent of the refuge, to acquire 

acreage needed to improve management and public access. 

y Explore the possibility of purchasing an access right-of-way from the North Lake Road to 

the MI-11 Impoundment to provide public boat access to the northeastern part of Lake 

Mattamuskeet and Jarvis Canal, and more efficient management access to the MI-11 

pump station and water control structure. 

y Explore the possibility of purchasing one acre of private land adjacent to the Rose Bay 

Boat ramp to provide proper parking for trucks with boat trailers. 

y Discuss with appropriate landowners the refuge’s interest in purchasing key properties 

adjacent to the existing refuge acquisition boundary that fulfill aims of either improving 

access or ensuring refuge’s water quality. 

y Work closely with the Service’s Regional Office of Realty to acquire properties of interest if 

they become available. 

y Work with landowners to purchase by full fee title all road rights-of-way which are currently 

covered by easements and leases – primarily access to Rose Bay boat ramp and the Lake 

Landing Area. 

y Participate in any regional or state meetings concerning the establishment of water laws to 

ensure the refuge receives appropriate control of water on the refuge and in Lake 

Mattamuskeet and thus secure water necessary for the annual needs of fish and wildlife. 

Objective 3-2: Water Quality and Contaminants – NCWRC continues to monitor 14 sites once 

annually for a limited number of water quality parameters. In addition, cooperate with NCDENR to 

develop and implement a long-term water quality management plan for the lake. 

Discussion: To fulfill the purposes of the refuge, it is crucial to maintain the water quality of Lake 

Mattamuskeet and monitor environmental contaminants that may compromise it or potentially harm 

wildlife or consumers of fish. Managing the lake’s salinity is important to maintaining its SAV and fish 

populations. Mercury contamination of fish flesh is a growing concern to anglers and state public 

health regulators around the country, as awareness grows of the widespread extent of mercury 

deposition and methyl mercury’s potential impacts on wildlife and human health. Mercury is also 

negatively impacting osprey and may be negatively affecting many other fish-eating species, 

including otter and cormorants. 

Strategies: 

y Implement portions of the water quality monitoring plan as staffing levels allow. 

y Monitor salinity in Lake Mattamuskeet weekly. 

y Monitor specific conductivity during vegetation survey of lake as staffing levels allow. 
72 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y Monitor mercury levels in the lake ecosystem and higher tropic levels of the food web 

(osprey, largemouth bass) every five years. 

y Encourage the limited water quality monitoring conducted by university and state 

agencies. 

y The water quality management plan will identify those water quality parameters of concern 

that warrant periodic monitoring. The plan will also identify related media that warrant 

sampling for concentrations of likely contaminants/toxins, including sediments, fish and 

bird tissues. 

Objective 3-3: Cultural Resources – In cooperation with RHPO and SHPO, continue to comply with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, within 15 years of CCP approval, 

prepare and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA intensifies the current level of management. Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act mandates that the Service protect cultural resources on the refuge. 

There have been no comprehensive cultural resources studies of the refuge. The staff will refer all 

land disturbing activities to the Service’s Regional Archaeologist. Mattamuskeet Lodge, recently 

transferred to the state, is the major landmark in Hyde County and is a source of pride of the county’s 

residents. The refuge will continue to work with the state, county, and civic groups in the 

management of the lodge and its surroundings, which include the refuge’s proposed offices, visitor 

contact stations, maintenance facilities, and staff housing. 

Strategies: 

y Cooperate with other agencies and organizations to protect Mattamuskeet Lodge and 

comply with the Historic Preservation Act. 

y Conduct a complete cultural resource survey. 

y Within 15 years of CCP approval, conduct a Phase I archaeological survey of the refuge, 

by qualified personnel, as a necessary first step in cultural resource management. 

y Conduct a Phase II investigation if archaeological resources are identified during the 

Phase I survey. In this, the eligibility of identified resources for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is evaluated prior to any disturbance. 

y Conduct a Phase III data recovery if resources identified in Phases I and II are determined 

to be eligible. This will recover data and mitigate adverse effects of any undertaking. 

y Within 15 years of CCP approval, prepare a Cultural Resources Management Plan 

(CRMP) for the refuge. 

y Follow procedures outlined in CRMP for consultation with RHPO, SHPO, and potentially 

interested American Indian tribes. 

y Follow procedures detailed in CRMP for inadvertent discoveries of human remains. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

y In compliance with Section 106, ensure that archaeological and cultural values are 

described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings, 

primarily those actions or activities that entail excavation or substantial soil disturbance. 

Communicate closely with Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer and with North 

Carolina’s State Historic Preservation Office. 

y Develop a step-down plan for surveying lands to identify archaeological resources and for 

developing a preservation program. 

Objective 3-4: Law Enforcement – Dedicate one full-time equivalent (FTE) law enforcement officer to 

the Mattamuskeet NWR Complex. In addition, refuge will serve as a new officer field training station. 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA increases the capacity of the Service to deter crime, protect public 

safety, safeguard natural and cultural resources, and prosecute violations. The current lone law 

enforcement officer is responsible for four refuges: Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, Cedar Island, and 

Pocosin Lakes, covering approximately 200,000 acres in five counties. As public use increases on 

these refuges, the same level of patrol will result in a smaller percentage of violations being cited. 

Strategies: 

y Remove the responsibility of law enforcement at Pocosin Lakes NWR (115,000-acre 

refuge) so the current officer can concentrate law enforcement efforts at the remaining 

refuges. 

y Conduct routine patrols to maintain a law enforcement presence on the refuge. 

y Coordinate with local, state, and federal law enforcement authorities to ensure compliance 

with local, state, and federal laws. 

y Prosecute 100 violations annually. 

y Monitor activities on land adjacent to the refuge associated with endangered species and 

migratory birds. 

y Post signs in high litter areas stating that “Wildlife Comes First; Littering is Harmful to 

Wildlife; If Littering Continues, this Area will be Closed to the Public,” then, if it becomes 

necessary, close the area and post the sign. 

y Include information on the sign about who to contact to report violations. 

y Provide visible law enforcement presence on the refuge. 

y Identify safety hazards and ensure the safety of visitors by eliminating hazards; and 

controlling access into hazardous areas. 

y Ensure that applicable refuge-specific regulations are in brochures and signs. 

Objective 3-5: Invasive Plants – Continue to annually control approximately 300 - 500 acres of 

common reed (Phragmites) along edge of Lake Mattamuskeet and the moist-soil impoundments and 

50 acres of alligatorweed in canals and moist-soil impoundments. 
74 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA increases the acreage of invasive plant pests controlled above the 

current level of management. Invasive plants, particularly common reed, are a threat to the natural 

vegetative communities on the refuge. Pest plants are present in marshes, managed wetlands, and 

forests, and on public use trails, ditch banks, and road shoulders. The refuge staff is currently managing 

common reed with herbicides and other management practices and pest plants on roadsides with 

mowing. Alligatorweed can be mowed, but is difficult to eliminate because it will propagate from stem 

fragments or the roots; there is no available biological control for this invasive plant. 

Strategies: 

y Develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan. 

y Continue to treat common reed-infested areas with EPA and Service approved herbicides 

such as glyphosate. Also explore other management practices, such as mowing, burning, 

discing, flooding, or combinations of these, to increase the effectiveness of control and/or 

reduce the use of herbicides. 

y Provide additional environmental protection by the proper timing of application and the 

selection of conservative application equipment. 

y Take advantage of common reed’s poor ability to invade vegetated soils by minimizing 

disturbance and quickly vegetating sites which have been disturbed. This can be 

achieved by seeding, plantings, or management to encourage rapid establishment of 

preferred native vegetation. 

y Apply herbicide in the late summer, at which time common reed is still growing but most 

wetland plant species are dormant. Herbicide applications at this time kill Phragmites but 

do not significantly affect adjacent or underlying desirable species. 

y Explore chemical options for alligatorweed control and implement one or more of them 

using adaptive management. Active ingredients that have been successful in treating 

alligatorweed include 2,4-D, glyphosate, triclopyr, fluridone, and imazapyr. These active 

ingredients are found in the products Navigate and Aqua-Kleen (2,4-D); Rodeo, 

Aquamaster, Eraser AQ, Touchdown Pro, AquaNeat (glyphosate); Renovate (triclopyr), 

Sonar and Avast (fluridone), and Habitat (imazapyr). 

Objective 3-6: Invasive Animals – Work with USDA APHIS wildlife services (damage control) and 

other partners to implement a nutria control program. 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA improves on the current level of management by specifying monitoring 

at a certain frequency and providing for the evaluation of the impacts of resident waterfowl. At present, 

the non-native nutria is the most pressing problem. It is abundant on the refuge and can be destructive to 

levees and vegetation. Currently, nutria are controlled opportunistically by staff. 

Strategies: 

y Develop a Nuisance and Exotic Animal Control Plan. 

y Cooperate with the State Health Department to monitor for mosquito borne diseases. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

y Evaluate impacts of resident waterfowl (Canada geese and mallards) and implement 

control measures as needed. 

y Contact APHIS and review alternative nutria control options with them. These may 

include hunting or trapping by trained professionals, as well as allowing the public to take 

nutria during hunting season. 

y Initiate studies in cooperation with universities and the NCWRC to improve the 

understanding of the impacts of nutria to aquatic vegetation and native wildlife, particularly 

waterfowl. 

y Consider provisions to allow public hunting of feral swine if feral swine become 

established on the refuge. Consider hunting impacts to other public uses and wintering 

waterfowl when evaluating a feral swine hunt program. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Goal 4: Develop programs and facilities to provide public use opportunities to include hunting, 

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

they are compatible with refuge purposes. 

Discussion: Mattamuskeet NWR contributes to the rich variety of outdoor recreation experiences 

available in coastal North Carolina. The refuge accommodates each of the priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses as identified in the Improvement Act. This includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Due to Lake Mattamuskeet’s 

shallow depth and the potential for disturbing wildlife, airboats, sailboats, jet skis, and sailboards (for 

wind surfing) are all prohibited on the lake. These activities are not considered wildlife-dependent. 

Objective 4-1: Visitor Management – Within five years of CCP approval, complete preparation of 

and begin to implement a visitor services’ step-down management plan. Within three years of CCP 

approval, provide additional signage to help welcome and orient visitors. 

Discussion: The refuge does not have an up-to-date visitor services; plan; the last Public Use Plan 

was completed in 1988. The Fishing Plan was completed in 1989. The Hunting Plan was completed 

in 1988. These plans have been reviewed annually to meet the Service’s notification requirements. 

Prior to this Draft CCP/EA, given the limited time and funding to manage visitor services and 

outreach, refuge personnel have provided a range of opportunities and programs for the visitor. 

Messages and information relating to refuge issues (transfer of lodge, habitat management) are 

outdated in the Public Use Plan and revisions are needed. Revisions are needed in the Visitor 

Services’ Plan to indicate what media or method will be used to convey these messages to the 

public. Current and future staffing needs for implementation of the visitor services’ program are 

identified and listed in budget data bases. The Visitor Services’ Plan should be comprehensive 

and cover all aspects of the visitor services program, including fee programs, universal 

accessibility, use of concessions, guides, Cooperating Association MOU’s, etc. 

Signage includes entrance signs, directional signs on and off the refuge, boundary-marking signs, 

and regulatory information signs. The refuge boundary is not adequately signed. Approximately 60 

percent of the refuge boundary, particularly the north section of boundary in Lake Mattamuskeet, 

needs to be resurveyed and signed. Main entrances to the refuge are generally well-signed, but 
76 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

some of the smaller entrances are unsigned. Additional directional signage with mileage information 

is needed off the refuge. At the headquarters, there are signs in various locations that direct visitors 

to East Canal Road, the hiking trail, and the boat launch. As part of the sign plan, these signs should 

all be combined into one set of signs with the various destinations listed. 

The refuge’s regulatory information is provided in its general, hunting, and fishing brochures. At the Rose 

Bay and Lake Landing recreational areas and at the entrance to the headquarters, there are signs that tell 

visitors some of what is permitted or prohibited. The refuge also includes several kiosks: one at the 

entrance to the headquarters area, a trailhead kiosk at the entrance to New Holland Trail, and a “Kuralt 

Trail” kiosk for the lake observation deck along the Highway 94 Causeway. 

Parking is allowed on both sides of Highway 94. There is a gravel parking area at the headquarters 

and at the Rose Bay Canal and Lake Landing Canal areas. There is an accessible spot at the 

Central Canal boat launch. None of the other parking areas have accessible parking spots. 

The refuge has several brochures, all of which are produced per the Service’s graphic standards. 

The general brochure welcomes visitors and provides basic refuge information, regulations, and a 

map of the public use area. The refuge also has hunting and fishing brochures and a wildlife/bird list. 

There is a small visitor contact area in the office, with a glass display case and some additional 

taxidermy mounts. Brochures are available to the public and displayed in a brochure rack, and local 

natural history literature is for sale. 

Figure 5 shows visitor use facilities on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

 Visitor Services Plan

y Develop an updated site plan for the new office site that includes all public use 

opportunities/facilities for the headquarters area and the entrance to the area. It should 

address vehicular and pedestrian circulation, signs, parking, etc. 

y Focus efforts on facilities and programs near the Entrance Road, Wildlife Drive, new 

office, East/Central/West Canals.) 

y Work with regional sign coordinator to develop a Sign Plan for the refuge that follows the 

Service sign standards. 

y The management agreement with the state should state that for all programs and activities 

that include refuge topics/information, the refuge manager will have final approval of this 

information. 

y Ensure that staff and contractors developing the Visitor Services’ Plan are familiar with 

Part 605 of the Wildlife-Dependent Recreation and Visitor Services’ Requirements’ 

Handbook. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Figure 5. Visitor service facilities on Mattamuskeet Refuge 
78 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y Messages for all visitor services programs should include: 

- Mission of the FWS and NWRS 

- Purposes of the refuge 

- “Wildlife First” 

- Value of refuge for waterfowl: percentage of coastal populations of various waterfowl 

 that are at Mattamuskeet NWR; the depth of the lake makes it critical to the 

waterfowl; how 

 the refuge manages for the benefit of waterfowl (impoundments) 

- Partnership with the State 

 Directional signs

y Work with partners and decide how to address signage related to the Headquarters/Lodge 

partnership. 

y Work with the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place additional directional 

signs for the refuge at decision points driving in from Engelhard, Columbia/Fairfield, and 

Washington/New Holland; include mileage information on the directional signs. 

y Install turn signs on Highway 264 at Lake Landing and Rose Bay areas. 

y Install directional signs at the decision points on the walking trails (levees) at Lake Landing 

and Rose Bay areas. 

Kiosks/information panels

y Place a 3-panel (after-hours) kiosk at the headquarters area and focus the 6-panel 

Entrance Road kiosk on interpretation of refuge information. Site the 3-panel kiosk so it is 

visible from the lodge parking area. Information should include: 

-Rules and regulations (include explanation of the various signs on the refuge) 

 -Recreational opportunities 

y Place information kiosks at parking lots of Lake Landing area and Rose Bay area. 

 -Mattamuskeet NWR 

 -Do’s and Don’ts 

Roads/Parking

y In site plan address vehicle and pedestrian circulation in headquarters area. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

y Install an electronic gate, timed to close at the end of the day, on the Entrance Road at the 

boundary line between the refuge and the NCWRC lodge property to prevent unauthorized 

refuge entry after dark by lodge visitors. Also establish a dense tree and shrub planting of 

native species on each side of the gate to prevent vehicles from driving around the gate. 

y Move the gate on East Canal Road to the west side of the Central Canal Bridge to allow 

the public to use the New Holland Boardwalk during refuge waterfowl hunts. 

y Purchase one acre of private property adjacent to Rose Bay Boat Ramp to provide 

adequate parking for trucks with boat trailers. 

y Use dust abatement materials to reduce dust problem on Entrance Road. 

y Correctly sign the accessible parking spot at the Central Canal boat launch. 

y Explore pros and cons of paving the entrance road. 

y Develop pull-offs on entrance road to allow visitors to safely stop and observe wildlife 

without blocking the road. 

y Develop accessible parking sites at: 

a) Highway 94 Observation Deck (Intermediate) 

b) Highway 94 Fishing Decks (Intermediate – Long term) 

c) Rose Bay area parking (Intermediate) 

d) Lake Landing area parking (Intermediate) 

e) Central Canal Road accessible hunting blind (Now) 

Trails/Boardwalks/Viewing Platforms

y Construct trail and boardwalk system at east end of East Main Canal Road to exhibit 

Fisher Slough and East Main Canal habitats and wildlife. 

y Construct two pull-offs and one viewing platform on new wildlife drive and one viewing 

platform on Entrance Road to help display wildlife in the Entrance Road Impoundment. 

Also, construct shallow viewing ponds in front of pull-off sites and use excavated material 

to create pulloffs. 

General Brochure

y Work with the Service’s Regional Office of External Affairs to update the general brochure 

and tear sheet. Changes to consider: 

Include information about recreational opportunities. 

Refocus the message to purpose of the refuge and waterfowl management. 

Include a new site map in the updated brochure (include distances to key public use 

areas on the map.) 

Symbols and color scheme in the site map need to be revised to be less confusing. 

Visitor Contact

y Develop a small exhibit area in the lobby of the new office (include components that would 

be interesting to children.) 

y In new headquarters, consider access to restrooms for after hours (include time locks). 
80 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Boundary

y Resurvey and re-sign sections of the north boundary in Lake Mattamuskeet, as well as the 

eastern half of the refuge where boundary is unclear. 

Objective 4-2: Hunting – Increase hunting opportunities for deer and waterfowl. Cooperate 

with NCWRC to conduct activities promoting hunter education, recruitment, and retention. 

Discussion: Mattamuskeet NWR is open to hunting of waterfowl and white-tailed deer in 

accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. Permits are required to hunt on the 

refuge. Deer hunting consists of two two-day paired hunts in October. The refuge issues 

permits to 150 applicants by lottery for each two-day hunt. The entire refuge is open for the 

deer hunt except for a 600-acre area, which includes the Entrance Road, MI-4 impoundment, 

and the Headquarters. Hunters may take one antlered and one antlerless or two antlerless 

deer per day on Mattamuskeet NWR. Deer may only be taken with shotgun, muzzleloading 

rifle/shotgun, or bow and arrow. All deer taken on Mattamuskeet NWR are checked at the 

Deer Check Station at refuge headquarters. Weights and other biological information are 

collected by the refuge. 

Waterfowl hunting is authorized on approximately 1,000 acres of open water and marsh on 

the south side of Lake Mattamuskeet. The waterfowl hunt dates are scheduled as two halfday paired hunts on the mornings of Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday; Saturday from midDecember through January. The application process is managed by the NCWRC. There are 

16 hunt blinds available; each blind holds three people and has a dog platform. One of the 

blinds is accessible by individuals with mobility disabilities. 

Waterfowl may only be taken with shotguns, using approved non-toxic shot. Access to the 

hunt area is by vehicle on East Canal Drive and then via foot or non-motorized boat. 

All waterfowl taken are checked at a check station at refuge headquarters prior to hunters 

leaving the refuge. There is a 30-shell limit per hunter per day. The use of retrieving dogs is 

permitted, but dogs must be under voice command at all times. 

Under this Draft CCP/EA, the refuge will explore ways to increase hunting opportunities for 

deer and waterfowl, especially for youths, as well as continue to provide annual hunts for deer 

on 6,000 acres, for waterfowl on 1,000 acres (including youth), and resident Canada geese. 

 

Strategies: 

y Support Refuge System proposal to increase fees to $15. 

y Contact “Capable Partners” or Wheelin Sportsmen (or others) and work with them to 

improve the accessible hunting blind and to also provide additional accessible hunting 

opportunities. 

y Explore the possibility of making more of the waterfowl hunting blinds accessible. 

Communicate with the North Carolina Handicap Sportsmen Association to facilitate this. 

y Update the hunting brochure as necessary and also ensure that hunting information on the 

refuge website is timely and accurate. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

y Continue to provide waterfowl hunting opportunities in permitted hunts on 1,000 acres for 

1,000 hunter days in 16 blinds annually. 

y Continue to conduct a two-day youth waterfowl hunt. 

y Explore feasibility of moving refuge hunt blinds to reduce disturbance between hunting 

groups. 

y Continue to provide deer hunting opportunities in permitted hunts on 6,000 acres for 600 

hunter days annually. 

y Consider adding another two-day deer hunt in October, for a total of three paired hunts. 

y Consider prioritization for one or all of the hunts for permit allocation to those hunters who 

harvest the most does, if the deer herd is too high, and demand for permits exceeds 

availability. 

y Strive to change the buck:doe ratio of harvested deer from the current 2 to 3 males per 1 

to 3 females to a healthier 1 to 3 males per 2 to 3 females. 

y Continue to provide September Canada geese (nonmigratory geese) hunting season 

opportunities on 45,000 acres. 

y Explore the value of increasing the number of permits for the September Canada geese 

hunt, which is currently limited to 100 permits. 

y Explore the value of increasing waterfowl hunting opportunities by participating in the early 

season waterfowl hunts, as well as the late season youth hunt. 

y Cooperate with NCWRC on enforcement of hunting regulations annually and explore and 

support ways to promote hunter education, recruitment, and retention, particularly among 

youths. 

y Explore the merits of initiating a bow hunting season for white-tailed deer. 

y Explore the possibility of managing the four outlet canal structures with stoplogs to prevent 

lake water levels, during drought years, from dropping to levels that force the cancellation 

of the refuge general waterfowl hunt. A Memorandum of Agreement with the Hyde 

County Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and 

possibly other agencies to facilitate a water management plan should also be explored. 

Objective 4-3: Fishing – Increase fishing opportunities (e.g., add one boat ramp) to support 25,000 

angler visits annually. 
82 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: Lake Mattamuskeet supports largemouth bass, striped bass, catfish, sunfish, crappie, white 

perch, and blue crabs, and is popular for fishing, crabbing, and canoeing. Sport fishing for largemouth 

bass, crappie, catfish, bream, and other species is popular on the lake. Bow fishing for carp and other 

rough-fish is permitted during the fishing season. Recreational "crabbing" for blue crabs is allowed on 

the lake, and is a popular activity on and around the refuge's canals and water control structures. Boat 

access is allowed on the lake from March 1 to November 1. While outboard motors are allowed on the 

refuge, the shallow lake depth limits their use. The lake and all other waters on the refuge are closed to 

boating during winter months to provide sanctuary for wintering waterfowl. 

The refuge manages and promotes quality and safe fishing experiences. There are limited 

accommodations for anglers with disabilities. The number of anglers on the refuge is unknown. 

Conflicts are addressed by the refuge’s law enforcement officer. Special fishing permits are issued 

for fishing tournaments on the refuge. Local, state or tribal agencies are consulted within the 

development and ongoing management of the fishing program. Fishing information records are not 

kept, such as species and numbers taken, or the number of local versus out-of-state anglers. 

There are concerns about water quality and canal/water control maintenance impacting the fisheries 

or fishing opportunities. A refuge law enforcement officer, who covers four refuges, enforces fishing 

and boating laws and regulations. However, current staffing is inadequate to manage the fishing 

program and additional law enforcement is needed. Clear directional signs direct anglers to the 

fishing areas in most locations. Regulatory signs are needed to reduce littering from bank fishermen 

and to indicate refuge-specific regulations. 

The refuge has a Fishing Plan written and last reviewed in 1989, but it does not conform to the 

current format for such plans in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The Refuge Fishing Plan will 

be updated after the CCP is completed and implemented. 

Strategies: 

y At the Central Canal boat launch, install a bumper rail on the pier to make it safe for 

fishermen in wheelchairs. 

y Update the fishing information on the website at least once a year. 

y Post health and fish consumption safety warnings at boat launches and fishing areas. 

y At the boat launches, change the sign that currently reads “No Boating and Fishing...” to 

“No Boating.” Also make sure wording is consistent regarding when areas are closed. 

y Re-publish and update the fishing brochure. Include special crabbing regulations and 

other special conditions (e.g., bow fishing, night fishing) – update annually. 

 

y Replace the boat launch at the Rose Bay area. Also purchase one acre of adjacent 

private property and construct a parking area for trucks with boat trailers. 

y Modify access to the Highway 94 fishing decks to make them accessible to people with 

disabilities. 

y Maintain two existing boat ramps annually. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

y Rehabilitate Lake Landing bridges which are used for fishing and crabbing. 

y Install walkway on north side of Entrance Road bridge to provide safer and improved 

fishing access to West Main Canal. 

y Replace bridge on Central Canal with a higher bridge which will allow boats to go under it. 

Also install walkways on bridge for safer fishing and crabbing. 

y Provide boat access to northeast side of lake, at or in the vicinity of Jarvis Canal. 

y Host one fishing tournament for 100 anglers annually and one bow fishing tournament for 

100 bow fishers annually. 

y Cooperate with NCWRC on enforcement of fishing and boating regulations annually. 

y Maintain two lake/canal fishing piers. 

y In cooperation with NCWRC, initiate creel census survey and conduct every 5 years, as 

well as other studies, to improve management of the sport fishery. 

Objective 4-4: Environmental Education – Continue to host Environmental Field Day, 

environmental educator workshops, and university student activities. In addition, reinstitute Nature 

Week and begin to host K-12 school programs (10 annually). 

Discussion: Mattamuskeet NWR does not have a visitor services’ park ranger position. Visitor 

services’ functions and responsibilities, including environmental education and outreach and 

volunteer coordination, are divided among the refuge manager and deputy refuge manager. 

The Mattamuskeet NWR community has one school which serves elementary, middle, and high 

school students. The school is located in close proximity to the refuge; however, due to limited staff, 

refuge managers have been unable to accommodate classroom speaking requests. However, the 

refuge manager and deputy refuge manager do presently attempt to meet all refuge tour requests 

from high schools and college groups, at a rate averaging less than one per month. 

In a management agreement with the State of North Carolina in 2006, the Service conveyed the 

historic Mattamuskeet Lodge and Mattamuskeet NWR headquarters to the state. The NCWRC will 

be the state agency responsible for the management of the lodge, and thus, for the natural, historical, 

and cultural interpretation of the lodge and surrounding cultural and natural resources. 

In previous years, East Carolina University students utilized education classrooms and a laboratory 

which were located on the east side of the lodge. It is anticipated that the NCWRC will continue to 

provide these educational resources. The main area of the lodge will continue to provide exhibit 

space for refuge interpretive purposes. Partnership for the Sounds, a non-profit group, will likely have 

an office at the lodge and will provide staff to operate a visitor information center and store. 

Strategies: 

y Develop a closer relationship with the local school. 

y Conduct programs for local school groups as requested and as time permits. 
84 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y Contract to develop a teacher activity kit that emphasizes local natural history and the 

refuge for use in the classroom. Consider contracting with a local teacher or the East 

Carolina University. 

y Develop an environmental education activity lesson that incorporates the New Holland 

Trail and or wildlife drive area. Include a defined outcome of the activity, including a brief 

discussion with a refuge employee. Consider contracting with a local teacher or East 

Carolina University. 

y Make these afore-mentioned activities available on the Internet. 

y After the above materials have been developed, partner with Alligator River NWR or East 

Carolina University to develop an annual teacher workshop. 

y Expand the group of volunteers available to provide environmental education 

programs/tours on or off the refuge. 

y Collaborate with NCWRC, the new owners of the lodge, to develop and support 

environmental education and interpretation activities, displays, brochures, and related 

initiatives which are featured as a part of the lodge. 

y Annually, serve as host to and assist with a Nature Week sponsored by the Hyde County 

Extension Service and an Environmental Field Day sponsored by the Hyde County Soil 

and Water Conservation District. 

Objective 4-5: Interpretation – Expand number of interpretation opportunities to approximately 

15,000 by adding kiosks, annually revised brochures, and interpretive signage along wildlife drive and 

the New Holland boardwalk trail. Open and staff visitor contact station with volunteer(s) on 

weekends. 

Discussion: Because the refuge does not have a visitor services’ specialist on staff, there are few 

staff-led interpretive programs offered to the public. Interpretive opportunities include the availability 

of interpretive materials in the visitor contact area of the office, such as photographs, maps, and 

taxidermy mounts. There is a 6-panel kiosk at the entrance to the headquarters with information 

about the refuge and the Refuge System. At the observation point on Highway 94, there is a panel 

on the observation deck with information about waterfowl. At the parking area for the observation 

deck, there is a 3-panel kiosk with information about Mattamuskeet NWR and other refuges in the 

area that have been designated as part of the Kuralt Trail. 

Strategies: 

y Work with graphics contractor to update the information on the Kuralt Trail panels. 

y Develop some interpretive/information panels on the back section of the wildlife drive. 

y Develop a 5- to 10-minute refuge-specific video to be used in the headquarters lobby area. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

y Use signs and exhibits to interpret the following topics for the refuge: 

 - Habitat management 

 - Refuge 

 - Refuge System (What is a National Wildlife Refuge?) 

 - USFWS 

 - Wildlife First 

 - Waterfowl 

 - Wildlife other than waterfowl 

 - Lake level and importance to the habitat 

 - Interdependence of lake life (include plants) 

 - Information about crabs, crabbing, and why the harvest is limited 

y Consider placing interpretive signs in the following locations: 

- The visitor contact area of the new headquarters 

- The Entrance Road kiosk site 

- At Lake Landing Area have interpretive panel about the impoundments and water 

 management as part of habitat management 

- At Rose Bay Parking or Sandy Dike Road area install a panel about fishing and the 

 other priority uses and management for these uses 

y Install a panel about swans and waterfowl at the Highway 94 observation deck or a foursided revolving panel with information about the four seasons. 

y Place interpretive panels along the New Holland Trail about the habitat and how it 

supports migratory songbirds, wood ducks, and other wildlife. 

y Continue to conduct interpretive tours during the December Open House and one per 

week from November through February, and other times as appropriate. Consider two 

tours per week during the winter months if staff is available and the second tour of the 

week will not cause a large waterfowl concentration to be disturbed in the same area more 

than once a week. 

y Continue to conduct youth hunter orientation associated with a two-day youth waterfowl 

hunt. 

y Maintain two information kiosks to inform the public about the refuge and its resources. 

y Maintain a visitor contact station with a brochure rack and wildlife exhibits in the refuge 

office. 

y Revise one refuge brochure annually. 

y Provide a visitor contact area with displays in a new office or a visitor center. 

y Staff the visitor contact area on weekends with volunteers or work campers. 

Objective 4-6: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Continue to provide about 90,000 viewing 

and photography opportunities annually by maintaining boardwalk, fishing piers, observation decks, 

photo blind, and wildlife drive. In addition, reinstall eight-mile canoe and kayak loop trail and 

construct one photo-blind. 
86 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: The refuge has changed the location of the wildlife drive with the proposed option of 

opening a new drive closer to the headquarters. The new drive is approximately 1.5 miles in length 

and provides viewing access to wetlands managed by the refuge. The previous wildlife drive also 

provides access to the duck hunting blinds and is closed to the rest of the public when in use by 

hunters. The relocation of this drive provided year-round access. The wildlife drive will eventually 

provide pull-offs and overlooks for the public to use for wildlife observation and wildlife photography. 

The previous wildlife drive was renamed East Canal Road. East Canal Road provides access to the 

New Holland Boardwalk Trail and the photo blind. The trailhead provides a kiosk with a map of the 

trail and other information. The trail has benches for visitors to use during wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography. 

The Rose Bay Area is accessible via hiking trails year-round. The trail is three miles long one way, 

ending at a viewing area of the lake. This location offers a solitary experience with good wildlife 

viewing and photography opportunities along the canal and the lake. Lake Landing Area offers hiking 

access from March 1 – November 1. This area also provides several miles of hiking trails with 

opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography. 

The refuge photo blind is open on a first-come basis with a sign post displaying if the blind is currently 

in use. The blind is well-constructed, offering concealment and appropriate openings for 

photographing wildlife. 

There is a wildlife observation area off Highway 94. The observation area is constructed over the 

lake with an elevated boardwalk leading the visitors to the observation platform. The platform is 

equipped with a viewing scope designed for use by both children and adults. The boardwalk has a 

gentle grade, making it accessible to individuals with disabilities; however, the parking area has no 

accessible parking spaces or concrete sidewalk to the boardwalk. There is a kiosk providing 

orientation and interpretation. 

The current refuge wildlife/bird list was last updated in 2007. The refuge general brochure, updated 

in 1998, provides a general map of the entire refuge, which shows approximate locations for the 

wildlife drive, observation area, and various trails (levees). The map will need to be improved in the 

future to accurately depict the location of the New Holland Trail, fishing piers, trails on levees, photo 

blind, new headquarters, and new wildlife drive. 

Strategies: 

Entrance Road

y Construct a wildlife viewing platform at the current visitor pull-off on the Entrance Road. 

Also install interpretive panels and a spotting scope. 

y Consider paving or otherwise surfacing Entrance Road to reduce dust levels. 

Wildlife Drive

y Construct a new wildlife viewing platform with interpretive displays midway along the new 

Wildlife Drive. Also construct a shallow 1/4th-acre pond in the marsh in front of the viewing 

platform location to create deepwater habitat for turtle and wading bird use in the summer, 

and to provide fill needed to create a vehicle parking pull-off for the viewing platform. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

New Holland Trail

y Place directional signs at the points where trail returns to the photo blind trail. 

y Keep the cypress needles cleared off the New Holland Trail boardwalk. 

Other

y Construct a 130-foot boardwalk trail and viewing platform at the end of East Canal Road to 

allow visitors to experience Fisher Slough, a natural open water wetland adjacent to Lake 

Mattamuskeet. 

y Make sure observation spots and photo blinds are noted on the general brochure and tear 

sheet map. 

y Continue to participate in Wings over Water. 

y Keep vegetation cut in front of photo blind. 

y Add logs and a perch area in front of photo blind to create resting areas. 

y Provide information in brochures and website about seasonal viewing opportunities. 

y Put brief information in the brochure about the hiking opportunities at Rose Bay Area and 

Sandy Dike Road as places for wildlife observation and solitude. 

y Post refuge wildlife list on website. 

y Move the gate on East Canal Road to the bridge area so that visitors can access the trail 

and photo blind when the area is closed for hunting. 

y Promote the hunting blinds as seasonal observation/photo blinds. 

y Add a parking area for visitors with disabilities at the Highway 94 Observation deck. 

y Have a quarterly wildlife observation tour. 

y Expand volunteer group so that it can lead wildlife observation tours, allowing tours to be 

conducted on a regular basis. 

y Work with Partnership for the Sounds and other non-profit groups to have an annual photo 

contest and display the winning photos on the website and at the office. 

y Construct one additional photo blind. 

Objective 4-6: Commercial Ecotours – Continue to cooperate with partners to encourage 

commercial ecotours on the refuge. 

Discussion: The Draft CCP/EA maintains the current management by evaluating permits as 

applications are received and evaluating the impacts of the ecotour activity. In general, the refuge 

looks positively at commercial ecotours as a way of expanding opportunities for wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 
88 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategy: 

y Review and evaluate proposed activities on a case-by-case basis. 

Objective 4-7: Outreach – Increase outreach by increasing number of off-refuge programs, issuing 

6-12 news releases annually, and annually updating refuge website. 

Discussion: As with the environmental education program, outreach remains a challenge for the 

staff as there is no refuge outreach plan and no staff person to implement the program. 

In support of the area Wings over Water event, refuge staff offer refuge tours during the first week of 

November. The refuge provides an annual Open House and Wildlife Tours the first Saturday in 

December. The refuge also hosts one annual fishing tournament in Lake Mattamuskeet and one 

horse trail ride, both of which are sponsored by local nonprofit organizations. 

The refuge primarily uses two local newspapers, the Coastland Times and the Washington Post. It is 

a challenge to nurture and maintain relationships with staff at these newspapers because of turnover. 

The refuge website is currently kept up-to-date by Alligator River NWR staff. Channel 7 news out of 

Washington, North Carolina, provides television coverage for the refuge. 

The Draft CCP/EA is an improvement on the current management because it provides for an increase 

in the outreach audience and improvement in the quality of outreach tools. It provides for an 

extensive use of the Internet as an outreach tool. The addition of a park ranger for public use and an 

office clerk will facilitate the increases in outreach. 

Strategies: 

y Work with existing non-profit partners to include messages about the refuge in their 

materials and programs. 

y Represent the refuge in contact with the general public on a daily basis. 

y Respond to daily requests from the public about refuge activities and resources. 

y Continue to conduct an annual open house and tours to view wintering waterfowl. 

y Present programs off the refuge six times a year. 

y Issue up to ten news releases annually. 

y Participate in at least two outreach initiatives annually. 

y Cooperate with print and video media to promote refuge activities. 

y Maintain an Internet web site and update annually. 

y Host an annual Chamber of Commerce meeting to include a field day tour of the refuge. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

y Continue to provide information to the community about the management of the lake 

water, over which the refuge currently has no control. Identify places in the community 

where this information, in the form of brochures or information panels, may be displayed.

y Work with staff to assess opportunities to participate at local and regional community 

festivals/events: 

a) Determine level of participation. 

b) Determine which festival/event will be most appropriate. 

c) Participate at determined level. 

y Establish and maintain good media contacts with the two local newspapers or any other 

media contacts, such as radio and TV stations which reach current and potential visitors. 

y Continue to be a member of the Hyde County Chamber of Commerce. 

y When the Mattamuskeet Lodge is reopened, partner with local community, NCWRC, and 

Partnership for the Sounds to hold annual wildlife festival (e.g., Swan Days). 

y Find a volunteer to work with the refuge staff to implement a monthly refuge article in the 

local newspapers. (Volunteer could be from Partnership for the Sound or Mattamuskeet 

Foundation.) 

y Have the planning contractor provide quarterly updates on the status of the planning 

process. This could be published on refuge website and/or as a news release. 

y Keep the website updated on a regular basis. Some links are confusing because they 

move back and forth between Mattamuskeet and other North Carolina refuges. Often it is 

unclear which refuge is being discussed. 

y Maintain regular contact with local congressional staffers. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal 5: Provide adequate staff, equipment, facilities, and funding to accomplish refuge goals and 

objectives while encouraging cooperative efforts with other agencies, NGOs, universities, volunteers, 

and other partners. 

Objective 5-1: Staff – Maintain eight FTEs (full-time equivalent positions), including refuge manager, 

deputy manager, office support assistant, shared law enforcement officer, heavy mobile equipment 

mechanic, engineering equipment operator, maintenance mechanic, and forestry 

technician/firefighter. Add one FTE biologist, one FTE refuge operations specialist, one maintenance 

worker, one park ranger, and replace the shared law enforcement officer with an officer dedicated to 

the Mattamuskeet Complex , all for a total of 12 FTEs. 

Discussion: As noted in a number of places in this chapter, the existing staff of eight FTE’s is 

insufficient for carrying out all of the functions needed to fully implement the CCP. Filling the 

additional positions recommended will enable Mattamuskeet NWR to fulfill the purposes for which it 

was established, as well as implementing the many objectives and strategies proposed in this CCP to 

meet the refuge’s goals. 
90 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y The biologist’s duties will entail working on a number of the objectives and strategies listed 

under the fish and wildlife population and habitat management goals. 

y The refuge operations specialist’s duties will encompass all five of the Draft CCP’s goals. This 

individual will work closely with and under the supervision of the refuge manager. The individual 

will also serve in a manager training position, which is an important Service-wide need. 

y The maintenance worker’s duties will relate primarily to the habitat management and 

refuge administration goals. 

y The park ranger’s duties will primarily entail implementation of the objectives and 

strategies under the visitor services’ goal. 

y The dedicated law enforcement officer’s duties will focus on the resource protection and 

visitor services’ goals of the Mattamuskeet NWR Complex. 

y Manage personnel for maximum performance and efficiency. 

y Recognize employee performance annually through the employee incentive program. 

y Provide staff with professional, technical, and leadership development training mandated 

by Service policy. 

Objective 5-2: Facilities – By 2010, construct and open new refuge headquarters/visitor contact 

station and new maintenance workshop, and replace two staff houses. In addition, replace two 

additional staff houses by 2015. 

Discussion: In the upcoming years, the Mattamuskeet Lodge and refuge headquarters area, 

including the office and visitor contact station, maintenance workshop, equipment storage yard, and 

refuge staff housing, will be undergoing major changes. The current office is under-sized even for 

today’s downsized staff levels, and relies on the use of an attached trailer. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain and properly store equipment to ensure the safety of the refuge staff and the public. 

y Conduct real (infrastructure) and personal (equipment) property inventories annually. 

y Replace the minimum property necessary to meet the refuge needs; dispose of excess 

property in a timely fashion. 

y Work closely with architects, engineers, and construction contractors, and the Regional 

Office during facility design and construction to ensure that new facilities will meet refuge 

needs, plans, and specifications, including adequate office space for meetings and public 

display areas. 

y Maintain the facilities according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, equipment 

manufacturers’ recommendations, and hazardous materials handling guidelines. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

Objective 5-3: Partnerships – Continue to partner with NCWRC, Partnership for the Sounds, TNC, 

Mattamuskeet Foundation, Hyde County, Ducks Unlimited, East Carolina University, North Carolina 

Department of Corrections, and 10 volunteers. Within 15 years of CCP approval, establish a Friends 

Group at Mattamuskeet NWR and increase number of volunteers and interns. Institute work camper 

program and provide two pads with hookups for recreational vehicles. 

Discussion: The refuge manager is a member of the Chamber of Commerce, the most active 

economic promotional group in Hyde County. The refuge has a close partnership with Ducks 

Unlimited. In the recent past, Ducks Unlimited has generously donated hundreds of thousands of 

dollars for the replacement and installation of moist-soil impoundment pumping stations. The 

refuge has formal agreements with Partnership for the Sounds and the Mattamuskeet Foundation. 

The refuge manager serves in an ex-officio status with Partnership for the Sounds. In the past, the 

Partnership for the Sounds has assisted with refuge projects, such as the New Holland Trail 

boardwalk and the new Wildlife Drive. In an agreement with the Partnership for the Sounds, 40 

percent of proceeds from the sale of the Mattamuskeet DVD will be donated to the refuge. The 

refuge has a good working relationship with the Hyde County Waterfowl Association. In a show of 

appreciation, the Waterfowl Association held a picnic at the lodge for refuge staff and supporters. 

In the spring, the refuge hosts a horseback riding tour sponsored by a local non-profit organization; 

in 2006, there were 200 participants. 

Refuge management requires an extraordinary amount of coordination because the refuge 

administers a lake that affects the hydrology of a large area around the refuge, and the lake provides 

recreation for 130,000 visitors. The refuge is in close proximity to the Swanquarter NWR and 

Gullrock State Game Land. 

Shortages of staff and funding can sometimes be met through programs that involve partnerships, 

such as volunteer programs, refuge support groups, and cooperating associations. Although 

volunteer programs require an intense amount of staff time initially, once they are operating, the staff 

time is substantially reduced, and the benefits far outweigh the initial and continued investment. 

Volunteers possess knowledge, skills, and abilities that can enhance the scope of field station 

operations, such as providing additional visitor services through interpretive programs and 

demonstrations, or organizing special events. Refuge support groups and cooperating associations 

can provide additional funding sources for a variety of projects and programs that are usually related 

to, but not limited to, improving visitor services. 

At present, the refuge manages a minimal volunteer program. The permanent loss of the biologist 

position has greatly reduced the volunteer program, since the biologist managed the visitor services’ and 

volunteer programs for the refuge. Volunteers must sometimes travel great distances to reach the refuge 

and there is not adequate housing for staff or volunteers in nearby communities. Volunteers and interns 

are currently offered the use of a vacant refuge residence, or for short stays, a residential trailer on the 

refuge, which is supplied by East Carolina University and is often available. However, the refuge 

residence may not be available if a refuge biologist is hired and the university facility is planned for 

removal; it will be replaced by camper pads for resident volunteers who will be managed by the refuge. 

There may possibly be lodging available for volunteers in the Mattamuskeet Lodge once renovation is 

completed, depending on the type of programs and facilities instituted by the NCWRC 

The Partnership for the Sounds and the Mattamuskeet Foundation are non-profit “Friends Groups” 

that contribute to the refuge. Priorities (missions) of these groups are different than refuge priorities, 

but match some of the needs of the refuge, including environmental education and interpretation and 

increased opportunities for ecotourism. There is a Memorandum of Agreement with Partnership for 
92 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

the Sounds and there are plans to develop a similar agreement with the Mattamuskeet Foundation. 

The Mattamuskeet Foundation recently funded the development of a video of the refuge; proceeds 

will go towards environmental education in local schools. 

 

Strategies: 

y Continue coordination with the Partnership for the Sounds, North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission, East Carolina University, Mattamuskeet schools, and other local, 

state, and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations to conduct refuge 

operations, research, environmental education, and fire management. 

y Maintain formal and informal communication with cooperating agencies and organizations. 

y Develop cooperative agreements as necessary to support coordination with agencies and 

organizations. 

y Assign a staff person to be in charge of the volunteer program and send this individual to 

volunteer training. 

y Develop a volunteer plan. 

a) Work with staff to identify ways that volunteers can assist with work (especially 

projects and jobs that would not require a lot of staff oversight). 

b) Develop brief job descriptions of the work. 

c) Recruit volunteers to assist with the work. 

y Contact the Service’s Regional Volunteer Coordinator for assistance. 

y Develop trailer pads for volunteers and initiate a work camper program. 

y Use volunteers to provide visitor contact at the office and during weekends. 

y Expand volunteer group to provide more refuge tours. 

y Potential sources for recruiting volunteers: 

 - State retired teachers association 

 - AmeriCorps 

 - Elderhostel 

 - School clubs 

 - Volunteer.gov 

 - Mattamuskeet Foundation 

 - Partnership for the Sounds 

 - Civic groups 

 - Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts 

 - Conservation organizations 

 - National work camper websites and newsletters 

 

y Update the agreements with Partnership for the Sound and the Mattamuskeet Foundation 

to specifically explain the relationship including what happens to the income from sales 

items at the office. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

y Develop a Friends Group with focus specific to Mattamuskeet NWR. 

y Develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the state regarding the operation of 

the lodge as it relates to visitor services. 

y Develop a facilities list and work with local groups to “adopt” a facility to maintain. 
94 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the Improvement Act. Congress has distinguished a 

clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national wildlife refuges. National wildlife 

refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation of the Nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Priority projects emphasize the protection and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, but considerable emphasis is placed on 

balancing the needs and demands for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this Draft CCP/EA for 

Mattamuskeet NWR, this section identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, 

partnerships opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management 

plan, and CCP review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their associated costs for fish and wildlife 

population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge 

administration over the next 15 years. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs 

identified by the public, planning team, and refuge staff based upon available information. 

These projects were generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and 

strategies. The projects are listed in Table 14. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Project: 97002 

First-Year Request: $150,000; Recurring Request: $10,000 

Station Rank – 4 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Conduct four biological research studies to improve resource management on all three refuges 

(Mattamuskeet/Cedar Island/Swanquarter). The studies are (1) analyzing specific needs and use 

patterns of declining neotropical birds on all three refuges; (2) analyzing the effects of aluminum 

flap gates and experimental fish weirs, installed in water control structures, to permit the passage 

of fish into the lake. This could lead to recommendations for improvements to benefit 

anadromous fishes; (3) analyzing water quality, particularly its impacts on fish, vegetation, and 

waterfowl; and (4) evaluate the effects of fire in marsh habitats on plants and wildlife. Results of 

the studies will be used to determine management practices that will benefit habitat quality and 

wildlife. Funding will be used to contract with universities or other research entities to conduct 

the studies and make management recommendations. 

Project: 00006 

First-Year Request: $90,000; Recurring Request: $5,000 

Station Rank – 5 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Conduct a food habitats study for wintering waterfowl on Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter and Cedar 

Island NWRs. This study will analyze the food habitats in natural and managed wetlands. A current 

understanding of waterfowl food habitats on the wintering grounds is critically needed to make wise 
96 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 14. Summary of projects 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST 

STAFF (FTE’S) 

Tier I RONS projects 

97009 Control Invasive Phragmites and 

Alligatorweed $377K $44K 0 

00005 Conduct Biological and Aquatic 

Study of Lake Mattamuskeet $118K $12K 0 

Tier II RONS projects 

97004 Improve Moist Soil Management $301K $11K 0 

97003 Improve Water Management on 

Lake Mattamuskeet and 11 

Impoundments 

$133K $68K 1 

00003 Increase Law Enforcement 

Capabilities and Public Safety $38K $8K 0 

97002 Conduct Four Biological Studies to 

Improve Management Techniques $160K $10K 0 

00006 Conduct Waterfowl Food Studies 

on Three National Wildlife Refuges $95K $5K 0 

97023 Enhance Environmental Education 

and Outreach Programs $133K $68K 1 

97028 Develop Conceptual Site and 

Exhibit Plans $192K $0 0 

00007 Acquire High Resolution Aerial 

Photographs for Three National 

Wildlife Refuges 

$50K $0 0 

99005 Improve Management and 

Protection of Farm Service Agency 

Easements 

$76.5K $29K 0.5 

00017 Conduct a Cultural Resource 

Survey $100K $0 0 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

habitat management and restoration decisions. The existing information on waterfowl habitats is 

several decades old and in need of updating. Equipment is available, but a temporary technician and 

a contractor to identify food items are needed to conduct this study. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Project: 00005 

First-Year Request: $106,000; Recurring Request: $12,000 

Station Rank – 2 (Mattamuskeet Tier 1) 

Conduct a study of fish communities, aquatic organisms, and water quality in the 40,000-acre Lake 

Mattamuskeet, North Carolina's largest natural lake. The 50,180-acre refuge winters 125,000 to 

200,000 birds annually, mostly waterfowl, including about 30 percent of the Atlantic population of 

tundra swans. These migratory birds are very dependent on the refuge lake and surrounding 

habitats. This study will assess the health of the lake's fishery, document the status of other aquatic 

organisms, and analyze water quality (salinity, dissolved oxygen, pollutants, toxins). The shallow 

nature of Lake Mattamuskeet and the recent shift in local agricultural practices to cotton farming 

(which requires a significant use of pesticides) warrant this study. The purpose of the study is to 

collect essential data needed to assess and monitor the health of this significant lake basin and to 

identify any existing and potential impacts to refuge wildlife and habitat. 

Project: 97004 

First-Year Request: $290,000; Recurring Request: $11,000 

Station Rank – 1 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Improve management capabilities for 2,100 acres of moist-soil units. This will be achieved by 

purchasing equipment to properly manage the units and constructing a pumping station at MI-9. 

Equipment needs include an offset disc and excavator for moist-soil management. Supplies for the 

MI-9 pumping station include a 30" low-lift pump, a diesel motor power unit, and materials needed to 

fabricate the pump station and shed. Mattamuskeet NWR has nine impoundments (2,100 acres) 

managed as moist-soil units to provide habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wildlife. These 

moist-soil areas comprise only 5 percent of the refuge's land base, but account for a significant 

proportion of waterfowl use. Mattamuskeet NWR is one of the most important wintering areas for 

waterfowl along the Atlantic Flyway, especially for northern pintails and tundra swans. 

Project: 97003 

First-Year Request: $65,000; Recurring Request: $68,000 

Station Rank – 2 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Improve water level manipulation capabilities of Lake Mattamuskeet (40,000 acres) and 11 managed 

impoundments (2,648 acres). Some impoundments are not properly managed each year due to time 

and staff restraints. The addition of a biological technician will increase management capabilities and 

maximize the benefits of the lake and impoundments. Proper water level management is crucial to 

the production of plants that provide food and cover to sustain waterfowl and other migratory birds 

during the winter and migration periods. This position will monitor water levels, operate and maintain 

pumps, regulate water control structures, and maintain dikes. This complexity of wetlands provides 

feeding and resting habitat for 125,000-175,000 wintering waterfowl each year, as well as other 

migratory birds and resident wildlife. Mattamuskeet NWR is one of the largest over-wintering areas 

for northern pintails and tundra swans in the Atlantic Flyway. 
98 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Project: 97009 

First-Year Request: $333,000, Recurring Request: $44,000 

Station Rank – 1 (Mattamuskeet Tier 1) 

Enhance wetland habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds by controlling two invasive plant 

species: Phragmites and Alligatorweed. These two invasive plants readily out-compete desirable 

wetland plant species, resulting in degraded habitat that is less attractive to migratory birds. An 

existing herbicide treatment program for Phragmites needs to be expanded by 25 percent. Also, to 

reduce the program's dependence on toxic chemicals, a mechanical treatment option needs to be 

implemented. A specialized marsh vehicle (with a hydraulic-driven mower or a roller chopper head) is 

needed to mechanically control Phragmites in the marsh areas of Lake Mattamuskeet. Herbicide 

chemicals are also needed to treat Alligatorweed. The project includes a storage building (approved 

for herbicide and toxic chemicals) to comply with current safety and environmental standards. 

Project: 00003 

First-Year Request: $30,000; Recurring Request: $8,000 

Station Rank – 3 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Improve law enforcement capabilities to protect wildlife, facilities, and visitor safety. Current law 

enforcement equipment is not sufficient to deal with problems that occur on the refuge. New 

supplies will be purchased to provide the law enforcement staff with equipment that will increase 

officer safety and the effectiveness of their activities. Equipment, such as night vision scopes, 

surveillance cameras, field test kits for drugs and alcohol, lockers, etc., will be used to document 

violations. The lockers are needed to properly secure evidence, abandoned property, and law 

enforcement equipment. 

Project: 00007 

First-Year Request: $50,000; Recurring Request: $0 

Station Rank – 8 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Acquire a complete updated set of high resolution aerial photographs for Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter 

and Cedar Island NWRs. The photographs are needed to assess habitat types for management 

decision-making purposes. The maps will help in tracking invasive plant species and monitoring the 

effectiveness of various treatments to eradicate and control their spread. The current conventional 

sources of photographs are outdated and have limited value for reference. 

Project: 99005 

First-Year Request: $47,500; Recurring Request: $29,000 

Station Rank – 9 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Improve protection and management of Farm Service Agency easements. Mattamuskeet NWR is 

assigned the responsibility of managing 14 Farm Service Agency easements located on private 

lands. The easements, totaling 623 acres, are scattered throughout seven counties. The refuge has 

a legal mandate to protect the easements. Annual inspections need to be made to ensure 

compliance by the landowners. Habitat work can also be done to improve to easements for wildlife. 

The easements do not receive the attention they need, due to other refuge priorities and limited 

resources. This project will provide a part-time biological technician to write a habitat management 

plan for each easement, conduct annual compliance checks, and implement management to improve 

wildlife habitat. The easements are considered part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

Project: 00017 

First-Year Request: $100,000; Recurring Request: $0 

Station Rank – 10 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Conduct a comprehensive cultural resource survey and literature and background search on 

Mattamuskeet NWR. A limited survey and search was done in 1978. This survey only concentrated 

on development sites. The original survey report suggested that 460 acres of the refuge contained 

possible prehistoric sites and recommended additional surveys. An intensive survey is needed to 

complete the cultural resource inventory. The work will be accomplished under contract. This 

information is needed to protect areas of significant cultural importance. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Project: 97023 

First-Year Request: $65,000; Recurring Request: $68,000 

Station Rank – 6 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Increase environmental education, outreach, and public use programs by hiring an environmental 

education specialist. The specialist will coordinate and expand ongoing educational activities with the 

Partnership for the Sounds, East Carolina University, and other environmental and educational 

groups. Environmental programs and workshops will be presented at the Mattamuskeet Lodge and 

at off-refuge locations. Off-site exhibits, outreach videos, and informational leaflets will be developed 

and presented to the public in various ways. News releases highlighting refuge and ecological events 

will be made available to media on a regular basis. Filling this position will assist in the public 

becoming aware of the Service, the refuge, and the ecosystem system. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Project: 97028 

First-Year Request: $192,000; Recurring Request: $0 

Station Rank – 7 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Develop concept plans for future interpretive facilities and visitor center exhibits. The plans will locate 

appropriate sites for trails, boardwalks, observation areas and other interpretive facilities. The types 

of interpretive facilities which are needed will be addressed. The scope and types of future visitor 

center exhibits will be developed. The plans will provide information and details needed to develop 

future public use facilities and provide adequate cost estimates for planning purposes. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Currently, the Service has approved a staff of nine permanent positions for the refuge to serve 

Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island NWRs (Figure 6). Of the nine positions, eight 

full-time equivalents (FTEs) are located at Mattamuskeet NWR. Of the nine positions, one is 

funded for fire management. 
100 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

This Draft CCP/EA recommends adding another 4.5 FTE positions to existing staff for a total of 12 

positions (Figure 7). Added will be one biologist, one refuge operations specialist, one maintenance 

worker, one park ranger, and one dedicated law enforcement officer (officer is currently shared with 

Pocosin Lakes NWR). The biologist will focus primarily on wildlife, fisheries, and habitat objectives 

and projects. The refuge operations specialist will assist the deputy refuge manager on all aspects of 

refuge management. The maintenance worker will be involved with habitat management (e.g., moistsoil units) and maintenance and upkeep of facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and other structures and 

infrastructure). The park ranger position will be crucial to our expanded visitor services, including 

education and outreach. The dedicated law enforcement officer will enable the refuge to improve 

protection of natural and cultural resources, while providing greater security and safety for staff and 

the visiting public. The law enforcement officer will provide a law enforcement presence during 

hunting and fishing seasons, and thus reduce the probability and severity of violations. 

PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEERS OPPORTUNITIES 

A key element of this Draft CCP/EA is to establish partnerships with local volunteers, landowners, 

private organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. In the immediate vicinity of 

the refuge, opportunities exist to fortify partnerships with Friends of Mattamuskeet Lodge and the 

Partnership for the Sounds, as well as sporting clubs, elementary and secondary schools, and 

community organizations. At regional and state levels, partnerships may be established or enhanced 

with organizations such as East Carolina University, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, the 

Audubon Society, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North Carolina Division 

of Marine Fisheries. 

The refuge depends on volunteers extensively, especially for its biological program. Volunteers 

currently contribute 1,000 staff hours annually; this Draft CCP/EA anticipates even greater 

contributions of time. The refuge utilizes volunteers from the community and college interns. College 

interns rotate through work assignments in the visitor services, biology, and maintenance programs. 

The refuge provides quarters for college interns. 

The refuge volunteer program and other partnerships generated would depend upon the number of 

staff positions the Service provides the refuge. As the Service commits staff and resources to the 

refuge, the refuge will take the opportunity to expand the volunteer program and to develop and 

deepen partnerships. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Figure 6. Current staffing chart of Mattamuskeet Refuge 

Figure 7. Proposed future staffing chart of Mattamuskeet Refuge 

Refuge 

Manager 

GS-13 

Admin. 

Support 

Assistant 

GS-9 

Deputy Refuge 

Manager 

GS-12 

Park Ranger 

(LE) 

GS-09 

Engineering 

Equipment 

Operator 

WG-10 

Heavy Mobile 

Equipment 

Mechanic 

WG-10 

Forestry 

Technician 

GS-05 

Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-10 

Refuge 

Manager 

GS-13 

Admin. 

Support 

Assistant 

GS-09 

Deputy Refuge 

Manager 

GS-12 

Park Ranger 

(LE) 

GS-09 

Engineering 

Equipment 

Operator 

WG-10 

Heavy Mobile 

Equipment 

Mechanic 

WG-10 

Forestry 

Technician 

(Fire) 

GS-05 

Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-10 

Refuge Operations 

Specialist 

GS-7/9 

Park 

Ranger 

GS-07 

Biologist 

GS-11/12 

Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-08 
102 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the direction of the refuge. A step-down management plan 

provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services. These plans 

(Table 15) are also developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which 

requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior 

to their implementation. 

Table 15. Refuge step-down management plans 

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan (Develop): This plan will 

describe inventory and monitoring techniques and time frames. The 

staff will inventory all plant communities and associations in the 

refuge, as well as all trust species (migratory birds including 

songbirds, neotropical passerines, and waterfowl), listed species 

(federal and state threatened, endangered, and species of concern), 

key resident species, and monitor population trends. 

2013 

Habitat Management Plan (Develop): This plan will describe the 

overall desired future habitat conditions needed to fulfill the refuge’s 

purpose and objectives. The plan will include sections dealing with 

each habitat on the refuge. The staff will develop procedures, 

techniques, strategies, and timetables for achieving desired future 

conditions in an overall plan. 

2013 

Moist-Soil/Water Management Plan (Update): This plan will 

describe the strategies and procedures (timing and duration of 

flooding and disturbance) for manipulating the refuge’s water 

management units to meet habitat management objectives. 

2012 

Marsh Management Plan (Develop): This plan will describe 

strategies for meeting refuge marsh management objectives. Also 

the plan will address scrub/shrub habitat management. 2014 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (Develop): This plan will 

address the complex issue of bringing exotic and nuisance plants 

and animals to a maintenance control level on the refuge. It will 

cover chemical pesticide use (aerial and ground application), 

mechanical eradication, and biological controls. The Nuisance/Exotic 

Animal and Plant control plans will be sections of this plan. 

2016 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Nuisance/Exotic Animal Control Plan (Update): This plan (as part 

of the Integrated Pest Management Plan) will describe survey, 

removal or control, and monitoring techniques for both terrestrial and 

aquatic nuisance and exotic animals (vertebrate and invertebrate). 

The plan will include wild dogs, feral cats, nutria, feral swine, and 

resident Canada geese. 

2012 

Nuisance/Exotic Plant Control Plan (Develop): This plan (as part 

of the Integrated Pest Management Plan) will describe survey, 

removal or control, and monitoring techniques for both terrestrial and 

aquatic nuisance and exotic plants. 

2016 

Fire Management Plan (Update): This plan will describe wildland 

fire and prescribed fire management techniques that the staff will 

employ on the refuge. Wildfire control descriptions will include initial 

attack strategies and cooperative agreements with other agencies. 

2014 

Visitor Services Plan (Develop): This plan will describe the 

refuge’s wildlife-dependent recreation, and environmental education 

and interpretation programs. It will address specific issues or items, 

such as access, facility requirements, site plans, and handicapped 

accessibility. The environmental education, fishing, hunting, and sign 

plans will be sections of this plan. 

2013 

Environmental Education Plan (Develop): This plan will reflect the 

objectives and strategies of the CCP and address environmental 

education guidelines following Service standards. 2016 

Fishing Plan (Update): This plan (as part of the Visitor Services’ 

Plan) will address specific aspects of the refuge’s fishing program. It 

will define season structures, fishing areas, methods, access, 

handicapped accessibility, facilities needed, and refuge-specific 

regulations. 

2010 

Hunting Plan (Update): This plan will address any proposed 

changes to the hunting program prior to actual implementation, such 

as a new archery deer hunt, expanded gun deer hunts, or other 

major changes. 

2012 
104 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Sign Plan (Update): This plan (as part of the Visitor Services’ Plan) 

will describe the refuge’s strategy for informing visitors via signage. 

It will incorporate Service guidelines. 

2010 

Law Enforcement Plan (Update): This plan will provide a reference 

to station policies, procedures, priorities, and programs concerning 

law enforcement. 

2010 

Cultural Resources Management Plan (Develop): This plan will 

develop overall guidance for the management of all cultural and 

historical resources on the refuge. 

2023 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven 

experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation 

activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The CCP will be reviewed annually as the refuge’s annual work plans and budgets are developed. It 

will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if and when conditions 

change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological conditions or a 

major refuge expansion. The CCP will be augmented by detailed step-down management plans to 

address the completion of specific strategies in support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. 

Revisions to the CCP and the step-down management plans will be subject to public review and 

NEPA compliance. 
Environmental Assessment 105

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge (Mattamuskeet NWR) in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Improvement Act). The Improvement Act requires the development of a comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) for each refuge. Following a public review and comment period on the Draft 

CCP, a final decision will be made by the Service that will guide Mattamuskeet NWR’s management 

actions and decisions over the next 15 years, provide understanding about the refuge and 

management activities, and incorporate information and suggestions from the public and refuge 

partners. 

The Draft CCP proposes a management direction, which is described in detail through a set of goals, 

objectives, and strategies. The Draft CCP addresses current management issues, provides long-term 

management direction and guidance for the refuge, and satisfies the legislative mandates of the 

Improvement Act. While the Draft CCP provides general management direction, subsequent step-down 

plans will provide more detailed management direction and actions. 

The EA determines and evaluates a range of reasonable management alternatives. The intent is to 

support informed decision-making regarding future management of the refuge. Each alternative 

presented in this EA was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP. The 

predicted biological, physical, social, and economical impacts of implementing each alternative are 

analyzed in this EA. This analysis assists the Service in determining if the alternatives represent no 

significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact, or if the 

alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more detailed analysis through an Environmental 

Impact Statement and a Record of Decision. Following public review and comment, the Service will 

select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 

The CCP is needed to address current management issues, to provide long-term management 

direction for the refuge, and to satisfy the legislative mandates of the Improvement Act, which 

requires the preparation of a CCP for all national wildlife refuges. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the EA is to meet the purpose(s) of the refuge and the goals identified in the CCP (for 

which we evaluate each alternative). The purpose is to ensure that Mattamuskeet NWR continues to 

provide habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds; provides habitat for endangered species; and 

provides wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education for the public. This EA 

addresses the need to adopt a 15-year management plan for Mattamuskeet NWR that provides 

guidance for future refuge management and meets the requirements of the Improvement Act. 
106 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Service will select an alternative to 

implement the CCP for Mattamuskeet NWR. The final CCP will include a Finding of No Significant 

Impact, which is a statement explaining why the selected alternative will not have a significant effect 

on the quality of the human environment. This determination is based on an evaluation of the Service 

and Refuge System mission, the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established, and other legal 

mandates. Assuming no significant impact is found, implementation of the CCP will begin and will be 

monitored annually and revised when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Mattamuskeet NWR is located in northeast North Carolina in mainland Hyde County. Pamlico Sound 

lies seven miles to the south and Alligator River lies eight miles to the northeast. The cities of 

Greenville, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia, are the nearest major cities and are located 

85 miles west and 100 miles north of the refuge, respectively. The nearest cities in the area are 

Fairfield, Engelhard, and Swan Quarter. 

The Service presently owns and manages all 50,180 acres within the refuge’s approved acquisition 

boundary. The Service will develop a Land Protection Plan and seek to acquire areas within the new 

approved acquisition boundary if they become available. This EA identifies and evaluates 

management on lands currently owned by the Service. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service developed this Draft CCP in compliance with the Improvement Act and Part 602 of the 

Service Manual (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning). The actions described within this Draft 

CCP/EA also meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The refuge 

staff achieved compliance with this Act through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of 

this EA in the Draft CCP, with a description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the 

environmental consequences of the alternatives (Chapters III and IV in this section). When fully 

implemented, the CCP will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Mattamuskeet NWR. 

When final, the CCP’s overriding consideration will be to carry out the purposes for which the refuge 

was established. The laws that established the refuge and provided the funds for acquisition state 

the purposes. Fish and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the 

Service allows and encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible 

with, or does not detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes. 

COMPATIBILITY 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands 

and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be 

found to be compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In addition, “wildlifedependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not 

inconsistent with public safety.” 
Environmental Assessment 107

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the system, as listed in the 

Improvement Act. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations, 

public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft CCP/EA for 

Mattamuskeet NWR. This Draft CCP/EA has been written with input and assistance from interested 

citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and state agencies. The participation of 

these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management direction for 

Mattamuskeet NWR. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are very grateful to 

each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process. The staff is 

impressed at the commitment and enthusiasm of so many individuals for the lands, waters, and 

wildlife administered by the refuge. 

Public scoping was originally conducted in 2001, and re-initiated in June 2007, after the CCP process 

was temporarily halted. A Biological Review was carried out in July 2002, for all the national wildlife 

refuges, including Mattamuskeet, in the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem of northeastern 

North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. A diverse team of federal and state personnel undertook a 

holistic examination of habitat and wildlife management programs at the refuge. The team then 

considered how the refuge might fit into accomplishing a number of relevant system-wide and 

landscape conservation needs. The team’s recommendations, goals, objectives, and strategies were 

instrumental in the CCP planning process. 

The Visitor Services’ Review was conducted in December 2006, by Service public use and outreach 

specialists from the Service’s Regional Office and two other refuges in Region 4. The review team 

toured the refuge, identified and discussed the current status of public use programs, debated the 

pros and cons of various recommendations for enhancing and improving these programs, and 

prepared a report listing and prioritizing its recommendations. 

The CCP core planning team met for the first time in March 2007, for a tour of the refuge and an overview 

of its habitat and wildlife resources and public use programs, facilities, and opportunities. The core 

planning team also conducted additional internal scoping and prepared a preliminary schedule and plans 

for public involvement. The core team developed a mailing list of the public, landowners, state and tribal 

agencies, non-profit organizations, and local governments. Letters were sent notifying these parties of 

the planning process being initiated, and encouraging their participation in the scoping of issues in 

preparation for developing the Draft CCP/EA for this refuge. 

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) was invited in July 2007, to join the 

planning team tasked with preparing the Draft CCP/EA. The state had earlier participated in the 

Biological Review. Three representatives of the NCWRC contributed to the development of a vision, 

goals, objectives, and management alternatives for the Draft CCP/EA, including the district fishery 

biologist, waterfowl biologist, and a staff person from the Outer Banks Center for Wildlife Education. 

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, East Carolina University, North Carolina 

Cooperative Extensive Service, Partnership for the Sound, and The Nature Conservancy were also 

represented on the CCP planning team and helped draft the vision, goals, objectives, and 

management alternatives for the Mattamuskeet NWR Draft CCP/EA. 
108 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

A complete summary of the issues and concerns is provided in Appendix D. 
Environmental Assessment 109

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment of Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, see Section 

A, Chapter II, Refuge Overview. 
110 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 111

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge's purpose and vision, and the goals identified in the Draft CCP; the 

priorities and goals of the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem Team; the goals of the Refuge 

System; and the mission of the Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the significant issues, 

concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the public during public scoping. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection, restoration, and management of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other 

resources, as well as compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Refuge staff assessed the biological 

conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the 

development of refuge goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the alternatives. As a result, each 

alternative presents different sets of objectives for reaching refuge goals. Each alternative was evaluated 

based on how much progress it would make and how it would address the identified issues related to fish 

and wildlife populations, habitat management, resource protection and conservation, visitor services, and 

refuge administration. A summary of the three alternatives is provided in Table 16. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals and sets of objectives were developed to 

help achieve the refuge’s purpose and the mission of the Refuge System. Objectives are desired 

conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into three 

alternatives. These alternatives represent different management approaches for managing the 

refuge over a 15-year time frame while still meeting the refuge purposes and goals. The three 

alternatives are summarized below. A comparison of each alternative follows the general description. 

ALTERNATIVE A - CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

This alternative represents the status quo; i.e., no change from current management of the refuge. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would pursue the Fish and Wildlife Population Management goal of

maintaining, enhancing, and where necessary, restoring healthy populations of migratory birds, 

wildlife, and fish, including federal and state threatened and endangered species. During fall and 

winter, Mattamuskeet NWR would continue to provide the foraging, sanctuary, and other biological 

needs of 20-30 percent of North Carolina’s tundra swan population (15,000-26,000 birds); 40,000-

60,000 northern pintails and American green-winged teal; 5,000 Canada geese (Atlantic Population); 

and 40,000-60,000 other ducks, including 2,000-4,000 black duck. 

Protection of fish and their habitats and cooperation with universities, the NCWRC, and other 

agencies to monitor fish health would continue. In addition, the existing creel limit for the recreational 

blue crab harvest and prohibition of crab pots on the refuge would be maintained. Fish creel and 

length limits, established by the NCWRC for Lake Mattamuskeet, would also be maintained. Winter 

counts of bald eagles on the refuge would also continue. However, there would be no active 

management or research for aquatic Invertebrates at Mattamuskeet NWR under Alternative A. 
112 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

To learn more about passerine birds, the refuge would continue to participate in the annual Christmas 

bird count and support passerine-related studies. The bird count would also provide information 

about the abundance of marsh and wading birds. On a rotating basis, moist-soil management units 

would be managed to benefit shorebirds during spring migration. With regard to mammals, staff 

would continue to cooperate with the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study in studies of 

deer herd health once every five years. Collaboration with the red wolf recovery program and 

assistance with partners on studies of reptiles and amphibians would continue. 

 

Alternative A would also pursue the Habitat Management goal – to protect and enhance terrestrial, 

wetland, and aquatic habitats associated with the Lake Mattamuskeet environment in the context of 

climate change and rising sea levels. A total of 40,276 acres would be targeted as open water 

habitat in Lake Mattamuskeet and associated canals. In addition, approximately 2,300 acres of 

freshwater marsh on the refuge would be maintained as well as control of common reed (Phragmites) 

and prescribed burns in freshwater marshes. Approximately 2,000 acres of the refuge would stay in 

12 moist-soil units, that is, wetlands managed to produce annual plants important to waterfowl, and 

three forested impoundments, totaling 572 acres, would be managed as semi-permanent wetlands. 

Existing areas of mixed-pine hardwood (1,300 acres), wet pine flatwoods (1,000 acres), and cypress 

gum swamp (266 non-impounded acres) would be maintained, as well as 191 acres of cropland in 

corn and soybeans and 189 acres of cropland in the Conservation Reserve Program. 

 

Another goal would be to protect refuge resources by limiting the negative impacts of human activity 

and invasive species on and around the refuge. To pursue this goal, Alternative A would protect land 

by maintaining the existing refuge size of 50,180 acres. Staff would also explore opportunities for minor 

purchases of road easements and canal access. NCWRC would continue to monitor 14 sites once 

annually for a limited number of water quality parameters. In cooperation with the RHPO and SHPO, 

Mattamuskeet NWR would continue to protect cultural resources by complying with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. Law enforcement staff would remain unchanged – Mattamuskeet 

NWR would share one full-time law enforcement officer with three other refuges. To protect native flora 

and fauna from invasive plants and animals, the refuge would continue to annually control 

approximately 350 acres of common reed along the edge of the lake and 50 acres of alligatorweed in 

canals, as well as continuing to control nutria opportunistically. Finally, the refuge would conduct 

periodic monitoring for the presence of feral swine, including communication with neighboring 

landowners, and develop and implement a control plan if feral swine are detected on the refuge. 

The Visitor Services’ goal is to develop programs and facilities to provide public use opportunities, 

including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation, as they are compatible with refuge purposes. Under Alternative A, a range of visitor 

services without the guidance of an overall visitor services’ plan would continue. Hunting for deer 

(6,000 acres), waterfowl (1,000 acres) (including youth), and resident Canada geese would all continue 

as at present. Fishing would also continue to provide facilities (canal banks, two fishing piers, and two 

boat ramps) and opportunities that support approximately 20,000 angler visits annually. 

Environmental education efforts would continue under this alternative, which include hosting 

Environmental Field Day, environmental educator workshops, and university student activities on the 

refuge. The refuge would continue to provide approximately 10,000 interpretation opportunities 

annually and would construct a new visitor contact station with several interpretive exhibits (at the 

new refuge headquarters) by 2010. Alternative A would furnish wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities by maintaining a boardwalk, fishing piers, observation decks, a photo blind, and a 

wildlife drive. These facilities would serve an estimated 90,000 visitors annually. The refuge would 
Environmental Assessment 113

cooperate with partners to encourage commercial ecotours. Outreach efforts would involve 

continuing to organize, promote, and conduct one open house annually; conducting approximately six 

outreach programs annually off-refuge; issuing 3-5 news releases a year; maintaining the refuge 

website; and cooperating with the news media. 

Under the Refuge Administration goal, Alternative A would provide adequate staff, equipment, 

facilities, and funding to accomplish refuge goals and objectives, while encouraging cooperative 

efforts with other agencies, NGOs, universities, volunteers, and other partners. Eight full-time 

equivalent positions would be maintained, including the refuge manager, deputy manager, 

administrative office assistant, shared law enforcement officer, heavy mobile equipment mechanic, 

crane operator, maintenance mechanic, and a forestry technician/firefighter. By 2010, a new refuge 

headquarters/visitor contact station would be constructed and a new maintenance workshop, while 

replacing two staff houses. The refuge would continue to partner with NCWRC, Partnership for the 

Sounds, TNC, Mattamuskeet Foundation, Hyde County, Ducks Unlimited, East Carolina University, 

North Carolina Department of Corrections, and about 10 volunteers. 

ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative represents the Service’s proposed alternative or proposed action. It forms the basis 

for the objectives and strategies in Chapter IV of the CCP (Section A). Alternative B, like the other 

two alternatives, would pursue the Fish and Wildlife Population Management goal of maintaining, 

enhancing, and where necessary, restoring healthy populations of migratory birds, wildlife, fish, 

including federal and state endangered and threatened species. 

During the fall and winter seasons, the refuge would provide the foraging, sanctuary, and other 

biological needs of 20-30 percent of North Carolina’s tundra swan population (15,000-26,000 birds); 

40,000-60,000 northern pintail and American green-winged teal;10,000 Canada geese (Atlantic 

Population); and 80,000-120,000 other ducks, including 2,000-4,000 black duck during fall and 

winter periods. The objectives for tundra swan and northern pintail are the same as Alternative A, 

but the Canada goose objective is 5,000 higher and the duck objective 40,000 to 60,000 higher 

under Alternative B than A. 

With regard to fisheries management, Alternative B would replicate and expand upon Alternative A’s 

efforts, increasing cooperation with universities and other agencies to monitor fish population status 

and increasing applied research especially with regard to baseline surveys and carp management. 

Alternative B would also maintain the existing creel limit for the recreational blue crab harvest and 

continue to prohibit crab pots on the refuge. In addition, staff would also work with the Coastal 

Habitat Protection Plan to assure appropriate regulatory protection for the outlet canals. Alternative B 

would address aquatic invertebrates by assisting partners with studies and conducting periodic 

baseline surveys of invertebrates in managed wetlands (e.g., the moist-soil units). 

With regard to the rest of the objectives under this goal – raptors, passerine birds, shorebirds, marsh 

and wading birds, mammals, and reptiles and amphibians – Alternative B would implement each 

action proposed under Alternative A, plus certain additional ones. Nest counts of ospreys would be 

re-initiated. Passerine point counts would be implemented in different refuge habitats to evaluate the 

effects of habitat management actions on passerine diversity and populations. Alternative strategies 

to manage a portion of refuge moist-soil units would be evaluated to benefit the spring and fall 

migration of shorebirds. Surveys would be conducted on these managed areas. Ground surveys for 

marsh and wading birds would be reinstituted. Communication with NCWRC regarding local disease 

issues would be increased, as well as other coordination and information needs, such as protocol for 

collection of information of deer harvested on the refuge. 
114 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative B would also pursue the Habitat Management goal – to protect and enhance terrestrial, 

wetland, and aquatic habitats associated with the Lake Mattamuskeet environment in the context of 

climate change and rising sea levels. At a minimum, Alternative B aims to achieve every habitat 

objective proposed under Alternative A. However, in several instances this alternative also expands 

and extends Alternative A’s habitat objectives. The refuge would cooperate with NCDENR to develop 

and implement a Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) monitoring program for the lake’s open water 

habitats. The desirability and feasibility of restoring Salyer’s Ridge pinewoods would be investigated. 

Finally, in addition to maintaining 199 acres of cultivated cropland in corn and soybeans, staff would 

investigate other options for cropping and/or early successional habitat and would consider new 

management options for the CRP cropland when the contract expires in 2011. 

Alternative B’s resource protection goal is similar to Alternative A’s: to protect refuge resources by 

limiting the negative impacts of human activity and invasive species. Alternative B proposes to 

protect land, water quality, and cultural resources just like Alternative A would, but this alternative 

would also cooperate with NCDENR to develop and implement a long-term water quality monitoring 

plan for the lake. Moreover, it would prepare and begin to implement a Cultural Resources 

Management Plan within 15 years of CCP approval. To provide law enforcement, the refuge would 

obtain one full-time equivalent law enforcement officer dedicated solely to Mattamuskeet NWR. In 

addition, the refuge would serve as a new officer field training station. Approximately 500 acres of 

common reed along the edge of the lake and in the moist-soil unit impoundments and 50 acres of 

alligatorweed in the canals and moist-soil unit impoundments would be controlled. This is an 

increase of 150 acres controlled as from Alternative A. Collaboration with USDA APHIS wildlife 

services (damage control) and other partners to implement a nutria control program would be 

initiated. Finally, the refuge would conduct periodic monitoring for presence of feral swine, including 

communication with neighboring landowners, and would develop and implement a control plan if feral 

swine are detected on the refuge. 

The Visitor Services’ goal is to develop programs and facilities to provide public use opportunities, 

including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation, as they are compatible with refuge purposes. Under Alternative B, within five years of 

CCP approval, the refuge would complete preparation of and begin to implement a Visitor Services’ 

step-down management plan. Within three years of CCP approval, the refuge would provide 

additional signage to help welcome and orient visitors. 

Existing hunts would all be continued. In addition, Mattamuskeet NWR would explore ways to 

increase youth hunting opportunities for deer and waterfowl. The refuge would also cooperate with 

NCWRC to conduct activities promoting hunter recruitment and retention. Alternative B would 

increase fishing opportunities by adding one boat ramp to support 25,000 angler visits annually, up 

from about 20,000 at present. 

Alternative B’s environmental education efforts would include those proposed under Alternative A, but 

in addition, would reinstitute Nature Week and begin to host K-12 school programs (10 annually). 

The number of interpretation opportunities would be expanded to approximately 15,000, by adding 

kiosks, annually revised brochures, and interpretive signage along the wildlife drive and New Holland 

boardwalk trail. Opening and staffing the visitor contact station with volunteer(s) on weekends would 

also promote further interpretation. 
Environmental Assessment 115

Alternative B would support the same wildlife observation and photography facilities and opportunities 

as Alternative A; in addition, Alternative B would reinstall an eight-mile canoe and kayak loop trail and 

construct one additional photo-blind. Like Alternative A, the refuge would cooperate with partners to 

encourage commercial ecotours. We would increase outreach by increasing the number of off-refuge 

programs, by issuing 6-12 news releases annually, and by annually updating the refuge website. 

Under the Refuge Administration goal, Alternative B would provide adequate staff, equipment, 

facilities, and funding to accomplish refuge goals and objectives while encouraging cooperative 

efforts with other agencies, NGOs, universities, volunteers, and other partners. The number of FTEs 

would be increased to 12, by adding a biologist, refuge operations’ specialist, maintenance worker, 

park ranger, and dedicating the current law enforcement position to the Mattamuskeet NWR Complex 

(remove duties at Pocosin Lakes NWR). By 2010, a new refuge headquarters/visitor contact station 

would be constructed and open as well as a new maintenance workshop, while replacing all four staff 

houses, two more than under Alternative A. In addition to current partnerships, within 15 years of 

CCP approval, Mattamuskeet NWR would establish a Friends Group and increase the number of 

volunteers and interns. A work camper program would also be instituted and two pads with hookups 

for recreational vehicles would be provided to allow the refuge office to be open on weekends. 

ALTERNATIVE C – MODERATELY EXPANDED PROGRAM 

This alternative would represent a moderate expansion over the refuge’s existing program; 

Alternative C is also more expansive than Alternative B, the Service’s proposed alternative and the 

basis for the objectives and strategies presented in Chapter IV of the Draft CCP. Alternative C, like 

the two preceding alternatives, would pursue the Fish and Wildlife Population Management goal of

maintaining, enhancing, and where necessary, restoring healthy populations of migratory birds, 

wildlife, and fish, including federal and state threatened and endangered species. 

With regard to migrating and wintering waterfowl, Alternative C would provide for identical numbers of 

tundra swans, northern pintails, and green-winged teal as Alternatives A and B. Alternative C would 

aim to support more Canada geese, black ducks, and all other ducks than the previous two 

alternatives – namely 15,000 Canada geese from the Atlantic population, 5,000 black ducks, and a 

grand total of 160,000 to 240,000 other duck species combined. 

 

With regard to fisheries management, Alternative C would replicate Alternative B’s proposals, as well 

as conducting ongoing long-term population, habitat, and creel surveys. Alternative C would also 

maintain the existing creel limit for the recreational blue crab harvest and continue to prohibit crab 

pots on the refuge. In addition to other proposals of Alternative B, Alternative C would cooperate with 

the North Carolina Marine Fisheries to conduct a study, characterizing the use of crabs by the public 

and determining the maximum rate of sustained use. As to aquatic invertebrates, Alternative C would 

expand on Alternative B’s objectives by conducting comprehensive surveys throughout the refuge in 

coordination with carp control. 

With regard to the rest of the objectives under this goal – raptors, passerine birds, shorebirds, marsh 

and wading birds, mammals, and reptiles and amphibians – Alternative C would implement each of 

the actions proposed under Alternatives A and B, plus several more: conducting periodic contaminant 

surveys (e.g., mercury) of osprey, initiating a MAPS station (Monitoring Avian Productivity and 

Survivorship), using survey data to inform marsh and wading bird management, and coordinating with 

NCWRC to address deer herd management on and off the refuge. 
116 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

In pursuit of the refuge’s Habitat Management and Resource Protection goals, Alternative C would be 

almost identical to Alternative B. It would differ only by increasing water quality and contaminants 

monitoring and by aiming to annually control 1,000 acres of common reed around the edge of the 

lake, compared to 500 acres for Alternative B. In addition, eutrophication of Lake Mattamuskeet 

would be slowed through active efforts to reduce upstream sediment transport and deposition. In all 

other respects, the two alternatives are the same for these two refuge goals. 

With regard to the Visitor Services goal – developing programs and facilities to provide public use 

opportunities as they are compatible with refuge purposes – Alternative C would include everything 

proposed by Alternative C, and would add several items. Hunting and fishing opportunities would 

expand somewhat over those of Alternative B. We would strive to host twenty K-12 school programs 

annually and two environmental education workshops for teachers. Interpretation would be increased 

from that proposed under Alternative B by having the park ranger annually offer thirty interpretive 

programs, including offering or hosting interpreted kayak excursions. Outreach would be further 

expanded by increasing the number of off-refuge programs to fifteen per year, issuing twelve news 

releases annually, and updating the refuge website every two months. 

Under the Refuge Administration goal, Alternative C would increase the number of full-time 

equivalent (FTE) positions to 14.5 by adding a biological technician, heavy equipment operator, and a 

0.5 clerk/receptionist over and above the increases proposed by Alternative B. Facility additions 

would be the same as Alternative B. With regard to partnerships, in addition to the objectives of 

Alternative B, under Alternative C, a park ranger or volunteer would serve as a volunteer coordinator 

to formalize and increase the level of volunteer support for the refuge. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. These 

common features are listed below to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative 

descriptions: 

y Protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 50,180 acres of refuge lands for resident wildlife, 

waterfowl, migratory nongame birds, and threatened and endangered species. 

y Provide the foraging, sanctuary, and other biological needs of a substantial number of 

waterfowl during fall and winter periods, including 20-30 percent of North Carolina’s tundra 

swans (15,000-26,000), 40,000-60,000 northern pintails and green-winged teal, and a 

minimum of 5,000 Canada geese (Atlantic Population), and 40,000-60,000 other ducks, 

including 2,000-4,000 black ducks. 

y Continue to protect fish and their habitats and cooperate with universities and other agencies 

to monitor fish health. 

y Maintain the existing creel limit for recreational blue crab harvest and continue to prohibit crab 

pots on the refuge. 

 

y Continue winter counts of bald eagles on the refuge. 

y Continue to participate in the annual Christmas bird count and support passerine-related 

studies on the refuge. 
Environmental Assessment 117

y Manage one moist-soil unit to benefit shorebirds during spring migration. 

y Explore opportunities for minor purchases of road easements, canal access, etc. 

y Continue to cooperate with the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study in studies of 

deer herd health once every five years. 

y Continue cooperation with the red wolf recovery program. 

y Continue to assist partners with studies of reptiles and amphibians. 

y With regard to the fringe of freshwater marsh around the lakeshore, the refuge would maintain 

approximately 2,300 acres of freshwater marsh on the refuge and continue to control common 

reed (Phragmites) and conduct prescribed burns periodically. 

y With regard to managed wetlands, approximately 2,500 acres in 15 moist-soil and forested 

semipermanent impoundments would be maintained. 

y With respect to environmental education, the refuge would continue to host Environmental 

Field Day, environmental educator workshops, and university student activities. 

y With regard to commercial ecotours, cooperation with partners to encourage commercial 

ecotours on the refuge would be continued. 

 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

The alternatives’ development process under NEPA and the Improvement Act is designed to allow 

consideration of the widest possible range of issues and potential management approaches. During 

the alternatives’ development process, many different solutions were considered. The following 

alternative components were considered but not selected for detailed study in this Draft CCP/EA for 

the reason(s) described. 

MODERATE PROGRAM INCREASES AND BUFFER LAND PROTECTION 

This alternative would maintain current acreage in ownership but conserve buffers for Lake 

Mattamuskeet. The area in refuge ownership would remain at 50,180 acres, but the refuge would 

protect additional land by acquiring conservation interests (e.g., easements) on an additional 9,629 

acres of lake buffers for a grand total of 59,809 acres. 

The biological program would be diversified to include all wildlife species and habitats, and habitat 

management would be focused on more intensive moist-soil management, timber management, and 

restoration of newly acquired land. Fire management would be increased to include prescribed burning 

on a regular basis. The public use program would be diversified to encompass all priority public uses. 

There would be a new office and visitor center. Pumps and water control structures would all be replaced 

to improve water management abilities. A law enforcement officer would continue to be shared with 

Swanquarter and Cedar Island NWRs and there would be dedicated collateral duty officers. 
118 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

This alternative was considered by the planning team but rejected because of its greater cost and 

intrusiveness to the surrounding community. 

OPTIMUM PROGRAM INCREASES AND BUFFER AND LANDSCAPE LEVEL LAND PROTECTION 

This alternative would maintain current acreage in ownership, but would also conserve not only 

buffers around Lake Mattamuskeet, but areas connecting to other national wildlife refuges, 

particularly Swanquarter, Pocosin Lakes, and Alligator River NWRs. The area in refuge ownership 

would remain at 50,180 acres but the refuge would protect additional land by acquiring conservation 

interests (e.g., easements) on an additional 9,629 acres of lake buffers and on an additional 41,824 

acres of open space connecting to other refuges, for a grand total of 101,633 acres of protected 

lands. Program increases would be similar to those for the above alternative. 

Like the alternative above, this alternative was considered by the planning team but eliminated 

because of its even greater cost and intrusiveness to the surrounding community. 
Environmental Assessment 

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY ISSUE Table 16. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Mattamuskeet NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Alternativ

expan

Fish and Wildlife Population Management: Maintain, enhance, and where necessary, restore healthy populabirds, wildlife, and fish, including federal and state threatened and endangered species. Migratory Waterfowl Provide the foraging, sanctuary, 

and other biological needs of 20-30% of North Carolina’s tundra swans (15,000-26,000); 40,000-60,000 northern pintails and green-winged teal; 5,000 Canada geese (Atlantic Population); and 40,000-60,000 other ducks, including 2,000-4,000 black ducks, during fall and winter periods. 

Provide the foraging, sanctuary, and other biological needs of 20-30% of North Carolina’s tundra swans (15,000-26,000); 40,000-60,000 northern pintails and green-winged teal; 10,000 Canada geese (Atlantic Population); and 80,000-120,000 other ducks, including 2,000-4,000 black ducks, during fall and winter periods. 

Provide the and other bi30% of Nortswans (15,060,000 northgreen-wingeCanada geePopulation); 240,000 oth5,000 black and winter p

Fish Continue to protect fish and 

their habitats and cooperate with universities and other agencies to monitor fish health. 

Continue to protect fish and their habitats and expand cooperation with universities and other agencies to monitor fish population status; increase applied research especially with regard to baseline surveys and carp management. 

Same as Altaddition, conterm populacreel survey

Crustaceans Maintain existing creel limit for 

recreational blue crab harvest and continue to prohibit crab pots on the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition, work with the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) to assure appropriate regulatory protection for the outlet canals. 

Same as Altaddition, cooMarine Fishstudy characcrabs by pumaximum ra
120 Mattamuskeet Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Alternativ

expan

Aquatic Invertebrates No active management or 

research. 

Assist partners with studies and conduct periodic baseline surveys of invertebrates in managed wetlands (moist-soil units). 

Same as Altaddition, concomprehensthroughout tcoordination 

Raptors Continue winter counts of 

eagles on refuge. 

Same as Alternative A plus reinitiate nest counts of ospreys. Increase habitat management of cropland in CRP. 

Same as Altaddition, concontaminant 

Passerine birds Continue to participate in 

annual Christmas bird count and support passerine-related studies on refuge. 

Same as Alternative A, plus implement passerine point counts in different refuge habitats to evaluate habitat management actions. 

Same as Altinitiate a MA(Monitoring and Survivo

Shorebirds Manage 1 or 2 moist-soil units 

(rotating) to benefit shorebirds during spring migration. 

Same as Alternative A; in addition, evaluate alternative strategies to manage a portion of moist soil units to benefit fall migration of shorebirds. Also, conduct surveys of managed areas. 

Same as Alt
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Alternativ

expan

Marsh and wading birds Continue to participate in 

Christmas bird count. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition, reinstitute ground surveys for marsh and wading birds. 

Same as Altaddition, use inform marsmanagemen

Mammals Continue to cooperate with the 

Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study in studies of deer herd health once every 5 years. Continue cooperation with red wolf recovery program. 

Same as Alternative A. Also, communicate/coordinate with NCWRC to address deer herd management, local disease issues, and protocol for collection of information of deer harvested on the refuge. 

Same as Alt

Reptiles and amphibians Continue to assist partners with 

studies of reptiles and amphibians. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alt

conduct basmonitor habspecies. 

Habitat Management: Protect and enhance terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats associated with the Lake environment in the context of climate change and rising sea levels. Open water habitat Maintain 40,276 acres as open 

water habitat in Lake Mattamuskeet and associated canals. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition, cooperate with NC DENR to develop and implement an SAV monitoring program for the lake. 

Same as Alt
122 Mattamuskeet Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Alternativ

expan

Freshwater marsh (fringe along lakeshore) 

Maintain approximately 2,300 acres of freshwater marsh on the refuge and continue to control common reed (Phragmites) and conduct prescribed burns periodically. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alt

Managed wetlands Maintain approximately 2,500 

acres of the refuge in 15 moistsoil units and semipermanent forested wetlands. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alt

Forested habitats Maintain existing areas of 

mixed pine hardwood (1,300 acres), wet pine flatwoods (1,000 acres), and cypress gum swamp (260 acres impounded; 572 acres impounded). 

Same as Alternative A. In addition, investigate desirability and feasibility of restoring Salyer’s Ridge pinewoods. 

Same as Alt

Cropland Maintain 191 acres of cropland 

in corn and soybeans. 

Same as Alternative A. Also, investigate other options for cropping and/or early successional habitat and future use of CRP cropland. 

Same as Alt

Resource Protection: Protect refuge resources by limiting negative impacts of human activity and invasive spthe Mattamuskeet NWR. Land protection Maintain existing refuge size of 

50,180 acres. Explore opportunities for minor purchases of road easements, canal access, etc. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alt
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Alternativ

expan

Water quality and contaminants 

NCWRC continues to monitor 14 sites once annually for limited number of water quality parameters. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition, cooperate with NC DENR to develop and implement a long-term water quality monitoring plan for the lake. 

Same as Altaddition, insone or more water quality devices/statlong-term requality in lak

Cultural resources In cooperation with RHPO and 

SHPO, continue to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition, within 15 years of CCP approval, prepare and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

Same as Alt

Law Enforcement Share 1 FTE law enforcement 

officer with 3 other refuges. 

Dedicate 1 FTE LE officer to the Mattamuskeet NWR Complex. In addition, refuge will serve as a new officer field training station. 

Same as Alt

Invasive plants Continue to annually control 

approximately 350 acres of common reed in moist-soil impoundments and along edge of lake and 50 acres of alligatorweed in canals. 

Continue to annually control approximately 300 - 500 acres of common reed (Phragmites) along edge of Lake Mattamuskeet and the moist-soil impoundments and 50 acres of alligatorweed in canals and moist-soil impoundments. 

Continue to approximatecommon reeimpoundmeof lake and 5alligatorweebegin to mo

Invasive animals Continue to control nutria 

opportunistically. Conduct periodic monitoring for the presence of feral swine and develop a control plan if feral swine are detected. Implement as much of plan as possible with limited staff. 

Work with USDA APHIS wildlife services (damage control) and other partners to implement nutria control program. Conduct periodic monitoring for the presence of feral swine and develop and implement a control plan if feral swine are detected. 

Same as Altperiodic mopresence of develop and plan if feral s
124 Mattamuskeet Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Alternativ

expan

Visitor Services: Develop programs and facilities to provide public use opportunities, including hunting, fishingobservation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, as they are compatible with Visitor management Continue to provide a range of 

visitor services without the guidance of an overall visitor services plan. 

Within five years of CCP approval, complete preparation of and begin to implement a step-down management Visitor Services’ Plan. Within three years of CCP approval, provide additional signage to help welcome and orient visitors. 

Same as Alt

Hunting Continue to provide annual 

hunts for deer (6,000 acres), waterfowl (1,000 acres) (including youth), and resident Canada geese. 

Increase youth hunting opportunities for deer and waterfowl. Cooperate with NCWRC to conduct activities promoting hunter education, recruitment, and retention. 

Expand oppAlternative B

Fishing Continue to provide facilities 

(banks, 2 fishing piers, and 2 boat ramps) and opportunities that support approximately 20,000 angler visits annually. 

Increase fishing opportunities (e.g., add one boat ramp) to support 25,000 angler visits annually. 

Increase fish(add one bo30,000 angl

Environmental education Continue to host Environmental 

Field Day, environmental educator workshops, and university student activities. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition, reinstitute Nature Week and begin to host K-12 school programs (10 annually). 

Same as Altaddition, reiand begin to programs (2environmenworkshops f
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Alternativ

expan

Interpretation Continue to provide 

approximately 10,000 interpretation opportunities annually. Construct new visitor contact station (at new HQ) by 2010 with several interpretive exhibits. 

Expand number of interpretation opportunities to approximately 15,000 by adding kiosks, annually revised brochures, and interpretive signage along wildlife drive and New Holland boardwalk trail. Open and staff visitor contact station with volunteer(s) on weekends. 

Same as Altaddition, paannually offeprograms, inhosting interexcursions. 

Wildlife observation and photography 

Continue to provide about 90,000 viewing and photography opportunities annually by maintaining boardwalk, fishing piers, observation decks, photo blind, and wildlife drive. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition, reinstall 8-mile canoe and kayak loop trail and construct one photo-blind. 

Same as Alt

Commercial ecotours Continue to cooperate with 

partners to encourage commercial ecotours on the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alt

Outreach Continue to organize, promote, 

and conduct 1 open house annually; conduct about 6 outreach programs annually offrefuge; issue 3-5 news releases; maintain website; and cooperate with news media. 

Increase outreach by increasing number of off-refuge programs, issuing 6-12 news releases annually, and annually updating refuge website. 

Further expaincreasing nprograms to news releasupdating refmonths. 

Refuge Administration: Provide adequate staff, equipment, facilities, and funding to accomplish refuge goals encouraging cooperative efforts with other agencies, non-governmental organizations, universities, volunteers, 
126 Mattamuskeet Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Alternativ

expan

Staff Maintain 8 FTEs, including 

refuge manager, deputy manager, administrative office assistant, shared law enforcement officer, heavy mobile equipment mechanic, crane operator, maintenance mechanic, and forestry technician/firefighter. 

Same as Alternative A. Add 1 FTE biologist, 1 FTE refuge operations specialist, 1 maintenance worker, 1 park ranger, and 1 dedicated law enforcement officer to Mattamuskeet NWR Complex. Total = 12 FTEs. 

Same as AltFTE biologicheavy equip0.5 FTE clerTotal = 14.5 

Facilities By 2010, construct and open 

new refuge headquarters/visitor contact station and new maintenance workshop, and replace 2 staff houses. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition, replace 2 additional residences by 2015. 

Same as Alt

Partnerships Continue to partner with 

NCWRC, Partnership for the Sounds, The Nature Conservancy, Mattamuskeet Foundation, Hyde County, Ducks Unlimited, East Carolina University, North Carolina Department of Corrections, and 10 volunteers. 

Same as Alternative A. Within 15 years of CCP approval, establish a Friends Group at Mattamuskeet NWR and increase number of volunteers and interns. Institute work camper program and provide 2 pads with hookups for recreational vehicles. 

Same as Altranger or vovolunteer coformalize anvolunteer su
Environmental Assessment 127

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This section analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can be 

reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the three alternatives described in Chapter III of 

this EA. For each alternative, the expected outcomes are portrayed through the 15-year life of the CCP. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects will be the same under each alternative and are summarized under seven 

categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, land acquisition, cultural 

resources, refuge revenue-sharing, and other effects. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information 

and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

None of the management alternatives described in this EA will disproportionately place any adverse 

environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and environmental education is 

anticipated to provide a benefit to the residents residing in the surrounding communities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under 

its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change impacts 

as part of long-range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperatures commonly referred to as global warning. In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact 

to be considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Research and 

Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 
128 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands, 

forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert – are effective both in preventing carbon emissions 

and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The conclusions of the 

Department of Energy’s report noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and 

may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges. 

The actions proposed in this Draft CCP plan would conserve or restore land and water, and would 

thus enhance carbon sequestration. This, in turn, contributes positively to efforts to mitigate humaninduced global climate changes. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

All management activities that could affect the refuge’s natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, soils, water and air, and historical and 

archaeological resources, would be managed to comply with all laws and regulations. In particular, 

any existing and future oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport operations on the refuge 

would be managed identically under each of the alternatives. Thus, the impacts would be the same. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Funding for land acquisition from willing sellers within the approved acquisition boundary of 

Mattamuskeet NWR would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, Corps of Engineers mitigation programs, or donations from conservation and 

private organizations. Conservation easements and leases can be used to obtain the minimum 

interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives if the refuge staff can adequately manage uses of the 

areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service can negotiate management agreements with local, state, 

and federal agencies, and accept conservation easements. Some tracts within the refuge acquisition 

boundary may be owned by other public or private conservation organizations. The Service would 

work with interested organizations to identify additional areas needing protection and provide 

technical assistance if needed. The acquisition of private lands is entirely contingent on the 

landowners and their willingness to participate. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All alternatives afford additional land protection and low levels of development, thereby producing 

little negative effect on the refuge’s cultural and historic resources. Potentially negative effects could 

include logging, construction of new trails or facilities, and development of water impoundments. In 

most cases, these management actions would require review by the Service’s Regional Archaeologist 

in consultation with the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office, as mandated by Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the determination of whether a particular action 

within an alternative has the potential to affect cultural resources is an on-going process that would 

occur during the planning stages of every project. 

Service acquisition of land with known or potential archaeological or historical sites provides two 

major types of protection for these resources: protection from damage by federal activity and 

protection from vandalism or theft. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that any actions 

by a federal agency, which may affect archaeological or historical resources, be reviewed by the 

State Historic Preservation Office, and that the identified effects must be avoided or mitigated. The 

Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust, 

and avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. 
Environmental Assessment 129

Land acquisition, within the current acquisition boundary, by the Service would provide some degree 

of protection to significant cultural and historic resources. If acquisition of private lands does not 

occur and these lands remain under private ownership, the landowner would be responsible for 

protecting and preserving cultural resources. Development of off-refuge lands has the potential to 

destroy archaeological artifacts and other historical resources, thereby decreasing opportunities for 

cultural resource interpretation and research. 

REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING 

 

Annual refuge revenue-sharing payments to Hyde County, North Carolina, would continue at similar rates 

under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the payments would increase 

accordingly. 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Each of the alternatives would have similar effects or minimal to negligible effects on soils, water 

quality and quantity, noise, transportation, human health and safety, children, hazardous materials, 

waste management, aesthetics and visual resources, and utilities and public services. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

The following section describes the environmental consequences of adopting each refuge 

management alternative. Table 17 summarizes and addresses the likely outcomes for the specific 

issues, and is organized by broad issue categories. 

ALTERNATIVE A - CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

Overall, because it would continue to follow current management direction, the No Action Alternative 

would not generate new or significant environmental impacts. Impacts would continue as they are at 

present, which are both adverse and beneficial, but not significant. 

Wintering waterfowl populations are likely to remain substantially unchanged from those that occur at 

present. Fish species composition and population densities in both Lake Mattamuskeet and the 

canals that drain it would probably stay the same over the 15-year planning period. However, longterm declines in aquatic habitat for both fish and waterfowl would be expected to continue as the lake 

becomes more eutrophic and gradually fills in with inorganic sediments and organic matter. This is 

the inevitable fate of all ponds and lakes, a process of natural succession that can be averted only 

through active management intervention such as dredging, drawdown and burning, or reducing 

upstream sediment transport and deposition, none of which are proposed under this alternative 

during the 15-year planning period. 

Blue crab harvest would not change; likewise, no change is anticipated in the distribution, 

composition and populations of aquatic invertebrates. No change is anticipated in the growing use of 

the refuge by bald eagles, ospreys and other raptors. Similarly, the occurrence of passerine birds, 

including resident, breeding, and migratory birds (e.g. neotropical migratory birds), would probably not 

change from the continuation of current management. Shorebirds would continue to use one moistsoil unit in the spring; any change in their numbers would be due to other outside factors, such as 

weather or population trends off the refuge. No change in the distribution or density of marsh and 
130 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

wading birds is likely to occur. Current management would produce no change in the population size 

or distribution of mammals on and near the refuge, including white-tailed deer and the recovering red 

wolf. Finally, no change is expected in the presence, abundance, and diversity of the refuge’s reptile 

and amphibian populations. 

With regard to habitats, the only change likely to occur under Alternative A is the long-term, gradual 

decrease in open water habitat on Lake Mattamuskeet, discussed above. Current management strives to 

maintain 40,276 acres of open water habitat in Lake Mattamuskeet, but the long-term trend of loss of 

open water in the lake will surely continue as sediments and organic matter accumulate over time. The 

quantity and quality of marsh would remain essentially the same over a 15-year period, although the loss 

of open water just discussed over time would probably be compensated by a gain in the area of marsh, at 

least temporarily. However, over a 15-year period, the expected change would not be great. Over this 

same time frame, there would likely be little effect on freshwater marsh from sea level rise associated with 

global warming, which would probably amount to an inch or two at most. However, were a powerful 

hurricane to strike the refuge, the probability of which may be increasing because of climate change, 

higher sea level could contribute to greater adverse impacts on freshwater marsh. Salt-intolerant plants 

would experience high mortality, as has occurred elsewhere in freshwater marshes affected by salt water 

and salt spray associated with hurricanes. 

With regard to the effects of Alternative A on other refuge habitats, the quantity and quality of moistsoil units and the forested impoundments would remain unchanged. There would also be little 

change in the acreage and composition of forested habitats; normal forest maturation and succession 

would continue in these forests, barring wildfire, which would set back succession. The area and 

composition of cropland on the refuge would be unchanged, as would be the food and foraging 

benefits it furnishes to wildlife.

With respect to resource protection, little change is expected under Alternative A. The same quantity 

of land and habitat would continue to be protected, with minor possible increases because of property 

purchases at strategic locations within the approved acquisition boundary. Basic water quality 

measures on Lake Mattamuskeet would continue to be monitored; not all potential contaminants are 

covered by this monitoring. Of those water quality parameters that are monitored, no change in their 

condition or concentrations is anticipated under this alternative. If feral swine become established on 

the refuge, which seems likely in the near future, all habitats on the refuge, including managed 

impoundments, will decline dramatically, as well as the wildlife dependent on them. 

Known cultural resources on the refuge would continue to be protected, although some looting and theft 

of these resources would be expected to continue. Since the refuge transferred ownership of 

Mattamuskeet Lodge to the state, it is no longer part of the refuge or under jurisdiction of the Service, in 

spite of its proximity and long history with the refuge. The Service would continue to cooperate with the 

state and the Partnership for the Sounds in management and operation of its administrative area in the 

vicinity of the lodge. The same level of law enforcement would continue; it provides moderate but not 

thorough protection for the public and the refuge’s natural and cultural resources. 

The invasive common reed would continue to infest marshes but would continue to be held in check 

through annual control efforts using herbicides and prescribed fire. The invasive nutria would also 

continue to infest the refuge, displacing native wildlife and damaging some infrastructure. Opportunistic 

control measures would not be sufficient to reduce its numbers and impacts substantially. 

Alternative A would maintain existing hunting and fishing opportunities. The current level of 

environmental education and interpretation would also be maintained under this alternative. 
Environmental Assessment 131

Existing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would continue at the same level. 

Likewise, the level of outreach would stay the same. Ecotourism would continue to be supported by 

the refuge. Planned new facilities under Alternative A would improve staff effectiveness, as well as 

the visitor experience. 

Occasional, inadvertent flooding of certain adjacent properties would continue under this alternative 

when Lake Mattamuskeet levels are high. There is little the refuge can do to prevent this without 

radical changes in lake-water level management, i.e., lowering the level of the lake to an 

unacceptable elevation that would compromise its marshes, open water habitat, fisheries stocks, 

and wintering waterfowl populations. Canals would continue to silt in and lose capacity; their 

rehabilitation (restoring design capacity and configuration) would be a continuing need. 

By protecting wildlife habitat and maintaining water quality, managing wetlands, conserving wildlife 

populations, and providing for sustainable wildlife-dependent recreation, this alternative would 

continue to be consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and North 

Carolina’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). 

ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 

Overall, the adverse impacts of Alternative B would be less than those of Alternative A, while the 

beneficial impacts would be greater. 

Wintering waterfowl populations are likely to increase somewhat under this alternative, although 

Canada geese, northern pintail, and green-winged teal are expected to remain unchanged. Fish 

species composition and population densities in both Lake Mattamuskeet and the canals that drain it 

would probably be similar over the 15-year planning period though increases in crappie are 

anticipated due to increased spawning habitat provided by canal dredging. However, as in 

Alternative A, long-term declines in aquatic habitat for both fish and waterfowl would be expected to 

continue as the lake becomes more eutrophic and gradually fills in with inorganic sediments and 

organic matter. This is the inevitable fate of all ponds and lakes, a process of natural succession that 

can be averted only through active management intervention such as dredging, drawdowns, or 

reducing upstream sediment transport and deposition. Only dredging of canals is proposed under 

this alternative. Dredging of canals will help reduce the amount of sediment annually deposited in the 

lake but will not reverse the longterm trend of eutrophication. 

Blue crab harvest would not change under Alternative B; likewise, no change is anticipated in the 

distribution, composition, and population of aquatic invertebrates. As well, no change is anticipated in the 

growing use of the refuge by bald eagles, ospreys, and other raptors. Similarly, the occurrence of 

passerine birds, including resident, breeding, and migratory birds (e.g., neotropical migratory birds), would 

probably not change from the continuation of current management, because no changes in their habitat 

are proposed. However, improved information from a greater effort at surveying (point counts), 

depending on what was learned, could lead to changed management strategies that may be beneficial. 

Shorebirds would continue to use one moist-soil unit in the spring; any change in their numbers would be 

due to other outside factors, such as weather or population trends off the refuge. Shorebird numbers may 

increase during the fall migration if one moist-soil unit is managed to attract them. No change in the 

distribution or density of marsh and wading birds is likely to occur under Alternative B. Current 

management would produce no change in the population size or distribution of mammals on and near the 

refuge, including white-tailed deer and the recovering red wolf. Finally, no change is expected in the 

presence, abundance, and diversity of the refuge’s reptile and amphibian populations. 
132 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

With regard to habitats, the main change likely to occur under Alternative B is the long-term, gradual 

decrease in open water habitat on Lake Mattamuskeet, discussed above. Current management strives to 

maintain 40,276 acres of open water habitat in Lake Mattamuskeet, but the long-term trend of loss of 

open water in the lake will surely continue as sediments and organic matter accumulate over time. The 

quantity and quality of marsh would remain essentially the same over a 15-year period, although the loss 

of open water just discussed over time would probably be compensated by a gain in the area of marsh, at 

least temporarily. However, over a 15-year period, the expected change would not be great. Over this 

same time frame, there would likely be little effect on freshwater marsh from sea level rise associated with 

global warming, which would probably amount to an inch or two at most. However, were a powerful 

hurricane to strike the refuge, the probability of which may be increasing because of climate change, 

higher sea level could contribute to greater adverse impacts on freshwater marsh. Salt-intolerant plants 

would experience high mortality, as has occurred elsewhere in freshwater marshes affected by salt water 

and salt spray associated with hurricanes. 

With regard to the effects of Alternative B on other refuge habitats, the quality of moist-soil units and the 

managed forested impoundments would improve but quantity of habitat would be unchanged. Quality 

would improve through more intensive management to reduce noxious weeds and increase food plants 

important to waterfowl. There would be little change in the acreage and composition of forested habitats 

over most of the refuge; normal forest maturation and succession would continue in these forests, barring 

wildfire, which would set back succession. However, improved management of Salyer’s Ridge 

pinewoods would be beneficial to that forest stand and its value as wildlife habitat. If the same crops and 

rotations were used, the area and composition of cropland on the refuge would be unchanged, as would 

be the food and foraging benefits it furnishes to wildlife. However, if upon consideration of other 

management options, staff decided to implement one or more of them, such as scrub/shrub habitat or 

early successional habitat similar to moist-soil units, a wide variety of birds and mammals would likely 

benefit while some ducks and geese would be deprived of a quantity of “hot food.” 

With respect to resource protection, Alternative B would offer certain benefits in comparison with 

Alternative A. The same quantity of land and habitat would continue to be protected, with minor possible 

increases because of property purchases at strategic locations within the approved acquisition boundary. 

More comprehensive water quality monitoring on Lake Mattamuskeet would be more likely to reveal 

hidden water quality or contaminant problems if they exist. That said, no change in water quality is likely 

to occur under this alternative. However, if monitoring discovers a problem, the Service, the refuge, and 

the NCWRC could begin to work toward a solution. It seems likely that feral swine will become 

established on the refuge in the near future. Alternative B would provide a much more active 

approach to address this threat than Alternative A. 

Known cultural resources on the refuge would continue to be protected. Although some looting and 

theft of these resources would be expected to continue, this problem would be reduced because of 

stepped-up law enforcement. In addition, the proposed cultural resources survey and Cultural 

Resources Management Plan would, over time, increase our knowledge and appreciation of extant 

cultural and historic resources on the refuge. Since the refuge transferred ownership of 

Mattamuskeet Lodge to the state, it is no longer part of the refuge or under jurisdiction of the Service, 

in spite of its proximity and long history with the refuge. However, the Service would continue to 

cooperate with the state and the Partnership for the Sounds in management and operation of its 

administrative area in the vicinity of the Lodge. An increased level of law enforcement under 

Alternative B would provide improved protection for the public – neighbors and visitors alike – and the 

refuge’s natural and cultural resources. 
Environmental Assessment 133

The invasive common reed would continue to infest marshes but would likely be curbed due to 

increased control using annual herbicide applications and prescribed fire. The invasive nutria would 

also continue to infest the refuge, displacing native wildlife and damaging some infrastructure. 

Increased control measures are likely to reduce the populations of this rodent and the damage it 

causes, but are not going to eradicate this pest. 

Alternative B would modestly increase existing hunting and fishing opportunities, which would benefit 

these two user groups. Current levels of environmental education, interpretation, and outreach would 

also be increased under this alternative, which would benefit the public and conservation knowledge 

in general. Opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would be enhanced, making the 

refuge more attractive to the general visitor. Ecotourism would be encouraged to a greater extent. 

Planned new facilities, in particular the office and visitor contact station, would improve staff 

effectiveness, as well as the visitor experience. 

Occasional, inadvertent flooding of certain adjacent properties would continue under Alternative B 

when Lake Mattamuskeet levels are high. There is little the refuge can do to prevent this. Canals 

would no longer be allowed to silt in and lose capacity; their rehabilitation (restoring design capacity 

and configuration) would be pursued on the four outlet canals and rim canals and annual 

maintenance increased. 

By continuing to protect wildlife habitat and maintain water quality, stepping up management of 

wetlands and conservation of wildlife populations, and augmenting sustainable wildlife-dependent 

recreation, this alternative would continue to be consistent with the CZMA and CAMA. 

ALTERNATIVE C – MODERATELY EXPANDED PROGRAM 

Overall, the adverse impacts of Alternative C would be slightly less than those of Alternative B and 

somewhat less than those of Alternative A, while the beneficial impacts would be slightly greater than 

both Alternatives A and B. However, in broad terms, the impacts would be similar to those of the 

preceding two alternatives. 

Wintering waterfowl populations are likely to increase moderately under this alternative, although 

Canada geese, northern pintail, and green-winged teal are expected to remain unchanged. Fish 

species composition and population densities in both Lake Mattamuskeet and the canals that drain it 

would probably stay the same over the 15-year planning period. However, as in Alternatives A and 

B, long-term declines in aquatic habitat for both fish and waterfowl would be expected to continue as 

the lake becomes more eutrophic and gradually fills in with inorganic sediments and organic matter. 

This is the inevitable fate of all ponds and lakes, a process of natural succession that can be averted 

only through active management intervention, such as dredging, drawdown and burning, or reducing 

upstream sediment transport and deposition. This alternative proposes to increase canal dredging 

and maintenance, as in Alternative B, but would also strive to slow the eutrophication of Lake 

Mattamuskeet through active efforts to reduce upstream sediment transport and deposition. 

Blue crab harvest would not change under Alternative C; likewise, no change is anticipated in the 

distribution, composition, and populations of aquatic invertebrates. As well, no change is anticipated 

in the growing use of the refuge by bald eagles, ospreys, and other raptors. Depending on what is 

learned, proposed surveys for contaminants in these raptors could lead to additional efforts at their 

protection or management. The occurrence of passerine birds, including resident, breeding, and 
134 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

migratory birds (e.g., neotropical miratory birds), would probably not change from the continuation of 

current management, because no changes in their habitat are proposed. However, improved 

information from a greater effort at surveying (point counts), depending on what was learned, could 

lead to changed management strategies that may be beneficial. 

Shorebirds would continue to use one moist-soil unit in the spring; any change in their numbers 

would be due to other outside factors, such as weather or population trends off the refuge. 

Shorebird numbers may increase during the fall migration if one moist-soil unit is managed to 

attract them. No change in the distribution or density of marsh and wading birds is likely to occur 

under Alternative C. Current management would produce no change in the population size or 

distribution of mammals on and near the refuge, including white-tailed deer and the recovering 

red wolf. Finally, no change is expected in the presence, abundance, and diversity of the 

refuge’s reptile and amphibian populations. 

With regard to habitats, the main change likely to occur under Alternative C is the long-term, gradual 

decrease in open water habitat on Lake Mattamuskeet, discussed above. Current management strives to 

maintain 40,276 acres of open water habitat in Lake Mattamuskeet, but the long-term trend of loss of 

open water in the lake will surely continue as sediments and organic matter accumulate over time. The 

quantity and quality of marsh would remain essentially the same over a 15-year period, although the loss 

of open water just discussed over time would probably be compensated by a gain in the area of marsh, at 

least temporarily. However, over a 15-year period, the expected change would not be great. Over this 

same time frame, there would likely be little effect on freshwater marsh from sea level rise associated with 

global warming, which would probably amount to an inch or two at most. However, were a powerful 

hurricane to strike the refuge, the probability of which may be increasing because of climate change, 

higher sea level could contribute to greater adverse impacts on freshwater marsh. Salt-intolerant plants 

would experience high mortality, as has occurred elsewhere in freshwater marshes affected by salt water 

and salt spray associated with hurricanes. 

With regard to the effects of Alternative C on other refuge habitats, the quality, but not the quantity, of 

the moist-soil units and the three forested impoundments would improve through more intensive 

management to reduce noxious weeds and encourage plants beneficial to waterfowl. There would 

also be little change in the acreage and composition of forested habitats over most of the refuge; 

normal forest maturation and succession would continue in these forests, barring wildfire, which 

would set back succession. If Salyer’s Ridge pinewoods were more intensively managed, this would 

be beneficial to that forest stand and its value as wildlife habitat. If the same crops and rotations 

were used, the area and composition of cropland on the refuge would be unchanged, as would be the 

food and foraging benefits it furnishes to wildlife. However, if upon consideration of other 

management options, staff decided to implement one or more of them, such as scrub/shrub habitat or 

early successional habitat like moist-soil units, a wide variety of birds and mammals would likely 

benefit while some ducks and geese would be deprived of a quantity of “hot food.” 

 

With respect to resource protection, Alternative C would be broadly similar to Alternative B. The 

same quantity of land and habitat would continue to be protected, with minor possible increases 

because of property purchases at strategic locations within the approved acquisition boundary. More 

comprehensive water quality monitoring on Lake Mattamuskeet would be more likely to reveal hidden 

water quality or contaminant problems if they exist. That said, no change in water quality is likely to 

occur under this alternative. However, if monitoring discovers a problem, the Service, the refuge, and 

the NCWRC could begin to work toward a solution. Actions to address the impending threat of feral 

swine on the refuge would be similar to those proposed in Alternative B. 

 
Environmental Assessment 135

Known cultural resources on the refuge would continue to be protected. Although some looting and 

theft of these resources would be expected to continue, this problem would be reduced because of 

stepped-up law enforcement. In addition, the proposed cultural resources survey and Cultural 

Resources Management Plan would, over time, increase our knowledge and appreciation of extant 

cultural and historic resources on the refuge. Since the refuge transferred ownership of 

Mattamuskeet Lodge to the State, it is no longer part of the refuge or under jurisdiction of the Service, 

in spite of its proximity and long history with the refuge. However, the Service would continue to 

cooperate with the state and the Partnership for the Sounds in management and operation of its 

administrative area in the vicinity of the lodge. An increased level of law enforcement under 

Alternative C would provide improved protection for the public – neighbors and visitors alike – and the 

refuge’s natural and cultural resources. 

The invasive common reed would continue to infest marshes but would likely be curbed due to 

increased control using annual herbicide applications and prescribed fire. Alternative C would 

also attack alligatorweed in refuge canals and impoundments, with the probable outcome that the 

negative effects of this invasive aquatic weed would be reduced. The invasive nutria would also 

continue to infest the refuge, displacing native wildlife and damaging some infrastructure. 

However, increased control measures would reduce the population of this rodent and the damage 

it causes, but would not eradicate this pest. 

Alternative C would substantially increase existing hunting and fishing opportunities, which would 

benefit these two user groups. Current levels of environmental education, interpretation, and 

outreach would also be increased substantially under this alternative, which would benefit the public 

and conservation knowledge in general. Opportunities for wildlife observation and photography 

would be enhanced, making the refuge more attractive to the general visitor. Ecotourism would be 

encouraged to a greater extent. Planned new facilities, in particular the office and visitor contact 

station, would improve staff effectiveness, as well as the visitor experience. 

Occasional, inadvertent flooding of certain adjacent properties would continue under Alternative C 

when Lake Mattamuskeet levels are high. There is little the refuge can do to prevent this without 

radical changes in lake-water level management; i.e., lowering the level of the lake to an 

unacceptable elevation that would compromise its marshes, open water habitat, fisheries stocks, and 

wintering waterfowl populations. Canals would continue to silt in and lose capacity; their rehabilitation 

(restoring design capacity and configuration) would be a continuing need. 

By continuing to protect wildlife habitat and maintain water quality, stepping up management of 

wetlands and conservation of wildlife populations, and augmenting sustainable wildlife-dependent 

recreation, this alternative would continue to be consistent with the CZMA and CAMA. 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

Under Alternative A – the no-action alternative – there are several important unavoidable impacts, 

including law enforcement that is not adequate for protecting resources and visitor use; continued 

degradation of the biological functions of native plant communities and wildlife habitat due to the 

invasion of exotic plants and nuisance animals; gradual reduction in the quality and quantity of open 

water habitat in Lake Mattamuskeet from its filling in with sediments and organic matter; and a 

continued decline in biodiversity. Over time, if these issues are not addressed, they will continue to 

adversely affect refuge resources. 
136 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative B, the proposed alternative, shares some of these unavoidable impacts with Alternative A, 

but generally to a lesser extent. Thus, by comparison, impacts are expected to be minor and/or 

short-term in duration. Also, the refuge will attempt to minimize these impacts whenever possible. 

The following sections describe the measures the refuge will employ to mitigate and minimize the 

potential impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed alternative. 

Alternative C, the moderately expanded program, would have fewer unavoidable adverse impacts 

than either Alternative A or Alternative B. 

WATER QUALITY FROM SOIL DISTURBANCE AND USE OF HERBICIDES 

Soil disturbance and siltation due to water management activities; road and levee maintenance; and 

the construction of observation towers, boat ramps, and a headquarters and visitor center is expected 

to be minor and of short duration. To further reduce potential impacts, the refuge will use best 

management practices to minimize the erosion of soils into water bodies. Foot traffic on new and 

extended foot trails is expected to have a negligible impact on soil erosion. Foot traffic on new and 

extended foot trails is expected to have a negligible impact on soil erosion. 

Long-term herbicide use for invasive plant control (common reed or Phragmites) could result in a 

slight decrease in water quality in areas prone to invasive plant infestation. Through the proper 

application of herbicides, however, this is expected to have a minor impact on the environment, with 

the benefit of reducing or eliminating harmful invasive plant infestations. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of the 

activity involved. While some activities, such as wildlife observation, may be less disturbing than 

others, all of the public use activities proposed under the proposed alternative will be planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the proposed alternative are not considered 

to be significant. Nevertheless, the refuge will manage public use activities to reduce impacts. 

Providing access for fishing opportunities allows the use of a renewable natural resource without 

adversely impacting other resources. Hunting will also be managed with restrictions that ensure 

minimal impact on other resources. General wildlife observation may result in minimal 

disturbance to wildlife. If the refuge determines that impacts from the expected additional visitor 

uses are above the levels that are anticipated, those uses will be discontinued, restricted, or 

rerouted to other less sensitive areas. 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Negative impacts could result from the creation, extension, and maintenance of trails that 

require the clearing of nonsensitive vegetation along their length. This is expected to be a 

minor, short-term impact. 

Increased visitor use may increase the potential for the introduction of new exotic species into 

areas when visitors do not comply with boating regulations at the boat ramps and other access 

points, or with requests to stay on trails. The refuge will minimize this impact by enforcing the 

regulations for access to the refuge’s water bodies, and by installing informational signs that 

request users to stay on the trails. 
Environmental Assessment 137

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use increases, unanticipated conflicts between different user groups could occur. If this 

should happen, the refuge will adjust its programs, as needed, to eliminate or minimize any public 

use issues. The refuge will use methods that have proven to be effective in reducing or eliminating 

public use conflicts. These methods include establishing separate use areas, different use periods, 

and limits on the numbers of users in order to provide safe, quality, appropriate, and compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed alternative is expected to result in continuing minor negative impacts 

on the owners of private lands adjacent to the refuge from occasional flooding when lake levels are 

high. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property values and increased 

opportunities for viewing more diverse wildlife. 

Other negative impacts that may occur include a higher frequency of trespass onto adjacent private 

lands and noise associated with increased vehicular and boat traffic on and around Lake 

Mattamuskeet. To minimize these potential impacts, the refuge will provide informational signs that 

clearly mark refuge boundaries; maintain the refuge’s existing parking facilities; use law enforcement; 

and provide increased educational efforts at the visitor center. 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 

Management efforts by the Service could lead to changes in land use and recreational use patterns. 

Most of the non-Service-owned lands adjacent to the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary are 

managed for waterfowl and deer hunting. 

Potential development of the refuge’s buildings, trails, and other improvements could lead to minor 

short-term negative impacts on plants, soils, and some wildlife species. When building the new boat 

ramp, refuge office/visitor contact station, and employee housing, efforts would be made to use 

recycled products and environmentally sensitive treated lumber. The office/visitor contact station will 

be constructed to be aesthetically pleasing to the community and immediate surroundings (including 

Mattamuskeet Lodge) and to avoid any additional impacts to native plant communities. All 

construction activities would comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; the 

National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and other 

applicable regulatory requirements. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. 

Impacts can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same 

resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time, from actions in the past, the 

present, and the future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially 
138 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

canceling out each other’s effect on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with 

each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource. In addition, 

sometimes the overall effect is greater than merely the sum of the individual effects, such as 

when one more reduction in a population crosses a threshold of reproductive sustainability, and 

threatens to extinguish the population. 

A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects, because actions do not 

take place in a vacuum: there are virtually always some other actions that have affected that resource 

in some way in the past, or are affecting it in the present, or will affect it in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. So any assessment of a specific action’s effects must in fact be made with consideration of 

what else has happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else will likely happen to it. 

The refuge is not aware of any past, present, or future planned actions that would result in a 

significant cumulative impact when added to the refuge’s proposed actions, as outlined in the 

proposed alternative. 

Nevertheless, because of concerns expressed about the cumulative effects of hunting in particular, 

this section analyzes and discusses in some detail the cumulative impacts of the hunting program of 

each alternative on a variety of resources at Mattamuskeet NWR. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE SPECIES 

Migratory Birds 

The Service annually prescribes frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may 

occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed. These frameworks are necessary 

to allow state selections of season and limits for recreation and sustenance; aid federal, state, and 

tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels 

compatible with population status and habitat conditions. Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless specifically opened by 

the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates regulations (50 CFR Part 20) 

establishing the frameworks from which States may select season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, 

and other options for each migratory bird hunting season. The frameworks are essentially permissive 

in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, in effect, federal annual 

regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds. 

Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United States 

and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when 

"hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or 

export of any ... bird, or any part, nest, or egg" of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt 

regulations for this purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to "the zones of 

temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines 

of migratory flight of such birds, and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has 

been delegated to the Service as the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory 

birds in the United States. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has 

administratively divided the nation into four flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory 

game birds. Each flyway (e.g., Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a 

formal organization generally composed of one member from each state and province in that flyway. 

Mattamuskeet NWR is within the Atlantic Flyway. 
Environmental Assessment 

Table 17. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Mattamuskeet Refuge 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B (Proposed 

Alternative) 

A

(Mode

Migratory Waterfowl 

Wintering waterfowl populations are likely to remain substantially unchanged. 

Tundra swan, pintail, and greenwinged teal numbers are unlikely to change but Canada geese and duck numbers in general should increase moderately. 

Tundra swwinged teaunlikely to geese and general mamoderately

Fish 

Fish species composition and population densities would probably stay the same. 

Same as Alternative A but increase in crappie population. Same as A

Crustaceans 

Blue crab harvest would not change. Same as Alternative A. 

Same as APossible incrabs if crafrom outlet 

Aquatic Invertebrates No change expected. 

Slight to moderate increase in invertebrates in moist-soil impoundments. 

Same as A

Raptors 

No change anticipated in use of refuge by bald eagles, ospreys, and other raptors. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Athat new inof contamiimprove m

Passerine birds Bird populations would probably not change. Same as Alternative A, but improved information could lead to changed management. Same as AShorebirds Shorebirds would continue to use one moist-soil unit in spring. New habitat may attract shorebirds in fall. Same as AMarsh and wading birds 

No change expected in distribution or density. Slight increase due to better 

management of impoundments. Same as A
140 Mattamuskeet Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B (Proposed 

Alternative) 

A

(Mode

Mammals No change expected in deer herd size or wolf recovery trends. Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Aherd compdue to hunchanges bwith NCW

Reptiles and amphibians No change expected. Same as Alternative A. Same as AOpen water habitat 

Total of 40,276 acres of open water habitat maintained, but long-term trend of loss of open water from lake gradually filling in with sediments and organic matter continues. 

Same as Alternative A but process of eutrophication slowed due to increased maintenance of drainage canals. 

Same as Agreater redeutrophicaefforts to rsediment tdeposition 

Freshwater marsh (fringe along lakeshore) 

Quantity and quality of marsh remain the same; little effect from sea level rise over this time frame. 

Same as Alternative A but less of marsh infested with common reed. 

Same as Aless of macommon re

Managed wetlands 

Quantity and quality of moist-soil units and forested impoundments unchanged.

Quality would improve through more intensive management to reduce noxious weeds and increase food plants important to waterfowl. 

Same as A

Forested habitats 

Little change in acreage and composition of forested habitats; normal forest maturation and succession continue. 

Same as Alternative A, but increased management of Salyer’s Ridge pinewoods to perpetuate pine component. 

Same as A

Cropland 

Area and composition of cropland unchanged, as are benefits to wildlife. 

Other cropping options and/or early successional habitat may result. Same as A
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B (Proposed 

Alternative) 

A

(Mode

Land protection 

Same quantity of land continues under protection with minor possible increases at strategic locations. 

Same as Alternative A but strive to purchase small tracts which improve public and management access. 

Same as A

Water quality and contaminants 

Basic water quality measures continue to be monitored; not all potential contaminants covered. 

Water quality monitoring is made more comprehensive; water quality itself stays the same or improves. 

Same as A

Cultural resources 

Known cultural resources continue to be protected, although some theft continues; Mattamuskeet Lodge restored and used. 

Management and preservation of cultural resources improved; more knowledge gained. 

Same as A

Law enforcement 

Same level of law enforcement continues; provides moderate but not thorough protection for public and resources. 

Level of law enforcement would increase, providing greater degree of protection for public and resources. 

Same as A

Invasive plants 

Common reed continues to infest marshes but is kept at bay through annual control efforts. 

Increased control effort gradually reduces infestation of common reed and alligator weed. 

Same as Areduced prweed in cavigilance aplant spec

Invasive animals 

Nutria continues to infest refuge, displacing native wildlife and damaging some infrastructure. Feral swine become established on the refuge and destroy native habitats and reduce wildlife. 

Nutria population reduced somewhat but need for long-term control continues. Feral swine are managed to prevent damage to moist-soil unit habitat. 

Same as Aswine are damage to habitat as sensitive h

Hunting Existing hunting opportunities would continue. Hunting opportunities increased somewhat. Hunting op

substantia
142 Mattamuskeet Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B (Proposed 

Alternative) 

A

(Mode

Fishing Existing fishing opportunities would continue. New facilities would increase fishing opportunities. New facilit

fishing oppthan in Alte

Environmental education 

Level of environmental education would be maintained. 

Environmental education activities would increase. 

Environmeactivities wmore than 

Interpretation 

Level of interpretation would be maintained. 

Interpretative activities and facilities would increase. 

Interpretatfacilities wmore than 

Wildlife observation and photography 

Existing opportunities would continue at same level. 

Opportunities would increase and improve. Three new wildlife observation platforms and one new photo blind would be constructed. 

Same as A

Outreach Level of outreach would stay the 

same. 

Level of outreach would increase. 

Level of ouincrease eAlternative 

Facilities 

Planned new facilities would improve staff effectiveness and visitor experience. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as A

Adjacent uplands on private property 

Occasional, inadvertent flooding continues. Same as Alternative A. Same as A

Canals and drainage 

Continue to silt in and lose capacity; rehabilitation a continuing need. 

Same as Alternative A but greater efforts made to rehabilitate drainage canals. 

Same as A

Ecotourism Continues to be supported. Level of support and opportunities increased. Level of su

opportunitimore than 

Access to refuge Unchanged. Same as Alternative A. Same as A
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B (Proposed 

Alternative) 

A

(Mode

Trails No new trails. 

An 8-mile canoe/kayak trail would be restored. New boardwalk and observation platform would be constructed on the north side of Fisher Slough. 

Same as A

Coastal resources protected by CZMA and CAMA Continue to be protected. 

Coastal resources would be accorded somewhat greater protection. 

Protection increased. 
144 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in 50 CFR 20, is 

constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the 

rulemaking process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds 

controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available 

for consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory gamebird hunting regulations 

includes two separate regulations-development schedules, based on "early" and "late" hunting 

season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other than waterfowl (e.g. 

dove, woodcock); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. Early 

hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons generally start on or after 

October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no 

differences in the processes for establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle, 

Service biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this 

information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and 

presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties (USFWS 2006). 

Under each of the three alternatives, including the proposed action, there would be no significant increase 

in the annual harvest of ducks, coots, Canada and snow geese, and tundra swans on the refuge, thus 

there would be no additional cumulative impact of this action on waterfowl populations in North Carolina 

and the Atlantic Flyway. Overall, populations of ducks species in the Atlantic Flyway are reasonably 

healthy, while fluctuating up and down in response to a number of natural and human factors. 

Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory birds and other factors into 

consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with 

the Canadian Wildlife Service, State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies, and others. To 

determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, the Service considers factors such as 

population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding 

and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. After frameworks are 

established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, migratory game 

bird management becomes a cooperative effort of state and federal governments. After Service 

establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the states may select season dates, bag 

limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative 

in their selections than the federal frameworks but never more liberal. Season dates and bag limits 

for national wildlife refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the state regulations. In 

fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed when a national wildlife 

refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the 

state allows. At Mattamuskeet NWR, season length is less than North Carolina allows, and hunting is 

scheduled as two half-day paired hunts on the mornings of Tuesday-Wednesday and FridaySaturday. Waterfowl may only be taken with shotguns using approved non-toxic shot. The refuge 

further limits the number of waterfowl hunters by means of a quota system and restricts waterfowl 

hunting to 1,000 acres of open water and marsh on the south side of Lake Mattamuskeet, about two 

percent of the entire refuge area. In any one hunting season, about 1,000 waterfowl hunters hunt 

from 16 blinds in the designated area. A youth hunt for hunters aged 12-15 is typically scheduled on 

the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving. 

NEPA considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game bird species are addressed by the 

programmatic document, ‘‘Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 

Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88– 14),’’ filed with the 

Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We published a notice of availability in the 

Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and our Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 

(53 FR 31341). Annual NEPA considerations for waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered under a 

separate Environmental Assessment, “Duck Hunting Regulations for 2007-08,” and an August 2007, 
Environmental Assessment 145

Finding of No Significant Impact. Further, in a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal 

Register (70 FR 53376), the Service announced its intent to develop a new Supplemental EIS for the 

migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as 

announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216). More information may be 

obtained from: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NWR, Washington, DC 20240. 

Resident Big Game 

Deer 

Mattamuskeet NWR conducts an annual quota deer hunt on about 6,000 acres every autumn. 

Currently, the deer hunt consists of two two-day hunts in October, for a total of four hunting days. 

With the appropriate North Carolina big game license, each hunter is allowed to take one antlered or 

two antlerless deer per day on the refuge. Deer may be taken with shotgun, muzzleloading 

rifle/shotgun, or bow and arrow. Use of modern rifles, pistols, or other weapons is prohibited. Each 

of the alternatives would continue to allow deer hunting at approximately the current levels. The 

proposed alternative would expand a youth hunt for deer, but this is not expected to substantially 

increase overall hunting pressure. Deer hunting on the refuge does not have a significant impact on 

the regional deer population due to the restricted home ranges of white-tailed deer. In spite of the 

hunting pressure experienced at Mattamuskeet NWR, white-tailed deer continue to be present in high 

numbers on the refuge. Therefore, continuation of deer hunting on refuge lands should not have 

negative cumulative impacts on the area’s and state’s deer herd. 

Non-Game Wildlife 

Non-game or non-hunted wildlife would include non-hunted migratory birds such as songbirds, wading 

birds, raptors, and woodpeckers; small mammals such as voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats; reptiles 

and amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and toads; and invertebrates 

such as butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders. Except for migratory birds and some species of 

migratory bats, butterflies and moths, these species have very limited home ranges and hunting could not 

affect their populations regionally; thus, only local effects will be discussed. 

Disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds could have regional, local, and flyway effects. Regional 

and flyway effects would not be applicable to species that do not migrate such as most woodpeckers, 

and some songbirds including cardinals, titmice, wrens, chickadees, etc. The cumulative effects of 

disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds under the proposed action are expected to be negligible for 

the following reasons. Hunting season would not coincide with the nesting season. Long-term future 

impacts that could occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are not relevant for this reason. 

Disturbance to the daily wintering activities of birds, such as feeding and resting, might occur. 

Disturbance to birds by hunters would probably be commensurate with that caused by nonconsumptive users. The cumulative effects of disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds under the 

proposed action are expected to be negligible for the above reasons. 

With regard to other wildlife, disturbance would be unlikely for the following reasons. Small 

mammals, including bats, are inactive during winter when hunting season occurs. These species are 

also nocturnal. Both of these qualities make hunter interactions with small mammals very rare. 

Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood reptiles and amphibians also limits their activity during the hunting 

season when temperatures are low. Hunters would rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians during 

most of the hunting season. Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early fall are few and 

should not have cumulative negative effects on reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates are 
146 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

also not active during cold weather and would have few interactions with hunters during the hunting 

season. Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted wildlife. 

Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the game 

species legal for the season is not permitted. 

Although ingestion of lead shot by non-hunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not relevant 

to Mattamuskeet NWR because the use of lead shot is not and will not be permitted on the refuge. 

Some species of bats, butterflies, and moths are migratory. Cumulative effects to these species at 

the “flyway” level should be negligible. These species are in torpor or have completely passed 

through North Carolina by peak hunting season in November-January. Some hunting occurs during 

September and October when these species are migrating; however, hunter interaction would be 

commensurate with that of non-consumptive users. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Two animal species federally listed as endangered or threatened occur on Mattamuskeet NWR: the 

red wolf and the American alligator. The former is a terrestrial species, the latter an aquatic one. An 

experimental population of the endangered red wolf has been established in national wildlife refuges 

in this part of North Carolina, including Mattamuskeet NWR. The American alligator, while not 

threatened or endangered itself, is protected by similarity of appearance to the endangered American 

crocodile. Mattamuskeet NWR is currently near the northern limit of the range of the alligator. 

An Intra-Service Section 7 evaluation under the Endangered Species Act is included as Appendix H 

in this Draft CCP. It concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on the two listed 

species mentioned above. While these species do occur regularly on the refuge, hunters are unlikely 

to mistake red wolves and American alligators for ducks, geese, swans, or deer. The cumulative 

adverse impact on listed species would be nil to negligible, and would be comparable to that caused 

by anglers, boaters, and non-consumptive users. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON REFUGE PROGRAMS, FACILITIES, CULTURAL RESOURCES, 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, AND SURROUNDING 

COMMUNITIES 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation 

As public use levels expand as projected over time, unanticipated conflicts between user groups may 

occur at Mattamuskeet NWR. The refuge’s visitor use programs would be adjusted as needed to 

eliminate or minimize each problem and provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

Experience on many national wildlife refuges has proven that time and space zoning (e.g., 

establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions on the number of users) is an 

effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. In the context of the present proposed 

action, one of the strategies under the hunting objective would be to close areas to other public uses 

during hunts and to provide information on alternative sites to motorists. 

Overall, the cumulative impact of hunting on other wildlife-dependent recreation at Mattamuskeet 

NWR would be negligible to minor. 
Environmental Assessment 147

Refuge Facilities 

The Service defines facilities as: “Real property that serves a particular function(s) such as buildings, 

roads, utilities, water control structures, raceways, etc.” Those facilities most utilized by hunters are 

roads, parking lots, trails, and boat launching ramps. Maintenance or improvement of existing 

facilities (i.e., parking areas, roads, trails, and boat ramps) would cause minimal short-term impacts to 

localized soils and waters and may cause some wildlife disturbances and damage to vegetation. The 

facility maintenance and improvement activities described are periodically conducted to 

accommodate daily refuge management operations and general public uses such as wildlife 

observation and photography. These activities would be conducted at times (seasonal and/or daily) 

to cause the least amount of disturbance to wildlife. Siltation barriers will be used to minimize soil 

erosion, and all disturbed sites will be restored to as natural a condition as possible. During times 

when roads are impassible due to flood events or other natural causes, those roads, parking lots, 

trails, and boat ramps impacted by the event would be closed to vehicular use. 

Overall, the cumulative impact of hunting on Mattamuskeet NWR’s facilities would be negligible. 

Neither deer nor waterfowl hunting is permitted in or near the refuge’s administrative areas. 

Cultural Resources 

Hunting, regardless of method or species targeted, is a consumptive activity that does not pose any 

threat to historic properties on or near the refuge. In fact, hunting meets only one of the two criteria 

used to identify an “undertaking” that triggers a federal agency’s need to comply with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. These criteria, which are delineated in 36 CFR Part 800, 

state: 

1. an undertaking is any project, activity, or program that can alter the character or use of an 

archaeological or historic site located within the “area of potential effect;” and 

2. the project, activity, or program must also be either funded, sponsored, performed, licensed, 

or have received assistance from the agency. 

Therefore, consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office and federally 

recognized tribes is not required. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 "Federal Actions to address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-income Populations" was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations to achieve environmental protection of all communities. In part, the order intended to 

promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment and to provide minority and low-income communities access to public information and 

participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

There are low-income and minority populations in the area but there is no evidence of adverse 

disproportionate environmental justice issues associated with the refuge’s existing hunting program 

or proposed expansion. Any affected populations would generally be affected in the same ways as 

the regional population as a whole. 
148 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Environmental Resources 

The refuge expects no appreciable adverse impacts of the proposed action on the Mattamuskeet 

NWR environment, which consists of soils, vegetation, air quality, water quality, and solitude. Some 

disturbance to surface soils and vegetation would occur in areas selected for hunting; however, 

impacts would be minimal. Litter left behind by hunters would also be expected, although unlike the 

litter associated with fishing, which is often concentrated near or at certain heavily fished locations, 

litter from hunters is likely to be more widely scattered and therefore less conspicuous. Hunting 

would be expected to benefit vegetation, since it is used to maintain many resident wildlife 

populations, particularly deer, in balance with the habitat’s carrying capacity. When and where 

necessary, the refuge would also control access or close areas to minimize habitat degradation. 

The refuge expects impacts to air and water quality to be minimal and only due to refuge visitors’ 

automobile emissions. The effect of these refuge-related activities, as well as other management 

activities, on overall air and water quality in the region are anticipated to be negligible, compared to 

the contributions of industries, businesses, and non-refuge vehicle traffic in this portion of Hyde 

County. Existing state water quality criteria and use classifications are adequate to achieve desired 

on-refuge conditions; thus, implementation of the proposed action and alternatives would not impact 

adjacent landowners or users beyond the constraints already implemented under existing state 

standards and laws. 

Impacts associated with solitude are expected to be minimal given time and space zone management 

techniques, such as seasonal access and area closures, used to avoid conflicts among user groups. 

Surrounding Communities

The refuge would work closely with state, federal, and private partners to minimize adverse 

cumulative impacts to adjacent lands and its associated natural resources; however, no cumulative 

impacts are anticipated. The newly opened hunt(s) would result in a modest net gain of public 

hunting opportunities, which are expected to positively impact the general public, nearby residents, 

and refuge visitors. Residents in the area and neighboring communities are likely to view continued 

hunting opportunities favorably. The refuge expects continuing visitation and tourism, some of it due 

to hunting, to generate revenues to local communities, but this increase in spending would be very 

small in comparison with the size of the local economy. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance, but still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

The actions proposed for implementation under the proposed alternative include facility development, 

wildlife and population management, resource protection, public use, and administrative programs. 

These actions would result in both direct and indirect effects. Facility development, for example, 

would most likely lead to increased public use, a direct effect; and it, in turn, would lead to indirect 

effects such as increased littering, noise, and vehicular traffic. 

Other indirect effects that may result from implementing the proposed alternative include minor 

impacts from siltation due to the disturbance of soils and vegetation while building in the 

administrative area, as well as expanding or creating new foot trails; construction of the new refuge 

office; and providing greater visitor access by adding one boat ramp. 
Environmental Assessment 149

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions proposed under the proposed alternative are 

dedicated to maintaining the long-term productivity of refuge habitats. The benefits of this CCP for 

long-term productivity far outweigh any impacts from short-term actions, such as the construction of 

the new office and staff housing or a boat ramp, and the placement of new signage. While these 

activities would cause short-term negative impacts, the educational values and associated public 

support gained from the improved visitor experience would produce long-term benefits for the 

refuge’s entire ecosystem. 

The key to protecting and ensuring the refuge’s long-term productivity is to find the threshold where 

public uses do not degrade or interfere with the refuge’s natural resources. The plans proposed 

under the proposed alternative have been carefully conceived to achieve that threshold. Therefore, 

implementing the proposed alternative would lead to long-term benefits for wildlife protection and land 

conservation that far outweigh any short-term impacts. 
150 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 151

V. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative, which are presented in this Draft CCP/EA. It lists 

the meetings that have been held with the various agencies, organizations, and individuals who were 

consulted in the preparation of the Draft CCP/EA. 

The following meetings, contacts, and presentations were undertaken by the Service during the 

preparation of the Draft CCP/EA: 

y A series of public scoping meetings was held on February 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2001. 

There was substantial public participation at these meetings and during scoping in general. 

y A Biological Review was carried out in July 2002, for all the national wildlife refuges, including 

Mattamuskeet, in the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem of northeastern North 

Carolina and southeastern Virginia. A diverse team of federal, state, university and nongovernmental biologists undertook a holistic examination of habitat and wildlife management 

programs at the refuge. Review participants and agencies represented included: 

- the Service’s Regional Office (Atlanta) Non-game Migratory Bird Coordinator 

- the Service’s Regional Office Forester 

- a representative from the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William 

and Mary 

- the chief of the Regional Office’s Division of Migratory Birds 

- several biologists from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

- a North Carolina State University biologist 

- a forester with USFWS 

- a representative of the Coastal Program, Raleigh, NC 

- The Nature Conservancy 

- National Park Service, Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

- False Cape State Park 

- A private forester from Roanoke Rapids, NC 

- North Carolina Forest Service, New Bern, NC 

- Refuge manager, forester, and wildlife biologist from Great Dismal Swamp NWR in 

Virginia 

- Multiple staff from North Carolina national wildlife refuges, including Alligator River, 

Roanoke River, Mackay Island, Pocosin Lakes, and Backbay Island 

y A Visitor Services Review was conducted in December 2006, by Service public use and 

outreach specialists from the regional office and two other refuges in Region 4. 

y Public scoping was re-initiated in June 2007, after the CCP process was temporarily halted. A 

public meeting advertised in the local news media was held at the Mattamuskeet Senior 

Center on June 20, 2007. 
152 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y A two-day workshop was held on September 25-26, 2007, to develop a vision, goals, and 

objectives for the refuge. Participants and organizations represented included: 

- USFWS Division of Migratory Birds, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist 

- NCWRC, Outer Banks Center for Wildlife Education 

- NCWRC, District Fisheries Biologist 

- NCWRC, Waterfowl Biologist 

- The Nature Conservancy 

- NCDCM, Buckridge Coastal Reserve 

- East Carolina University 

- North Carolina Cooperative Extensive Service, Swan Quarter 

- Partnership for the Sounds 

- A consulting biologist and conservation planner from a private contractor (Mangi 

Environmental Group) 
Appendices 

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in a management plan. Analysis of results helps 

managers determine whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alluvial: Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by 

flowing water. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated 

need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of objectives 

and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Anadromous: Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to 

fresh water to breed. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as biodiversity. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a 

habitat or area. 

Catadromous: Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in freshwater and migrate 

to saltwater to breed. 

Categorical Exclusion: A category of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the 

national wildlife refuge [50 CFR 25.12 (a)]. A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 
154 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan:

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: See Issue. 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the 

National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the 

nature and extent of known cultural resources, previous research, 

management objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, 

and a general statement on how program objectives should be met 

and conflicts resolved. An overview should reference or incorporate 

information from a field office’s background or literature search 

described in Section VIII of the Cultural Resource Management 

Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Designated Wilderness 

Area:

An area designated by the U.S. Congress to be managed as part of 

the National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service Manual 

610 FW 1.5). 

Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be 

natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 
Appendices 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in 

the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or 

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the 

purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and 

provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of 

no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Estuary: The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area 

where the tide meets a river current. 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives.

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Informed Consent: The grudging willingness of opponents to “go along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 
156 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision [e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K)]. 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative. 

Management Concern: See Issue. 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue. 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate 

NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making 

(40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service is 

required to develop 15-year comprehensive conservation plans for all 

national wildlife refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the six 

public uses given priority status within the Refuge System (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; game ranges; wildlife management areas; or 

waterfowl production areas. 
Appendices 

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the Refuge System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States. 

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (P.L. 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Making objectives attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative determined (by the decision-maker) to best 

achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May occur from natural 

ignition or intentional ignition. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that require protective measures and/or 

management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority species 

include the following: (1) State-listed and candidate species; (2) 

species or groups of animals susceptible to significant population 

declines within a specific area or statewide by virtue of their inclination 

to aggregate (e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of recreation, 

commercial, and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

conservation planning process. 
158 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of federal, state, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

“The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit.” For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 602 FW 106 S). 

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior, and recommended for designation by the 

President to Congress. These areas await only legislative action by 

Congress in order to become part of the Wilderness System. Such 

areas are also referred to as “pending in Congress” (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were not), 

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge. 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that is medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, and safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 
Appendices 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP, the study area includes the lands within the 

currently approved refuge boundary and potential refuge expansion 

areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Unit Objective: See Objective. 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other 

mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 
160 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study area must meet the 

following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; and 

 Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3 
Appendices 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CAMA Coastal Area Management Act (North Carolina) 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DU Ducks Unlimited 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE environmental education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FR Federal Register 

FTE full-time equivalent employee 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also Service) 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NCDCM North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

NGO non-governmental organization 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PFT Permanent Full Time 

PUNA Public Use Natural Area 

RM Refuge Manual 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also Service) 
162 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 

Appendix B. References and Literature Citations 

Allen, T. G. 1998. Black bear population dynamics and habitat use in coastal North Carolina. 

MS Thesis, Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville. 131 pp. 

Barick, F.B. and T.S. Critcher. 1975. Wildlife and land use planning with particular reference to 

coastal counties. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC. 168 pp. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Stackhole Books, Harrisburg, 

PA. 544 pp. 

Brown, M. J. 2004. Forest Statistics for North Carolina, 2002. Southern Research Station. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Asheville, NC. 

Caudill, James and Erin Henderson. 2005. Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. USFWS Division of Economics, 

Washington DC. September. 

Cowardin, L. et. al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services FWS/OBS-79/31. 

131 pgs. 

Division of Marine Fisheries. 2007. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries. Blue Crabs. Accessed on the World Wide Web at: 

http://www.ncfisheries.net/bluecrab/ . 

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 

1940. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 460 pp. 

Eubanks, T., P. Kerlinger, and R.H. Payne 1993. High Island, Texas, A Case Study in Avitourism, 

Birding 25(6):415-420). 

Eubanks, Ted, and John Stoll. 1999. Avitourism in Texas: Two Studies of Birders in Texas and Their 

Potential Support for the Proposed World Birding Center. Texas Parks and Wildlife Contract 

No. 44467. 

Forrest, Lewis C. 1999. Images of America: Lake Mattamuskeet, New Holland and Hyde County. 

 Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. 

Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowen and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and trends of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States: 1950's to 1970's. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 32pp. 

Frost, C. C. 1993. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem. 

Pages 17– 43 in S. H. Hermann, editor. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers fire ecology 

conference, No. 18. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Frost, C. C. 1987. Historical overview of Atlantic white cedar in the Carolinas. Pages 257–264 in A. D. 

Laderman, editor. Atlantic white cedar wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 
164 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Fredrickson, L.H. and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1988. Waterfowl Use of Forested Wetlands of the Southern 

United States: An Overview. Pages 307-323 in M.W. Weller, editor. Waterfowl in Winter. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, New York, 

New York. 250 pp. 

Halls, L. K. 1984. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stockpole Books. 

Harrisburg, PA 870p. 

Halls, L. K. and T. H. Ripley. 1961. Deer browse plants of southern forests. U.S. Forest Service 

South and Southeast Forest Experiment Station, 78 pp. 

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy 

and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Hamilton, R. J. 1978.Ecology of the black bear in southeastern North Carolina. M. S. Thesis. 

University of Georgia. Athens. 

Hamilton, R. J. and L. Marchinton. 1977. Denning and related activities of black bears in the coastal 

plain of North Carolina. Pages 121-126 In Bears their biology and management. Bear 

Biology Association Conference Series No. 3 Kalispell, Montana. 

Hardy, D. M. 1974 Habitat requirements of the black bear in Dare County, North Carolina. MS 

Thesis. Virginia Technical Institute, Blacksburg, Va. 121 pp. 

Hefner, J.H. and J.D. Brown. 1984. Wetland trends in the southeastern United States. 

Wetlands 4:1-11. 

Hester, J. Jr. and B. Copeland. 1975. Nekton population dynamics in the Albemarle Sound and 

Neuse River estuaries. Univ. North Carolina Sea Grant College, Raleigh. 

UNC-SG-5-02. 129 pp. 

Hunter, W.C., D.N. Pashley and R.E.F. Escano.1992. Neotropical migratory land bird species and 

their habitats of special concern within the Southeast region. Pages 159-169 in D.M. 

Hunter, W.C., L.H. Peoples, and J.A. Collazo. 2001. South Atlantic Coastal Plain Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation Plan. 

Johnson, H., S. Winslow, D. Crocker, B. Holland, Jr., J. Gillikin and D. Taylor. 1980. Biology and 

management of mid-Atlantic anadromous fishes under extended jurisdiction. N.C. 

Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Marine Fisheries, 

Morehead City. Special Science Report 36. 204 pp. 

Kerlinger, P. 1994. The Economic Impact of Birding Ecotourism on Communities Surrounding Eight 

National Wildlife Refuges. 

Kerlinger, P. 1999. Birding Tourism and Dauphin Island. 

Landers, J. L., R.J. Hamilton, A. S. Johnson, and R. L. Marchinton. 1979. Foods and habitat of black 

bears in south eastern North Carolina. J. Wildi. Manage 43(l):143-153. 
Appendices 

Laycock, George. 1965. The Sign of the Flying Goose: A Guide to the National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. 299 pp. 

Lee, D. S., M. K. Clark, and J. B. Funderburg Jr. 19 8 2. A preliminary survey of the mammals of 

mainland Dare County, North Carolina. Pages 20-61 In E. F. Potter, ed. A survey of the 

vertebrate fauna of mainland Dare County, North Carolina. N.C. Biological Survey, 

Raleigh, N.C. 

Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow. 2000. The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological 

Symposium. 

Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Monschein, T. 1981. Values of pocosins to game and fish species in North Carolina. Pages 155-170 

In C. Richardson, ed. Pocosin Wetlands. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, 

Stroudsburg, PA. 

National Audubon Society. 1998. Campaign on HR 3267. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. Summary Report – 

1997 National Resources Inventory (revised December 2000). 84 pp. Released January 2001. 

See Table 1, “Surface area of nonfederal and federal land and water areas, by state and 

year,” p. 11. 

New Employee Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2000. Wildlife-Associated Recreation on the 

New Jersey Delaware Bayshore. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2002. Largest Employers by County. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2004. Unemployment Rates by County. 

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 2001. North Carolina Coastal Plain Paddle 

Trails Guide. 

North Carolina Division of Air Quality, 2005. Ozone Non-attainment Areas and PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas. Accessed online at: http://daq.state.nc.us/planning/attainment.shtml . 

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2000. Water quality citizen’s guide. N.C. 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC. 

North Carolina State University. 1974. Status of Black Bear in North Carolina (Research) Habitat 

Suitability for Black Bear, Annual Job Progress Report. Project W-56-2-VI-C. 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Accessed 

online at: http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7c1_3.htm . 

Northeastern North Carolina. 2007. The Charles Kuralt Trail. Accessed 10/26/07 online at: 

http://www.northeast-nc.com/kuralt/ . 
166 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Noss, R. F., and R. L. Peters. 1995. Endangered ecosystems: a status report on America's vanishing 

habitat and wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife. 

Peacock, S. L. and J. M. Lynch. 1982. Natural areas inventory of mainland Dare County, North 

Carolina. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Office of 

Coastal Management CEIP Report No. 27. 

Riggs, S.R. and D.K. Belknap. 1988. Upper Cenozoic processes and environments of continental 

margin sedimentation: eastern United States, p. 131-176 in Sheridan, R.E., and J.A. Graw, 

eds. The Geology of North America, Vol 1-2, the Atlantic Continental Margin, U.S. Geological 

Society of America. 

Robison, T.M. 1977. Public water supplies of North Carolina, Northern Coastal Plain. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, pp. 49-50. 

Scorecard. 2005. Pollution Report Card – Hyde County, North Carolina. Scorecard: The Pollution 

Information Site. Accessed 10/24/07 on the World Wide Web at: 

http://www.scorecard.org/community/index.tcl?zip_code=27885&set_community_zipcode_coo

kie_p=t&x=63&y=7 . 

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian 

Assessment aquatic technical report. Report 2 of 5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. 

Schafale, M.P. and Weakely, A.S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North 

Carolina. Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC. 325 pp. 

Sharitz, R. and J. Gibbons. 1982. The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina 

bays: a community profile. U.S. Dep. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv., Div. Biol. Serv., Wash., D.C. 

FWS/ OBS-82/04. 93 pp. 

Temple, D., B. Glennon, and D.A. Brown. 2001. Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. PowerPoint 

Presentation. October. Accessed online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/ncplanning/HTML/Multimedia/SLIDESHOWS/Mattamuskeet/MNWR%20BRIEFING

%20I%20(Latest%20Version).pdf . 

Tetterton B. and G. Tetterton. (1998) North Carolina County Fact Book. Vols. I and II. Broadfoot’s of 

Wendell, Wendell, NC. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2000. Conservation by design: a framework for mission success. 

The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Natureserve. 2001. Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion Plan. 

The Nature Conservancy, Durham, NC. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Draft environmental impact statement Prulean Farms, Inc. 

Dare County September 1982. Wilmington District, Regulatory Functions Branch, 

Wilmington, N.C. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 1997. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
Appendices 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Forest Statistics for the Northern Coastal 

Plain of North Carolina, 2000. Resource Bulletin SRS-83, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Soil Survey of Hyde 

County, North Carolina. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric soils of the State of North 

Carolina 1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with 

the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington, DC. unpaginated. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General Profile, 

Hyde County, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Economic Census, Hyde County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program. 2000. Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimates for Hyde County, 

North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Nature-Based Tourism. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Significant wildlife resource areas of North Carolina. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Asheville Area Office. Asheville, NC. 139 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation - North Carolina.

Vogelsong, Hans. 2001. Assessing the Economic Impact of Ecotourism Developments on the 

Albemarle/Pamlico Region. 

Vogelsong, Han. 2006. Eastern North Carolina National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Use Study. East 

Carolina University, Department of Recreation & Leisure Studies. 

Watts, B. D. and B. J. Paxton. 2002. Investigating the distribution, population status, and habitat 

requirements of the Wayne’s Black-throated Green Warbler in the northern South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series. CCBTR-02-08. 

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 21 pp. 
168 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive 

Orders 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal 

agencies with respect to identification of information to be made 

public; publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance 

of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific 

meetings and hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency 

actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments, or objects of 

antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The 

Act authorizes the President to designate as national monuments 

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on lands owned or 

controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

and exercise their traditional religions, including access to important 

sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American society 

more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act of 1965, 

as amended 

Authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to enter into 

cooperative agreements with states and other non-federal interests 

for conservation, development, and enhancement of anadromous 

fish and contribute up to 50 percent as the federal share of the cost 

of carrying out such agreements. Reclamation construction 

programs for water resource projects needed solely for such fish 

are also authorized. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended. 

This Act strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with federal funds, or leased by a federal agency, must 

comply with standards for physical accessibility. 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale or transport of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by 

the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or 

for the religious purposes of Indians. 
170 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, 

reforestation, conservation of natural resources and protection of 

fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were 

established under authority of this Act. 

Cave Resources Protection 

Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on federal lands, including allowing the 

land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the 

public, and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on federal lands. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. 

This Act and its amendments charge federal land managers with 

direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and related values” of 

land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, 

as amended 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the restoration 

and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of the Act requires that 

federally permitted activities comply with the Clean Water Act 

standards, state water quality laws, and any other appropriate state 

laws. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with 

regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) 

Identifies undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS). The objectives of the act are to 

minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful federal expenditures, 

and minimize the damage to natural resources by restricting most 

federal expenditures that encourage development within the CBRS. 

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 

Reauthorized the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), 

expanded the CBRS to include undeveloped coastal barriers along 

the Great Lakes and in the Caribbean, and established “Otherwise 

Protected Areas (OPAs).” The Service is responsible for 

maintaining official maps, consulting with federal agencies that 

propose spending federal funds within the CBRS and OPAs, and 

making recommendations to Congress about proposed boundary 

revisions. 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration 

(1990) 

Authorizes the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

participate in the development of a Louisiana coastal wetlands 

restoration program, participate in the development and oversight 

of a coastal wetlands conservation program, and lead in the 

implementation and administration of a national coastal wetlands 

grant program. 
Appendices 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

Commerce to encourage coastal states to develop and implement 

coastal zone management plans and requires that “any federal 

activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone” shall be 

“consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies” of a state’s coastal zone management plan. The law 

includes an Enhancement Grants Program for protecting, restoring, 

or enhancing existing coastal wetlands or creating new coastal 

wetlands. It also established the National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System, guidelines for estuarine research, and financial 

assistance for land acquisition. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the states to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to 

import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for 

the determination and listing of threatened and endangered species 

and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires refuge 

managers to perform internal consultation before initiating projects 

that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

This Act established the Office of Environmental Education within 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop and 

administer a federal environmental education program in 

consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Estuary Protection Act of 

1968 

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies and the states, to study and inventory estuaries of 

the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, and 

to determine whether such areas should be acquired for protection. 

The Secretary is also required to encourage state and local 

governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their 

planning activities relative to federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the 

Secretary was required to establish conditions to ensure the 

permanent protection of estuaries. 
172 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

Estuaries and Clean 

Waters Act of 2000 

This law creates a federal interagency council that includes the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator for the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The council is 

charged with developing a national estuary habitat restoration 

strategy and providing grants to entities to restore and protect 

estuary habitat to promote the strategy. 

Food Security Act of 1985, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

The Act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who 

convert wetlands for the purpose of planting after enactment of the 

law are ineligible for most farmer program subsidies. It also 

established the Wetland Reserve Program to restore and protect 

wetlands through easements and restoration of the functions and 

values of wetlands on such easement areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

The purpose of this law is to minimize the extent to which federal 

programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction 

projects and the management of federal lands. 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the federal government. Advisory committees 

may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory 

unless otherwise specified and meetings must be open to the 

public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

Provided that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, or 

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized mining coal 

on refuges. 

Federal-Aid Highways Act 

of 1968 

Established requirements for approval of federal highways through 

national wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the 

natural beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is 

directed to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other 

federal agencies before approving any program or project requiring 

the use of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other federal, State 

and local agencies, farmers’ associations, and private individuals in 

measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of 

such weeds. The Act requires each Federal land-managing 

agency, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, to designate an 

office or person to coordinate a program to control such plants on 

the agency’s land and implement cooperative agreements with the 

states, including integrated management systems to control 

undesirable plants. 
Appendices 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry 

but also includes the inherent right of every citizen and resident to 

fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment and to maintain and 

increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to take such steps as may be required for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources including, but not limited to, research, 

development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or 

exchange of land and water or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. 

Improvement Act of 1978 This act was passed to improve the administration of fish and 

wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, including the 

Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It 

authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and 

personal property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes 

the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to 

carry out volunteer programs. 

Fishery (Magnuson) 

Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised of 

federal and state officials, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. It 

provides for regulation of foreign fishing and vessel fishing permits. 

Freedom of Information Act, 

1966 

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions; official, published and unpublished policy statements; 

final orders deciding case adjudication; and other documents. 

Special exemptions have been reserved for nine categories of 

privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Geothermal Steam Act of 

1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related 

resources on public lands. Section 15 c of the Act prohibits issuing 

geothermal leases on virtually all Service-administrative lands. 
174 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals 

and to safeguard U.S. crop production from harmful foreign 

species, this Act prohibits interstate and international transport and 

commerce of fish, wildlife or plants taken in violation of domestic or 

foreign laws. It regulates the introduction to America of foreign 

species. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

This Act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus 

federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer 

continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for 

matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for 

land acquisition by various federal agencies, including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, as amended 

The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act established a federal 

responsibility to conserve marine mammals with management 

vested in the Department of the Interior for sea otter, walrus, polar 

bear, dugong, and manatee. The Department of Commerce is 

responsible for cetaceans and pinnipeds, other than the walrus. 

With certain specified exceptions, the Act establishes a moratorium 

on the taking and importation of marine mammals, as well as 

products taken from them. 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve 

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition 

with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of the 

commission was expanded by the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, 

restoration, and enhancement proposals recommended by the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the “Duck Stamp Act,” requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the 

United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet 

Union for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by 

special regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, 

capture, possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export or import any 

migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands. 
Appendices 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

deposits of coal, oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons; sulphur; 

phosphate; potassium; and sodium. Section 185 of this title 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over federal 

lands for pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (i.e., gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on federal or Indian lands. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for environmental 

impacts of federal actions. It stipulates the factors to be considered 

in environmental impact statements, and requires that federal 

agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related decisionmaking and develop means to ensure that unqualified 

environmental values are given appropriate consideration, along 

with economic and technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program 

of matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic, and historic values of some important trails. National 

recreation trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior or 

Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the 

consent of the involved state(s), and other land managing 

agencies, if any. National scenic and national historic trails may 

only be designated by Congress. Several national trails cross units 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single federal law that governed the 

administration of the various national wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of a 

refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the refuge was established. 
176 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

This Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. This Act defines the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of six priority wildlife-dependent public uses, 

establishes a formal process for determining compatible uses of 

Refuge System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as 

responsible for managing and protecting the Refuge System, and 

requires the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for 

all refuges outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grant program to fund projects that promote 

the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the united States, 

Latin America, and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, the United States, and 

Mexico. The North American Wetlands Conservation Council was 

created to recommend projects to be funded under the Act to the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Available funds may be 

expended for up to 50 percent of the United States’ share cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United 

States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on federal lands). 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational 

use, when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary 

purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish 

and wildlife-oriented recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public 

uses. 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities 

for conservation of non-game species. The funding formula is no 

more that 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, and at 

least 1/3 state funds. 
Appendices 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government 

within the county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the 

United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides 

authority for the Service to review and comment on the effects on 

fish and wildlife activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted 

by the Corps of Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated 

sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable 

waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Departments of Interior and 

Defense with state agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It 

requires the Secretary of each military department to use trained 

professionals to manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his 

jurisdiction, and requires that federal and state fish and wildlife 

agencies be given priority in management of fish and wildlife 

activities on military reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of 

the General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred, without 

reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has 

particular value for migratory birds, or to a state agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes. 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as 

amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell 

their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires 

that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property. 
178 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUTE DESCRIPTION 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, 

industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife needs. The act also 

established a grant program to assist States in participating in the 

development of related comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of 1968, as amended 

This Act selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or 

other similar values; preserves them in a free-flowing condition; and 

protects their local environments. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

This Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to review every 

roadless area of 5,000 acres or more and every roadless island 

regardless of size within the National Wildlife Refuge System and to 

recommend suitability of each such area. The Act permits certain 

activities within designated wilderness areas that do not alter 

natural processes. Wilderness values are preserved through a 

“minimum tool” management approach, which requires refuge 

managers to use the least intrusive methods, equipment, and 

facilities necessary for administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

program within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 
Appendices 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic 

sites, the Service will consult with Federal and State 

Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the 

use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources 

of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent 

federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse 

impacts associated with occupancy and modification 

of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling 

their respective authorities, federal agencies “shall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize 

the impact of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains.” 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted 

by off-road vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977) Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

and take action to minimize the destruction, loss of 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring federal agencies to use the state process to 

determine and address concerns of state and local 

elected officials with proposed federal assistance and 

development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice (1994) Requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 
180 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EOs and other actions in 

connection with transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with state, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private 

sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to comprehensive conservation planning 

is the National Vegetation Classification System 

(NVCS), which is the adopted standard for vegetation 

mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of 

regional and national summaries, which in turn, can 

provide an ecosystem context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Federal agencies are directed to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunities in cooperation with states and 

tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The Act directs Federal 

agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and 

their associated resources important to our history, 

culture, and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Federal agencies are directed to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a 

cost effective and environmentally sound manner, 

accurately monitor invasive species, provide for 

restoration of native species and habitat conditions, 

conduct research to prevent introductions and to 

control invasive species, and promote public 

education on invasive species and the means to 

address them. This EO replaces and rescinds EO 

11987, Exotic Organisms (1977). 
Appendices 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

(2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds 

by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
182 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 

Appendix D. Draft Coastal Zone Consistency 

Determination 

The following discussion is taken from the website of the Division of Coastal Management of the 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resource – 

http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Permits/consist.htm: 

Because North Carolina’s Coastal Management Program is Federally approved, a number of 

activities are required to comply with the enforceable policies of the State’s certified coastal 

management program – even if those activities do not require CAMA permits under State law. 

This "Federal consistency" authority exists under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted on October 27, 1972, to encourage coastal 

States, such as North Carolina, to develop comprehensive programs to manage and balance 

competing uses of and impacts to coastal resources. It applies to any activity that is within the State’s 

coastal zone that may reasonably affect any coastal resource or coastal use within the State’s coastal 

zone (even if the activity occurs outside of the coastal zone), if the activity: 

y is a Federal activity 

y requires a Federal license or permit; 

y receives Federal money; or 

y is a plan for exploration, development or production from any area leased under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act. 

Such projects must comply with the key elements of North Carolina's Coastal Management Program, 

which include: 

y the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) 

y the State's Dredge and Fill Law 

y Chapter 7 of Title 15A of N.C.'s Administrative Code 

y regulations passed by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) 

y local land-use plans certified by the CRC; and 

y a network of other state agencies’ laws and regulations. 

Consistency review by the Division of Coastal Management covers a wide range of projects, such as: 

proposed wetland fill that requires an Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; expansion 

of military operations and facilities; acquisition and expansion of Federal wildlife refuges; channelmaintenance dredging projects; and public projects such as highways, and water and sewer lines. 

How a consistency decision is made 

The consistency review process, for simplicity, can be divided into two classifications, one for Federal 

activities and the other for Non-Federal projects that require a Federal permit and/or license. 

Federal agencies proposing an activity that can reasonably affect a coastal resource or a coastal use 

are required to submit to DCM a “CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION.”.... The State has sixty (60) 

days to review a consistency determination. The procedures for making such a submission are 

contained in Subpart “C” of 15 CFR 930. 
184 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Upon receiving a consistency certification submission, DCM will evaluate it for completeness. Please 

note, that DCM may not file a consistency submission complete until the applications for other 

required State permits have also been filed complete by the other reviewing State agencies. If the 

consistency submission is determined to be complete, DCM will review the proposed project for 

conformance with the enforceable policies of the State’s certified coastal management program. As 

part of this review process, the proposed project is circulated to the public and a variety of State 

agencies for comment. When the public review period is completed, DCM will consider the comments 

received. Moreover, please be aware that DCM will not make a final decision on the proposed project 

until the applicant submits copies of all other required State permits, for example a Section 401 Water 

Quality Certification and/or Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. Upon reaching its decision on 

the proposed project, DCM will issue either a letter of “concurrence” or “objection”. 

In the event that a letter of “objection” is issued, DCM and the project proponent may still negotiate a 

resolution that would allow the project to go forward. Additionally, the project proponent may be 

entitled to certain mediation/appeal privileges with the Office of Coastal Resource Management 

(OCRM). OCRM is the Federal agency responsible for overseeing the Coastal Zone Management 

Act. As such OCRM is responsible for issuing regulations on the consistency process, mediating 

consistency disputes, and processing consistency appeals to the Secretary of Commerce. 
Appendices 

 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

 38 Mattamuskeet Road 

 Swanquarter, NC 27885 

 

Stephen Rynas 

Federal Consistency Coordinator 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

400 Commerce Avenue 

Morehead City, NC 28557-3421 

Dear Mr. Rynas : 

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service) is preparing a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) that will provide overall management guidance for Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

over the next 10-15 years. The CCP includes goals, objectives and strategies addressing wildlife 

population management, habitat management and public use of the refuge. It also includes specific 

projects that tie into these goals, objectives and strategies. 

Pursuant to Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended, the 

Service, as the federal agency responsible for the proposed undertaking (i.e., implementation of the 

CCP) has determined that the proposed project is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with 

the enforceable policies of North Carolina's federally approved coastal management program. 

This determination is based on review of the proposed project's conformance with North 

Carolina's coastal program policies, which are primarily found in Chapter 7 of Title 15A of North 

Carolina's Administrative Code and the draft June 2007 Hyde County CAMA Core Land Use Plan. 

Details supporting this determination are provided in the CCP (Section A) to which this determination 

is appended and relevant documentation from an Environmental Assessment (EA), also attached to 

the CCP (Section B of the Draft CCP-EA) being conducted pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended . 

USFWS is requesting acknowledgement of the Division of Coastal Management's concurrence with 

this consistency determination. If you have any questions or require additional information please 

contact me at 252-926-4021or Bruce_Freske@fws.gov. Your time and effort regarding this matter are 

appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce Freske 

Refuge Manager 
186 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR 

MATTAMUSKEET NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

Project Description

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires the development of comprehensive 

conservation plans for all national wildlife refuges in the United States. Following a public review and 

comment period on the Draft Plan, a final decision will be made by the Fish and Wildlife Service that 

will guide Mattamuskeet NWR management actions and decisions over the next 15 years, provide 

understanding about the refuge and management activities, and incorporate information and 

suggestions from the public and refuge partners. 

The Draft Plan proposes a management direction, which is described in detail through a set of goals, 

objectives, and strategies presented in Chapter IV of the CCP (Section A of this document). Chapter 

IV also contains measures to conserve resources and protect environmental quality. The Draft Plan 

addresses current management issues, provides long-term management direction and guidance for 

the refuge, and satisfies the legislative mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. While the plan provides general management direction, subsequent stepdown plans will provide more detailed management direction and actions. 

Chapter V in Section A lists and describes the priority projects proposed for Mattamuskeet Refuge 

under this plan. In addition, refuge staff will continue to conduct a number of wildlife and habitat 

management projects as well as provide for visitor services on the refuge, including fishing, hunting, 

and wildlife observation and photography. The CCP envisions little new construction, primarily a new 

refuge headquarters office/visitor contact station, workshop and maintenance yard, and up to four 

new employee dwellings. All construction will occur within the existing 400-acre administrative area; 

the new structures identified will be replacing existing antiquated structures, all of which will be 

demolished and removed from the site. 

Hyde County Draft 2007 CAMA Core Land Use Plan Review

CAMA establishes “Areas of Environmental Concern” (AECs) as the foundation of the Coastal 

Resources Commission's permitting program for coastal development. An AEC is an area of natural 

importance: it may be easily destroyed by erosion or flooding; or it may have environmental, social, 

economic or aesthetic values that make it valuable. 

According to the draft Land Use Plan (LUP), the proposed project is located within several types of 

AECs: 

1. Public Trust Areas, including all water in artificially created water bodies that have significant 

public fishing resources and are accessible to the public from other waters. Lake 

Mattamuskeet, the ditches that drain into it and the canals that drain out of it would qualify as 

public trust areas. 

2. Coastal and 404 Wetlands. Much of the refuge area would qualify as wetlands, including its 

marshes, moist soil units, pocosins, and bottomland hardwoods. 

3. Protected Lands and Significant Natural Heritage Areas. Mattamuskeet Refuge comprises 

almost 12 percent of Hyde County. It is listed in the LUP as both the largest of 13 listed 
Appendices 

protected lands in the county, and the largest of 23 significant natural heritage areas. These 

areas are noted for their ecotourism potential. 

In addition, the refuge is identified by the LUP as a “regionally significant park” along with Cape 

Hatteras national Seashore. 

Other State Permits

No other state permits or approvals are needed for the USFWS to approve and begin to implement 

the CCP at this time. At such time as specific projects are in the planning stages, relevant permit(s) 

will be sought and consultation undertaken. For any project necessitating substantial excavation or 

ground disturbance, the Service will notify the State Historic Preservation Office per Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. 

NEPA Documentation

As noted earlier, Section C of the Draft CCP-EA is an Environmental Assessment of the proposed 

plan. Since it contains all the information required by 15 CFR 930.39, it is hereby submitted as the 

“Supporting Document”. 

 
188 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 

Appendix E. Public Involvement

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

The following comments from the public were received both during the 2001 scoping and the 2007 

scoping. The 2001 comments are included as well, both to document this earlier effort and because 

these comments are more extensive than those received in 2007, and some may still be relevant, 

although others are clearly not, such as those related to red wolves and other refuges in the area. 

2001 Scoping Meetings

 

Wildlife Issues 

y Announce waterfowl migration updates on local news 

y Capture and remove every Red wolf in Hyde County 

y Continue conducting research on black bears to determine home range and harvest potential 

y Continue surveys and monitoring 

y Control nutria in canals 

y Control the red wolf 

y Develop a trapping program for furbearers, predators, beavers, and nutria 

y Develop beaver management guidance 

y Develop species list for all fish using the lake 

y Evaluate food chain impacts of fire ants on other species 

y Evaluate water management impacts to fish and wildlife on each refuge 

y Examine water quality and silting in canals leading to the lake 

y Improve fish access to the lake 

y Involve Hyde County residents in the Red Wolf Program 

y Post signage for swan observation 

y Seek compromises in red wolf management 

y Speed up beaver eradication 

y Stock Florida largemouth bass in the lake 

y Study and evaluate anadromous fish populations 

y Use money to raise ducks and geese 

Habitat Issues 

y Clean out and regularly maintain duck boxes

y Connect larger blocks of land through corridors for black bear

y Control non-native and invasive species

y Coordinate with local landowners to maintain lake at appropriate levels

y Coordinate with non-profit agencies to ensure that land conservation needs are met

y Determine whether FWS is purposely flooding adjacent land

y Determine whether high lake levels are converting adjacent uplands to wetlands

y Develop a program to do away with common reed

y Evaluate need for increased growth of cypress around lake

y Evaluate the impacts to adjacent landowners from management practices

y Improve fish habitat

y Increase current eradication budget

y Lower water levels in the lake
190 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y Monitor effect of water levels on duck populations in the lake

y Increase funding to accommodate programs

y Provide education on how the lake works and the role FWS plays in lake level maintenance

y Review and coordinate on the Wetland Reserve Program

y Study summertime water temperature and DO (dissolved oxygen) in canals

y Survey canals for deepwater habitat

Habitat Management Issues 

y Blast canals with dynamite

y Clean out silted canals

y Conduct commercial thinnings

y Conduct regular prescribed burns

y Consider a ‘refuge workday’

y Control beavers to help control ditch problems

y Cooperate with other agencies to share all available data

y Coordinate with WRC to provide early successional habitat for bobwhite quail

y Ditch and dredge canals

y Engage in cooperative research efforts with other agencies (i.e., black bear)

y Evaluate data for use in general management

y Evaluate salt intrusion into lake from water control gates

y Evaluate the size and effectiveness of existing firebreaks

y Evaluate the validity of timber harvest for the purpose of fire control

y Fully staff the refuge

y Include people in the planning process

y Increase data collection efforts

y Involve local citizens from each county in the planning process

y Keep management styles flexible

y Maximize wildlife benefits inside impoundments, using mechanical and chemical means

y Obtain more funding to manage land in possession

y Obtain staff and equipment to fully implement prescribed burn program

y Re-design water control gates

y Separate management of Mattamuskeet and Swanquarter from Cedar Island

y Speed up structure replacement process by using old design

y Use fire in the role it played naturally

y Use forestry techniques such as thinnings, for support and benefit of wildlife

y Utilize volunteers for maintenance, manpower and equipment

y Work with other agencies to maximize the benefit of their work

Public Use Issues 

y Allow horseback riding

y Allow nighttime bass fishing in the summer

y Attract ecotourism

y Consider rotating or moving blind to varying locations

y Consider sailing, kayaking, canoeing on lake

y Consider windsurfing, remote control model boats

y Continue other public use activities

y Continue providing access to Bell Island fishing

y Continue use of the Lodge
Appendices 

y Coordinate with WRC on black bear permit hunting issues

y Coordinate with WRC on hunting activities

y Coordinate with WRC to help manage the black bear hunts

y Determine whether mountain bikes could use the road system

y Develop appropriate signage indicating where existing facilities are

y Develop canoe and kayak trails for public use

y Develop more facilities

y Develop other areas on the refuge for hunting

y Develop program to improve view of the lake by eradicating common reed

y Develop public education programs on positive effects of refuge management practices

y Develop public facilities at Mattamuskeet

y Develop public school program to explain uses allowed in wilderness areas

y Develop public school programs on wilderness area

y Don’t dig a ditch to catch mud around new boat ramps

y Educate and involve more youth in hunting programs

y Evaluate camping platform needs for outfitters

y Evaluate the potential for quail hunting should be considered on the refuge

y Expand public uses other than hunting and fishing

y Improve existing blind

y Improve public outreach to reduce general feelings of mistrust

y Increase education and outreach

y Increase facilities and programs

y Increase hiking trails

y Increase programs

y Increase programs to attract more people

y Increase public access

y Increase public waterfowl hunting

y Increase refuge involvement with public use activities

y Increase signage regarding road access

y Increase the number of duck blinds

y Increase use of volunteers

y Increase volunteer program

y Increase volunteer use

y Maintain east side of the causeway to improve view

y Make more roads available

y Make public use more convenient

y Open the refuge roads and trails to horseback riding

y Prohibit certain size boats and motors on the lake

y Provide more ecotourism opportunities

y Recognize the importance of the refuge to Hyde County

y Renovate the lodge or surrender it to another agency

y Repair the lodge or surrender it to the state

Resource Protection Issues 

y Acquire more land

y Champion ecotourism

y Charge reasonable and low user fees to offset tax losses, returning them to the county

y Consider buying more easements
192 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y Control trespassing

y Control waterfowl baiting on adjacent land

y Cooperate to obtain funding for improved wildlife management, rather than acquisition

y Cooperate with private landowners to manage land for wildlife

y Coordinate with county managers

y Coordinate with other agencies prior to acting on land management practices

y Create more wilderness

y Create wilderness areas

y Create wildlife corridors

y Develop a connecting corridor between Swanquarter and Mattamuskeet, through acquisition

y Develop and enforce a ‘no wake zone’ within 300 feet of other boats

y Develop economic cost/benefit analysis of MNWR’s impact on local economy

y Develop education program on other refuges in the area

y Develop public use education programs on what wilderness designations mean

y Do not acquire more land

y Do not consider corridors in refuge management

y Do not create more wilderness

y Evaluate and educate public on tax revenue cost sharing program

y Evaluate economic magnitude of current income producing refuge public uses

y Evaluate management limitations of wilderness designations

y Evaluate the condition of continuously flooded uplands adjacent to the lake

y Improve lake safety

y Include history and interpretative material on the lake, the Lodge, and surrounding area

y Incorporate local culture and heritage of the area into refuge programs

y Increase law enforcement

y Maintain existing lands with current budget

y Obtain more law enforcement

y Prohibit certain size boats and motors on the lake

y Provide lists of permitted activities in wilderness areas

y Provide more competitive salaries

y Re-evaluate existing surveys used to acquire private property

y Restore Mattamuskeet Lodge

y Secure funds for lodge restoration

y Transfer lodge ownership to another agency

y Use advice from local experts when developing plans

y Use available acquisition budget to fund refuge maintenance deficits

y Use funds for better maintenance instead of acquisition

THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS POSED 

ON THE COMMENT FORM DISTRIBUTED AT THE 2007 MATTAMUSKEET CCP SCOPING 

MEETING AND THROUGH MAIL-OUTS:

1. What do you think are the most important issues facing Mattamuskeet National Wildlife 

Refuge? 

y Saltwater intrusion into the lake 

y Maintenance of the infrastructure of the lake: canals, dikes, water control structures & pumps 
Appendices 

y Strange weed problems 

y Drainage to the lake and drainage from the lake 

y Lake water level 

y Wash on NC 94 Lake Road 

y Funding for continued maintenance of the four main outfall canals to the lake 

2. How do you think these issues should be addressed? 

y Restore the water carrying capacity of the original canals 

y Repair dikes where damaged 

y Keep water control structures in good repair or replace using good low country engineering 

technology 

y Control weed problems 

y Canal clean out 

y More water control structures 

y Maintenance along NC 94 with vegetation and rock 

y Seek more federal funds for canal maintenance and prioritize monies received towards this 

maintenance rather than habitat enhancement 

3. Should refuge habitats and wildlife be managed any differently than they are today? 

y Yes, quit importing predators such as eagles (bald and golden), red wolves, coyotes, 

alligators; these species are a destroyer of our main wildlife species: ducks, geese, deer, 

quail, wild turkeys, rabbits, etc. 

y More or longer deer hunting on refuge for population control 

y Annual restocking with various species of fish 

y Control of non-native plant species such as phragmites 

y Trapping of non-native and native animals species such as nutria and beaver 

4. Are the types of public use and visitation permitted and encouraged by the Refuge 

appropriate? 

y Yes (2) 

y Deer hunting season should be longer. 

y Trapping by permit should be encouraged. 

y Use of airboats, jet skis and small sailboats and sailboards should be allowed. 

y More access on refuge roads to the public 

5. Any other comments or suggestions you would like to make on how the Refuge should be 

managed over the coming 15 years? 

y Do a better job managing the forest resources. 

y Use a conservation outlook & strategy, not preservation, as anything I have seen preserved 

was dead [sic]. 

y I would like to see a boat ramp on NC 94. 

y I would also like to say that I think Mr. Freske and his staff have greatly improved the refuge 

and its relations with area residents. 
194 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

y The management should continue to allow private landowners to maintain their individual 

drainways to the lake and should manage lake water levels so as not to impede drainage of 

surrounding private lands. 

ADDITIONAL SCOPING COMMENTS: 

y Stock fish such as bass and strippers (hybrid) in the lake. 

y Test water in lake to see what problems are present. 

y Bring back Nature Week, which was an environmental educational day camp begun about 

1988 for grades 1-5.*

 

y Other environmental education programs to bring the public to the Refuge to watch and know 

about Nature. We have been blessed with Nature. Let’s promote it by having programs that 

would bring tourists and well as residents to the Refuge! 

 

*

 This was produced by the combined efforts of the Refuge and the Hyde County division of the North Carolina 

Cooperative Extension Service. The camp was for one week each summer. It was based at the Refuge until 

the Lodge was closed – then it was based at Ponzer. The 4-H building was not nearly as good a location (the 

trail, waters, and Nature were missing). The camp lasted until about 2004 – about 16 years. 
Appendices 

Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If a proposed use is not appropriate, it will 

not be allowed and a compatibility determination will not be undertaken. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, 

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

determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still determine if these uses 

are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers take of wildlife 

under such regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the 

activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee. This law provides 

the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The Act does not authorize any particular use, but rather authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible and “under such regulations 

as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses that, when compatible, are 

legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The law states “. . . it is the policy of the 

United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general 

public use of the System . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general 

public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and 

management; and . . . when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational 

use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . 

ensure that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other 

general public uses in planning and management within the System . . . .” The law also states “in 

administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: . . . issue 

regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the standards set in the Act by providing 

enhanced consideration of priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere 

with our ability to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
196 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not 

interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development or 

protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. §410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. The Service must comply with Executive Order 11644 when allowing use of 

off-highway vehicles on refuges. This order requires the Service to designate areas as open or 

closed to off-highway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize 

conflict among the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; 

and amend or rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. 

Furthermore, Executive Order 11989 requires the Service to close areas to off-highway vehicles 

when it is determined that the use causes or will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, 

vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take 

precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use

A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions. 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation. 
Appendices 

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and the Service’s role in managing and protecting these resources. 

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 
198 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Animal Control ____________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Bicycling, Jogging, Walking, Walking Dogs, Horseback Riding _____________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
200 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Boating – Powerboats ____________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Boating – Non-motorized ____________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
202 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Dredge or Fill ____________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Farming ____________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
204 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Fishing – Guided ____________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Photography – Commercial ____________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
206 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Picnicking ____________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Research ____________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
208 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Tree Harvest – Firewood – Other _______________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge___________________________________________

Use: Wildlife Observation – Guiding or Outfitting_ _______________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
210 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 

Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determinations 

Uses: The following uses were found to be appropriate and evaluated to determine their 

compatibility with the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of the refuge. 

1. Animal control 

2. Bicycling, jogging, walking, walking dogs, horseback riding 

3. Boating – power boats 

4. Boating – non-motorized 

5. Dredge or fill 

6. Environmental education – interpretation 

7. Farming 

8. Fishing – recreational and tournament 

9. Fishing – guided 

10. Hunting – big game 

11. Hunting – waterfowl 

12. Photography 

13. Photography – commercial 

14. Picnicking 

15. Research 

16. Tree harvest – firewood – other 

17. Wildlife observation – guiding or outfitting 

Refuge Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: 1934. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): The United States Government acquired the land in 

1934 under the authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act (48 Statute 195). Mattamuskeet 

NWR was established that same year under Executive Order No. 6924. 

Refuge Purpose: Mattamuskeet NWR provides habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds; 

provides habitat for endangered species; and provides wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education and interpretation for the public. 

The refuge is known among wildlife enthusiasts for the thousands of wintering waterfowl that it 

attracts each year. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

Act of 1997, is: 

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

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

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

future generations of Americans.
212 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive 

Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year (50 CFR Subchapter C; 

43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed were considered separately. Although for 

brevity, the preceding sections from “Uses” through “Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and 

Policies” and the succeeding sections, “Literature Cited,” “Public Review,” and the “Approval of 

Compatibility Determinations” are only written once within the plan, they are part of each 

descriptive use and become part of that compatibility determination if considered outside of the 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Use: Animal Control – Nuisance Species

Description of Use: 

This use involves shooting or trapping of nutria, a non-native exotic species, by volunteers or hired 

professionals. This activity would be managed through Special Use Permits. Nutria are found 

throughout the refuge marshes, impoundments, and canals. They feed extensively on marsh 

vegetation and create burrows in levees and roadsides. 
Appendices 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

This use may cause minor, temporary disturbance to some wildlife. However, a reduction in nutria would 

benefit wildlife species which depend on marsh vegetation, particularly the muskrat, a native species. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Law enforcement patrols and guidance through special use permits will be used to minimize 

violations. Disturbance to other wildlife and visitors will be monitored and special use permits will be 

amended or suspended if unacceptable disturbance is observed. Issuance of permits will be limited 

to a maximum of 10 per year. 

Justification: 

Animal control is necessary to reduce damage to marshes, levees, and roadways caused by nutria, a 

non-native exotic species. Only submerged traps would be permitted and would be set in a manner 

to prevent accidental capture of non target animals. All shooting and trapping would occur in places 

and/or times of day which would minimize conflict with other refuge visitors. Allowing volunteers or 

private professionals to control nutria would lessen the amount of time the refuge staff would have to 

spend conducting this activity. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Bicycling, Jogging/Walking/Walking Dogs and Horseback Riding 

Description of Use: 

This use involves bicycling, jogging, walking, walking dogs, and horseback riding on refuge roads and 

dikes for pleasure, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Foot travel is generally allowed 

throughout the refuge. Bicycles and horses are limited to roads and dikes (nearly all of the jogging 

and walking occurs on these as well). 

 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 
214 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

These uses may cause minor, temporary disturbance to wildlife and may lead to impacts from 

violations of refuge regulations, such as removing plants and harassing wildlife, littering, and 

vandalism. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Law enforcement patrols and educational activities will be used to minimize violations. Current 

regulations limiting access to the refuge (except for fishing on the State Highway 94 causeway) to 

daylight hours only will be maintained and enforced. Bicycles and horses will be restricted to roads 

and dikes. 

All public access from November 2 through February 28 will be prohibited on the Farm Area Road 

and 22 miles of impoundment levees to prevent disturbance to wintering waterfowl. The only levees 

available for winter public use are: Rose Bay Levee/Canal Road, Sandy Dike Levee/Canal Road, MI3 Levees, and the Lake Landing Levee/Canal Road (west side of the canal and east end of MI-7 

impoundment). 

In addition, horses are not allowed on any roads which are open to vehicles and group size is limited 

to 6 horses (access to use refuge roads and/or group sizes greater than 6 horses requires a special 

use permit.) 

Justification: 

The roads and dikes where these uses normally occur are maintained primarily for refuge 

management purposes and these recreational uses have little impact on them. Although foot travel is 

authorized elsewhere, it does not usually result in significant impacts to vegetation and other 

resources. These activities are generally for pleasure or for wildlife observation and should promote 

respect for natural resources and support for the refuge. 

Some people enjoy having a dog as a companion while enjoying the outdoors. This activity is not 

harmful to wildlife as long as the dog is kept on a leash and is under control of the owner. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Boating - Powerboats 

Description of Use: 

During the period March 1 through November 1, using boats with motors (including electric motors) 

for fishing and wildlife observation (airboats, sailboats, jet skis, and windboards) are not authorized in 

refuge waters, including Lake Mattamuskeet and its associated canals. 
Appendices 

This use includes unloading and loading boats from two government-maintained boat ramps and 

from various unimproved access points throughout the refuge (because Lake Mattamuskeet is 

shallow, averaging 2 feet in depth, only small boats can be used; these boats can easily be 

unloaded along many refuge roads). 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Boating, during the period indicated, may cause temporary disturbance to wildlife, including nesting 

osprey; shore, marsh, and wading birds; and other species. Trash disposal and littering tend to be 

heavy at boat ramp locations. Minor disturbance to vegetation and minor erosion sometimes occurs 

where boats are unloaded and loaded from unimproved access points. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Jet skis, airboats, and other types of purely “recreational” boats will not be authorized due to the 

expected unacceptable increase in disturbance to wildlife. 

An active law enforcement program will strive to ensure compliance with all refuge regulations 

through education and enforcement activities. Law enforcement patrols in areas and at times of high 

fishing pressure and/or high osprey nesting activity will be conducted to minimize disturbance. 

Brochures will contain information on avoiding osprey disturbance and the osprey signs located at 

each boat ramp and around certain “at-risk” nest trees will be maintained. 

The areas used to unload and load boats will continue to be monitored and limited if adverse impacts 

to vegetation and soil become significant. 

To prevent disturbance to wintering waterfowl, all boating will be prohibited from November 2 through 

February 29 on Lake Mattamuskeet, the adjoining canals, and all other waters on the refuge. 

Justification: 

Motorized boating occurring on the refuge is related almost exclusively to fishing. Sport fishing 

provides substantial recreational opportunities to the public and accounts for the majority of the public 

use on the refuge. As stated in the establishing legislation, one of the reasons the refuge was set 

aside may be for “fishing purposes.” 
216 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

A limited amount of boating occurs for wildlife observation purposes. This boating is usually in the 

form of canoeing but some motorized boating for this purpose may also occur. Wildlife observation 

is expected by the public on a wildlife refuge and usually promotes an appreciation for natural 

resources and support for the refuge. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Boating – Non-Motorized 

Description of Use: 

This use involves using boats without motors for fishing and/or wildlife observation in refuge waters, 

including Lake Mattamuskeet and its associated canals during the period March 1 through 

November 1. This boating is generally limited to paddle-driven boats such as canoes and kayaks 

(sailboats and windboards are not authorized). This use includes unloading and loading boats from two 

Government-maintained boat ramps and from various unimproved access points throughout the refuge. 

 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Boating, during the period indicated, may cause temporary disturbance to wildlife, including nesting 

osprey; shore, marsh, and wading birds; and other species. Trash disposal and littering tend to be 

heavy at boat ramp locations. Minor disturbance to vegetation and minor erosion sometimes occurs 

where boats are loaded and unloaded from unimproved access points. 

Most of the non-motorized boating that occurs on the refuge is in the form of canoeing for wildlife 

observation or fishing, but the amount of use is nominal as compared to motorized boating. 

Therefore, its impacts are probably not significant. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Boating will continue to be prohibited from November 2 through February 28 to minimize disturbance 

to wintering waterfowl using the refuge. 

Sailboats, windboards, and other types of purely “recreational” boats will not be authorized due to the 

expected unacceptable increase in disturbance to wildlife. 
Appendices 

Law enforcement patrols in areas and at times of high fishing pressure and high osprey nesting 

activity will continue to be conducted to minimize disturbance. Brochures will continue to provide 

information on minimizing osprey disturbance and the osprey signs located at each boat ramp and 

around certain “at-risk” nest trees will be maintained. 

The areas used to unload and load boats will continue to be monitored and limited if adverse impacts 

to vegetation and soil become significant. 

Justification: 

Non-motorized boating occurring on the refuge is related to fishing and wildlife observation. Sport 

fishing provides substantial recreational opportunities to the public and accounts for the majority of 

the public use on the refuge. As stated in the establishing legislation, one of the reasons the refuge 

was set aside was for “fishing purposes.” 

Non-motorized boating for wildlife observation purposes is usually in the form of canoeing. Wildlife 

observation is expected by the public on a wildlife refuge and usually promotes an appreciation for 

natural resources and support for the refuge. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Dredge Existing Drainage Ditches

Description of Use: 

This use involves permitting adjacent landowners to clean-out existing drainage ditches crossing 

refuge lands. Use will be managed through individual special use permits for each clean-out request. 

Only existing drainage ditches may be cleaned out, excavation cannot exceed the original depth and 

width of the canal, and the spoil must be placed on the existing spoil bank. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Some vegetation will be removed or destroyed by heavy equipment and deposition of spoil involved 

in this activity. Excavation of muck, silt, or other materials from the ditches will cause some 

temporary impacts on water quality in the ditch and possibly near the ditch outlet. The activity will 

cause some temporary disturbance or displacement of wildlife. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
218 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

The drainage ditch maintenance activities will be administered via the issuance of a special use 

permit. Only existing ditches documented on a 1934 boundary survey map will be permitted to be 

maintained. Ditches may not be enlarged in width or depth. Guidance from the Corps of 

Engineers related to the maintenance of existing ditches will apply and authorization from the 

Corps of Engineers must be obtained by the permittee before a special use permit will be issued. 

Base line water quality monitoring will continue and should significant impacts be suspected, 

funding to conduct detailed monitoring should be requested. If significant impacts are 

documented, efforts should be taken in concert with the appropriate state agency to correct the 

problem. Because drainage rights are recognized as a legal right by the court system, the refuge 

manager has very limited authority over this activity. 

Justification:

Drainage rights were in place when the refuge was established in 1934 and were recognized in a 

1939 court order dissolving the former Mattamuskeet Drainage District. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Environmental Education/Interpretation – Teaching Students, Teacher Workshops, Non-staff 

Conducted Activities, and Interpretation 

Description of Use: 

This use involves environmental education to include teaching individuals (students), on- or off-site, 

about refuge resources and management programs; conducting teacher workshops, on- and off-site, 

to provide teachers with the knowledge and educational tools necessary to teach students about 

refuge resources and management programs; conducting educational activities on-site, focusing on 

environmental or natural resource subjects and led by teachers or other non-refuge staff; and 

conducting on-site interpretation activities. 

Environmental educational activities may include use of refuge structures, exhibits, roads, dikes, 

impoundments, and waters. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, the staff is able to conduct 

environmental education/interpretation activities on a limited basis. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Environmental education activities conducted off refuge should have no biological impacts on refuge 

resources. Activities held on-refuge will be both classroom and hands-on in nature. Field (hands-on) 

activities may result in some trampling of vegetation and minor wildlife disturbance in localized areas. 

These impacts are not expected to be significant. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 
Appendices 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

If necessary, the location of environmental education activities will be moved around to minimize 

adverse impacts. Currently, the demand for this use at Mattamuskeet NWR is fairly low. This activity 

is not expected to significantly increase disturbance to wildlife in the area or result in other negative 

impacts. 

Justification: 

Environmental education activities result in negligible impacts on refuge resources but often provide 

significant support for refuge programs and purposes by providing individuals with an understanding 

and appreciation of natural resource functions, natural processes, and man’s relationship and 

dependence on them. At a minimum, the use does not conflict with refuge purposes and generally 

supports them. Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses under the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Farming

Description of Use: 

This use involves farming up to 500 acres on existing cropland areas for annual production of grain (e.g., 

corn, soybeans, and winter wheat) and other agricultural crops using cooperative farming. A portion of 

the crop, 25 to 50 percent, will not be harvested by the cooperator and will serve as rental payment. The 

refuge share of the crops will remain in the fields for use by wildlife. The Cropland Management Plan on 

file at refuge headquarters describes the proposed use in detail. Crops have been produced on the 

refuge since the early 1960s when nearby waterfowl impoundments were first built. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer this use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Farming operations are conducted on approximately 500 of the refuge’s 50,180 acres. The impacts 

on biological systems within the area are extensive. Hydrology, vegetative composition, wildlife 

behavior (e.g., foraging, nesting, reproduction), insect life cycles; the entire ecology of the area is 

altered. These changes are beneficial to some species, and detrimental to others. 

The production of corn in cropland areas supplies wintering waterfowl and other wildlife with a highenerby food and, for certain species, an alternative habitat type. Agricultural crops have become an 

important source of energy for waterfowl in this area, especially prior to migration. Production of 

wheat provides waterfowl and other wildlife with green browse during the winter period. Deer and 

other wildlife also readily use the other crops produced (e.g., soybeans) for food and cover. 
220 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Farming operations, however, result in soil and vegetation disturbance from disking, planting, 

harvesting, and other mechanized activities. This also results in disturbance to wildlife. Although 

they are tightly regulated, certain pesticides (but no “Restricted Use” pesticides) are applied to protect 

crops in these areas. Because the cropland areas are within diked impoundments, release of 

pesticides into surrounding areas is unlikely. 

The impacts of farming on biological systems and the ecology of the area are numerous, extensive, 

complex, and both negative and positive. Generally, the production of high-energy foods is 

considered essential in meeting the refuge’s waterfowl management objectives and it is an integral 

component of the overall management program. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Farming operations must be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies using biological farming techniques (including integrated pest and crop management 

practices) whenever possible. 

Farming operations must continue to be limited to a relatively small percentage of the total refuge 

acreage. 

Justification:

The production of high-energy grain and winter green browse is considered an essential component 

of the waterfowl management program on the refuge. A Waterfowl Evaluation in 1989 and a 

Biological Review in 2002 found that the amount of available corn in and around the refuge was 

insufficient for wintering waterfowl. There are several reasons for this finding and many of them are 

still valid today. The varieties of corn planted on the refuge and in the surrounding area are early 

maturing (harvested in August/September) to minimize the risk of loss due to hurricanes. Waste 

grain from these varieties either re-sprouts or is turned under for weed control before wintering 

waterfowl arrive and is, therefore, unavailable to the birds. For these reasons, it is important for the 

refuge to provide corn to wintering migratory birds. 

Using local farmers to produce this food keeps limited funds and staff available for other management 

priorities. Production is maximized by employing professional farmers. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 
Appendices 

Use: Fishing – Recreational and Tournament 

Description of Use: 

Recreational fishing (including bow fishing) for all fish and blue crabs will be allowed in accordance 

with state regulations. All of Lake Mattamuskeet will be available for fishing from the shoreline or 

boats from March 1 through November 1. During the winter, no boats will be allowed on any waters 

of the refuge and shoreline fishing will be restricted to the Highway 94 causeway and the four outlet 

canal water control structures. 

 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. To improve sport-fishing 

opportunities, the fishing plan includes proposals for a survey of the fishery resources and water 

quality analyses. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Recreational fishing and crabbing have been occurring on the refuge since its establishment, with no 

apparent declines due to fishing pressure. Therefore, no adverse impacts on the fisheries resources 

of the refuge are expected from continuing these activities. During peak fishing periods, excessive 

littering, especially at boat ramps, culverts, and other popular bank fishing locations is expected. 

Some trampled vegetation and wildlife disturbance may also occur and fishing activities may lead to 

impacts from violations of refuge regulations, such as removing plants and harassing wildlife. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Fishing and crabbing will be authorized only in accordance with applicable state and federal 

regulations (including refuge-specific). 

An active law enforcement program will strive to ensure compliance with all regulations through 

education and enforcement activities. Law enforcement patrols in areas and at times of high-fishing 

pressure will be conducted to minimize wildlife disturbance. 

Biological data will be collected to monitor fisheries resources, water quality, and other habitat 

conditions. 

All public access from November 2 through February 28 will be prohibited on the Farm Area Road and 22 

miles of impoundment levees to prevent disturbance to wintering waterfowl. The only levees available for 

winter public use are: Rose Bay Levee/Canal Road, Sandy Dike Levee/Canal Road, MI-3 Levees, and 

the Lake Landing Levee/Canal Road (west side of the canal and east end of MI-7 impoundment). 
222 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Justification: 

At Mattamuskeet NWR, sport fishing and crabbing provides substantial recreational opportunities for 

the public and accounts for the majority of its public use. As stated in the establishing legislation, one 

of the reasons the refuge was set aside was for “fishing purposes.” The fisheries resources have 

sustained high levels of public use for many years, with no apparent adverse impacts. Providing this 

recreational opportunity to the public results in favorable public opinion and allows the consumptive 

use of a renewable, sustainable resource without significant adverse impacts on wildlife populations, 

habitat, or other refuge purposes. Fishing is a priority public use under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act. 

Use: Fishing – Guided 

Description of Use: 

This use involves commercial guiding of sport fisherman in refuges waters. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. An annual user fee of $50 will be 

charged for each special use permit issued. 

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Some increase in the numbers of fish legally taken can be expected when anglers unfamiliar with 

refuge waters use guides. However, the increase is probably modest and no significant impacts to 

fisheries resources are expected. Illegal take of fish may also increase (i.e., guides often become 

familiar with law enforcement techniques and schedules over time and may try to use this knowledge 

to violate regulations); however, this increase is probably also modest. No other impacts, except for 

those normally associated with recreational fishing, are expected from commercial guiding. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Commercial guiding of sport fishermen will be authorized through special use permits, which will 

include any special conditions necessary to ensure that the activity is compatible with refuge 

purposes. All federal and state regulations governing fishing on the refuge will apply to guides and 

their clients as with any other recreational angler. 

An active law enforcement program will strive to ensure compliance with all regulations through 

education and enforcement activities. 

To prevent disturbance to wintering waterfowl, all boating will be prohibited from November 2 through 

February 29 on Lake Mattamuskeet, the adjoining canals, and all other waters on the refuge. 
Appendices 

Justification: 

Allowing guides to work in refuge waters enhances the local economy (and therefore, may promote 

support for refuge programs), enhances safety in refuge waters, and improves the recreational 

experience for the clients. Biological impacts are minor and can be controlled with effective law 

enforcement and education. 

The actual number of guides on the refuge is quite low. Generally, no more than one special use 

permit is requested or issued each year. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Hunting – Big Game (White-tailed Deer)

Description of Use: This use involves hunting big game (e.g., white-tailed deer) on approximately 

9,400 acres of the refuge. Hunting will occur as two two-day hunts in October. A lottery will be used 

to limit hunter numbers to no more than 150 hunters per hunt. All rifles and pistols will be prohibited. 

Harvest will be limited to two deer per day, with no more than one legal buck per day. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. A user fee, currently $12.50 per 

hunter, will be charged and 80 percent of the funds will be retained at the refuge to be used to hire 

temporary personnel to help manage the hunt and hunt application process. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

This activity is expected to result in the removal of 50-125 deer per year. The hunt is expected to 

cause temporary disturbance to non-target wildlife in the hunt area. Some trampling of vegetation 

and other minor habitat disturbance may occur from hunters walking in the hunt area and using 

refuge roads. This may lead to some violations of refuge regulations (i.e. littering). 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Increased law enforcement patrols will be conducted during the deer hunt to ensure compliance with 

special refuge and state regulations. Biological information will be collected at the deer check-in 

station, and the herd health condition will be checked every five years by the Southeast Cooperative 

Wildlife Disease Study to determine the health condition of the refuge herd. Hunting will be restricted 

to designated areas of the refuge and limited to less than 150 hunters per hunt. 
224 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Justification:

Reducing the deer herd density will lessen the damage to natural resources, agricultural crops, and 

optimize herd health. The establishing legislation states that a portion of the refuge may “be reserved 

for use as a shooting area.” White-tailed deer are a renewable resource, which can sustain a 

reasonable level of consumptive recreation. This recreational opportunity can be provided to the 

public without adverse effects on wildlife populations, habitats, or other refuge purposes and should 

promote favorable public opinion. Other aspects of the program can be used to educate the public 

and promote support for natural resource conservation and refuge management purposes. Hunting 

is a priority public use under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Hunting-Waterfowl 

Description of Use: 

This use involves hunting of waterfowl (e.g., ducks, geese, swans) and American coots on the refuge. 

Hunting of resident Canada geese will be allowed in September on most of the open waters of the refuge 

in accordance with state seasons and other regulations. Hunting of all waterfowl during the general 

waterfowl hunting season will be allowed from mid-December through the end of January, 4 days per 

week (1⁄2 day, morning hunts) in accordance with state seasons and other regulations. In addition, a twoday youth hunt will occur in late-November. Hunting during the general waterfowl season will be restricted 

to 20 permanent blinds along 4 miles of shoreline on the south side of Lake Mattamuskeet. A lottery 

system will be used to select and limit the number of hunters participating in all of the waterfowl hunts. 

The total number of permits issued for all of the hunts will not exceed 1,000. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer this use at its current level. A user fee, currently $12.50 per 

hunter, will be charged and 80 percent of the funds will be retained at the refuge to be used to hire 

temporary personnel to help manage the hunt and the application process. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

This use is estimated to result in the removal of approximately 500 to 1,000 birds per year from 

wintering waterfowl and coot populations that generally peak at between 125,000 and 225,000 birds. 

The hunt is expected to cause temporary disturbance to wildlife in the hunt area and displace 

waterfowl and other species to other areas of the refuge. Some trampling of vegetation and other 

minor habitat disturbance may occur from hunters walking to the blinds and blind maintenance 

activities. This use may lead to some violations of refuge regulations, including taking non-game 

species, removing plants, and littering. Fishermen may be disturbed by hunters during the 

September goose hunt. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 
Appendices 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

All federal regulations governing the take of migratory species will apply. Hunting will be allowed from 

designated blinds only (except for the September resident Canada goose hunt, which is allowed on 

most of the refuge). A maximum of 20 blinds, holding up to 3 hunters each, will be used. Hunting will 

be limited to mornings only (except for the September resident Canada goose hunt, which will occur 

all day); a maximum of four mornings per week during the hunting season. All hunters during the 

youth and general waterfowl hunt will be required to attend a pre-hunt orientation. Law enforcement 

patrols will be conducted to help ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 

Justification:

The establishing legislation of the refuge states that a portion of the refuge may “be reserved for use 

as a shooting area.” Waterfowl and coots are renewable resources, which can sustain a reasonable 

level of consumptive recreation. This recreational opportunity can be provided to the public without 

significant adverse impacts on wildlife populations, habitat, or other refuge purposes and should 

promote favorable public opinion. The pre-hunt orientation and other aspects of the program can be 

used to educate the public and promote support for natural resource conservation and public 

programs and purposes. Hunting is one of the priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Photography 

Description of Use: 

This use involves photographing wildlife on the refuge. This activity may involve the use of hunt 

blinds (when refuge hunts are not in progress) or temporary blinds. Access to the refuge for this 

purpose may be vehicle, boat, bicycle, horse, or foot. Foot travel is generally allowed throughout the 

refuge. Bicycles and horses are limited to roads and dikes. Motorized vehicles are limited to 

improved roads. Boats are allowed in refuge waters during the March 1 through November 1 period 

only. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The act of photographing wildlife in itself may cause some insignificant, temporary wildlife 

disturbance. Minor impacts to habitat and vegetation may result from installing photography blinds 

and related equipment. The various modes of transportation used to observe wildlife may have 

somewhat more significant impacts in that they may lead to violation of refuge regulations, such as 

plant removal, wildlife disturbance, littering, and vandalism. Some animals may be killed or injured 

when crossing refuge roads. 
226 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Law enforcement patrols and educational activities will be used to minimize violations. Current 

regulations limiting access to the refuge (except for fishing along the Highway 94 causeway) to 

daylight hours only will be maintained and enforced. 

To prevent disturbance to wintering waterfowl, all public access from November 2 through February 

29 will be prohibited on the Farm Area Road and 22 miles of impoundment levees to prevent 

disturbance to wintering waterfowl. The only levees available for winter public use are: Rose Bay 

Levee/Canal Road, Sandy Dike Levee/Canal Road, MI-3 Levees, and the Lake Landing Levee/Canal 

Road (west side of the canal and east end of MI-7 impoundment). All boating on the refuge will also 

be prohibited during the winter closure period. 

Justification:

Wildlife photography is an activity which the public generally expects to be able to participate in on a 

wildlife refuge. Wildlife photography often promotes respect for natural resources and support for the 

refuge. The impacts of this use are generally not significant and can be controlled with law 

enforcement and education. Wildlife photography is a priority public use under the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Photography - Commercial

Description of Use: 

This use involves photographing and filming refuge wildlife, habitats, public use, and related 

operations for profit-oriented productions or uses. This activity may involve the use of hunt blinds 

(when refuge hunts are not in progress) or temporary blinds. Access to the refuge for this purpose 

may be by vehicle, boat, or foot. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. A user fee of $50 for photography 

and $500 for filming will be assessed. However, these fees may be waived, at the discretion of the 

refuge manager, if the photography/filming is being conducted primarily to promote the refuge and 

display the refuge to the public or to raise funds for the refuge. 
Appendices 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The act of filming or photographing wildlife in itself may cause some insignificant, temporary wildlife 

disturbance. Minor impacts to habitat and vegetation may result from installing photography blinds 

and related equipment. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Commercial photography will be authorized through special use permits, which will include any 

special conditions necessary to ensure the activity is compatible with refuge purposes. This may 

include an option for the refuge manager to review and edit scripts that describe or interpret Service 

policy and management. Generally, this use will be authorized only when the desired product is 

educational or interpretive in nature. All regulations governing recreational photography will apply to 

commercial photography unless specifically altered by the special use permit. 

To prevent disturbance to wintering waterfowl, all public access from November 2 through February 

29 will be prohibited on the Farm Area Road and 22 miles of impoundment levees to prevent 

disturbance to wintering waterfowl. The only levees available for winter public use are: Rose Bay 

Levee/Canal Road, Sandy Dike Levee/Canal Road, MI-3 Levees, and the Lake Landing Levee/Canal 

Road (west side of the canal and east end of MI-7 impoundment). All boating on the refuge will also 

be prohibited during the winter closure period. 

Justification:

The biological impacts of this activity by an individual or small group are minor and requests for the 

activity at Mattamuskeet NWR are very limited. If the number of requests increases, the use can be 

limited by limiting the number of special use permits issued. Therefore, significant biological impacts 

from this use are not expected. 

Commercial photography/filming may be used to promote refuge resources and programs, to educate 

the general public about wildlife and habitat management, and to foster responsible land ethics and 

political support. Therefore, it can lead to support for refuge programs and purposes. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 
228 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Picnicking 

Description of Use: 

This use involves picnicking at various locations throughout the refuge, especially at high public use 

areas and associated parking lots. The refuge is rarely a destination for the sole purpose of 

picnicking, rather, most picnicking is associated with other public uses, including fishing, crabbing, 

hunting, and wildlife observation. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Picnicking mostly occurs at bank fishing and crabbing areas and on boats. Although some 

increase in littering and other violations of refuge regulations may be associated with this use, 

these impacts are minor. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Law enforcement patrols and educational activities will be used to minimize violations. Current 

regulations limiting access to the refuge (except for fishing along the Highway 94 causeway) to 

daylight hours only will be maintained and enforced. 

To prevent disturbance to wintering waterfowl, all public access from November 2 through February 

29 will be prohibited on the Farm Area Road and 22 miles of impoundment levees to prevent 

disturbance to wintering waterfowl. The only levees available for winter public use are: Rose Bay 

Levee/Canal Road, Sandy Dike Levee/Canal Road, MI-3 Levees, and the Lake Landing Levee/Canal 

Road (west side of the canal and east end of MI-7 impoundment). 

Justification: 

Picnicking occurs primarily in conjunction with other uses of the refuge, such as fishing or wildlife 

observation. Picnicking lends itself to enjoyment of wildlife and other natural resources. This, in turn, 

leads to an appreciation of natural resources and support for the refuge. The impacts of this use are 

generally not significant and can be controlled with law enforcement and education. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 
Appendices 

Use: Research 

Description of Use:

This use involves the systematic data collection activities usually conducted by non-staff research 

scientists. The research is generally oriented towards discovering or verifying some fact(s) related to 

natural resources. The use may include collecting samples (vegetation, animals, animal products, 

soil, etc.), collecting measurements, and other research activities. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Research activities may result in some trampling of vegetation; minor, temporary wildlife disturbance; 

and negligible removals of vegetation, animals, soil, or other system components. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Research activities will only be authorized through special use permits and will include any special 

conditions necessary to ensure the activity is compatible with refuge purposes. Only research directly 

related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and generally related to refuge purposes will 

be authorized. Sampling and other activities will be limited so as to ensure animal mortality and 

habitat destruction are negligible. Permit restrictions and other refuge regulations will be enforced 

through an active law enforcement program. 

To prevent disturbance to wintering waterfowl, all public access from November 2 through February 

29 will be prohibited on the Farm Area Road and 22 miles of impoundment levees to prevent 

disturbance to wintering waterfowl. The only levees available for winter public use are: Rose Bay 

Levee/Canal Road, Sandy Dike Levee/Canal Road, MI-3 Levees, and the Lake Landing Levee/Canal 

Road (west side of the canal and east end of MI-7 impoundment). All boating on the refuge will also 

be prohibited during the winter closure period. 

Justification:

Research activities can be limited so as to cause minimal negative impacts to refuge resources. The 

information obtained is often directly or indirectly related to refuge activities and can be used to 

improve management practices. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 
230 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Tree Harvest-Firewood-Other 

Description of Use: 

This use involves the harvest of trees for firewood or other uses. Most trees harvested will be trees 

which have fallen within a road right-of-way or on a levee. Allowing this use will reduce labor by 

refuge staff members who otherwise would need to remove the trees. Occasionally, trees may need 

to be harvested which are part of another approved project, such as a new fire-break or trail. This 

activity will be managed through the use of special use permits. 

 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. This activity will actually reduce 

refuge labor costs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

These uses may cause minor, temporary disturbance to wildlife and may lead to impacts from 

violations of refuge regulations, such as removing plants and harassing wildlife, littering, and 

vandalism. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Tree harvest activities will only be authorized through special use permits and the permits will include 

any special conditions necessary to ensure that the activity is compatible with refuge purposes. Only 

tree harvest directly related to a refuge project will be authorized. Permit restrictions and other 

refuge regulations will be enforced through an active law enforcement program. 

Justification: 

Tree harvest by the public will not increase tree removal from the refuge. It will, however, reduce 

refuge labor costs, as refuge staff would otherwise need to remove the trees that are having a 

negative impact on a refuge project, such as hindering road access. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use: Wildlife Observation – Guiding or Outfitting 

Description of Use: 

This use involves observing wildlife on the refuge through the use of a guide or outfitter. This activity 

may involve the use of temporary blinds. Access to the refuge for this purpose may be by vehicle, 

boat, or foot. Foot travel is generally allowed throughout the refuge. This activity will be managed 

through the use of special use permits. 
Appendices 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. A user fee of $50 per tour will be 

assessed. However, these fees may be adjusted higher or lower at the discretion of the refuge 

manager, depending on the revenue generated from the tours. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The act of observing wildlife may cause some insignificant, temporary wildlife disturbance. The 

various modes of transportation used to observe wildlife may have somewhat more significant 

impacts in that they may lead to violation of refuge regulations, such as plant removal, wildlife 

disturbance, littering, and vandalism. Some animals may be killed or injured from vehicles crossing 

refuge roads. The activity will be managed through the use of special use permits, which will allow 

proper management of the activity. 

 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public review and comment in conjunction 

with the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Guided or outfitted tours will be authorized through the use of special use permits, which will include 

any special conditions necessary to ensure the activity is compatible with refuge purposes. Law 

enforcement patrols will be used to minimize violations and ensure permit compliance. 

The frequency of tours to the Rose Bay Impoundments and the Lake Landing Impoundments will be 

limited to one tour per week per area during the winter, November 2 through February 28, to reduce 

disturbance to waterfowl, and to two tours per week during the remaining portion of the year. 

Duration of each tour in the impoundment areas shall not exceed 2 hours per tour. Tour dates must 

be preapproved to ensure that they do not conflict with other planned tours or events. 

Justification: 

Wildlife observation is an activity which the public generally expects to be able to participate in on a 

wildlife refuge. Wildlife observation often promotes respect for natural resources and support for the 

refuge. The impacts of this use are generally not significant and can be controlled with law 

enforcement and education. 

Guided and outfitted wildlife observation may be used to promote refuge resources and programs, to 

educate the general public about wildlife and habitat management, and to foster responsible land 

ethics and political support. Therefore, it can lead to increased support for refuge programs and 

purposes. It also introduces novices to refuges who without assistance might not visit a refuge. 

Refuge staff and volunteers currently conduct tours, thus privately guided/outfitted tours would reduce 

the number of tours conducted by refuge staff which would allow them to devote more time to 

resource management. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 
232 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is 

considered for compatibility outside of the comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature 

becomes part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 
Appendices 

Appendix H. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: Bruce Freske

Telephone Number: 252-926-4021 

E-Mail: Bruce_Freske@fws.gov

Date: January 2008

PROJECT NAME:

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

 ___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

III. Station Name: Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge

IV. Description of Proposed Action 

 The proposed Comprehensive Conservation Plan would provide overall direction for 

management of wildlife populations, habitat, and public use at Mattamuskeet NWR over the 

next 15 years. The proposed alternative would provide for balanced wildlife/habitat 

management and public use activities. It would support the purposes for which the refuge 

was established, including conservation of threatened and endangered species. 
234 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: Please see Figures 1, 2, and 4 of the CCP 

(Section A). 

B. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

 Red Wolf (Canis rufus) E (Experimental population) 

 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) S/A 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species, S/A=Similar Appearance 

VI. Location (attach map): Please see Figures 1 and 2 in Chapter 2 of the CCP (Section A) 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: #34: Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear 

Ecosystem 

B. County and State: Hyde County, North Carolina 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 35.3° N, 76.2° W 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Approximately 5 miles east to 

Engelhard and 5 miles southwest to Swan Quarter. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Red Wolf – The Service first reintroduced the red wolf on the refuge in 1987. Since 

the initial releases, wolves have reproduced in the wild and may be found throughout 

the refuge and four surrounding counties. Depending upon circumstances within and 

between packs, there can be from two to five packs of wolves on the refuge at any 

given time. An estimated 100 wolves now inhabit a 1.7-million acre area in eastern 

North Carolina. 

American Alligator – The refuge is near the northern extent of the American alligator's 

natural range in North America. This formerly threatened reptile occurs in refuge 

marshes, slow-moving streams, and man-made canals. It prefers areas where water 

turbidity is low, water quality is high, and an adequate food source is present. Lake 

Mattamuskeet and the refuge’s canals and drainage ditches provide prime alligator 

habitat. 
Appendices 

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

 Red Wolf Impacts of proposed actions, primarily land and habitat protection, 

would be largely beneficial; unnecessary, or excessive disturbance 

of red wolf dens would be discouraged. Deer hunting could 

possibly lead to accidental mortality, but likely on a small scale. 

 American Alligator Impacts of proposed actions, primarily land, aquatic habitat, and 

water quality protection, would be largely beneficial. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

 Red Wolf Continuing education of the visiting public and refuge neighbors; 

law enforcement. 

 American Alligator Continuing education of the visiting public and refuge neighbors 

law enforcement.

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1

REQUESTED NE NA AA

 Red Wolf X Concurrence 

 American Alligator X Concurrence 

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a 

complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested is a” Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for 

listed species is “Formal Consultation”. Response requested for proposed and candidate species is “Conference”. 
236 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

____________________________ ________________________ 

Signature (originating station) Date

____________________________

Title

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

_____________________________ __________________________

Signature Date

_____________________________ __________________________ 

 Title Office 
Appendices 

Appendix I. Wilderness Review 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is 

managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management at the time of review; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands within Mattamuskeet NWR were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for 

wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No lands in the refuge were found to meet 

these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further 

analyzed in this plan. 

Specifically, with regard to the five criteria listed above: 

1. The imprint of “man’s work” at Mattamuskeet NWR is not “substantially unnoticeable,” due to 

the presence of the causeway and the sight and sound of vehicles being driven on Route 94, 

agricultural operations, and many canals and ditches around the refuge. 

2. The refuge lacks “outstanding opportunities” for solitude and “unconfined” recreation. 

3. The refuge does not include 5,000 contiguous roadless acres. 

4. The refuge exhibits the effects of logging, farming, grazing, and other landscape alterations. 

5. Mattamuskeet NWR does have outstanding ecological, geological, and other features of 

scientific, educational, and historic values. 

Thus, the refuge only meets one of the five wilderness criteria and would not qualify for designation 

by Congress to the National Wilderness Preservation System. 
238 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 

Appendix J. Refuge Biota 

BIRDS

Total Species - 253, Breeding Species - 77 

A = Abundant, C = Common, F = Fairly Common, U = Uncommon, O = Occasional, R = Rare 

*species with confirmed breeding records 

SPECIES 

(Common Name) Scientific Name SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga R R 

Avocet, American Recurvirostra americana R R R 

Bittern, American* Botaurus lentiginosus U U U U 

Bittern, Least* Ixobrychus exilis O U U U 

Blackbird, Brewer’s Euphagus cyanocephalus R 

Blackbird, Red-winged* Agelaius phoeniceus A A A A 

Blackbird, Rusty Euphagus carolinus O 

Blackbird, Yellow-headed Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus 

R R 

Bluebird, Eastern* Sialia sailis U U O 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus O O 

Bobwhite, Northern* Colinus virginianus U U U U 

Brant Branta bernicla R R 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola C C 

Bunting, Indigo* Passerina cyanea U U U 

Bunting, Snow Plectrophenax nivalis R 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria U U 

Cardinal, Northern* Cardinalis cardinalis C C C C 

Catbird, Gray* Dumetella carolinensis U U U U 

Chat, Yellow-breasted Icteria virens O O R 

Chickadee, Carolina* Poecile carolinensis C C C C 

Chuck-will’s Widow* Caprimulgus carolinensis U U U 

Coot, American Fulica americana C O A C 

Cormorant, Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus C U C C 

Cowbird, Brown-headed* Molothrus ater C U U C 

Creeper, Brown Certhia americana O O 

Crow, American* Corvus brachyrhynchos C C C C 

Crow, Fish* Corvus ossifragus C C C C 

Cuckoo, Black-billed Coccyzus erythropthalmus R R R 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed* Coccyzus americanus U U 

Dove, Mourning* Zenaida macroura C C C C 

Dowitcher, Long-billed Limnodromus scolopaceus O U U 

Dowitcher, Short-billed Limnodromus griseus O U U 

Duck, American Black* Anas rubripes U O C C 

Duck, Fulvous Whistling Dendrocygna bicolor R R 

Duck, Long-tailed Clangula hyemalis U U 

Duck, Ring-necked Aythya ferina C C 

Duck, Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis C C 

Duck, Wood* Aix sponsa U U C C 

Dunlin Calidris alpina O U U O 
240 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES 

(Common Name) Scientific Name SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Eagle, Bald (Threatened)* Haliaeetus leucocephalus O O U U 

Eagle, Golden Aquila chrysaetos R R 

Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis U U R 

Egret, Great Ardea alba A A A A 

Egret, Snowy Egretta thula C C C C 

Falcon, Peregrine Falco peregrinus U U 

Finch, House Carpodacus mexicanus U U U 

Finch, Purple Carpodacus purpureus O O U 

Flicker, Northern* Colaptes auratus C C C C 

Flycatcher, Acadian Empidonax virescens U U 

Flycatcher, Great Crested* Myiarchus crinitus U U O 

Gadwall Anas strepera U O C C 

Gannet, Northern Morus bassanus R U 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-Gray* Polioptila caerulea O O O O 

Godwit, Hudsonian Limosa haemastica R 

Goldeneye, Common Bucephala clangula U U U 

Goldfinch, American Carduelis tristis U U 

Goose, Canada* Branta canadensis C C C C 

Goose, Greater Whitefronted 

Anser albifrons R R 

Goose, Snow Chen caerulescens C C 

Grackle, Boat-tailed Quiscalus major U U U U 

Grackle, Common* Quiscalus quiscula C C C A 

Grebe, Eared Podiceps nigricollis O O 

Grebe, Horned Podiceps auritus U U 

Grebe, Pied-billed* Podilymbus podiceps U U C C 

Grosbeak, Blue* Passerina caerulea U U U 

Grosbeak, Evening Coccothraustes vespertinus R 

Gull, Bonaparte’s Larus philadelphia O U U 

Gull, Great Black-backed Larus marinus O C C 

Gull, Herring Larus argentatus C C C C 

Gull, Laughing Larus atricilla C C C O 

Gull, Ring-billed Larus delawarensis C C C C 

Harrier, Northern Circus cyaneus U C C 

Hawk, Broad-winged Buteo platypterus O R 

Hawk, Cooper’s Accipiter cooperii U U U U 

Hawk, Red-shouldered Buteo lineatus U U U U 

Hawk, Red-tailed* Buteo jamaicensis U U C C 

Hawk, Rough-legged Buteo lagopus R 

Hawk, Sharp-shinned* Accipiter straitus U U U U 

Heron, Black-crowned Night* Nycticorax nycticorax U U U U 

Heron, Great Blue* Ardea herodias A A A A 

Heron, Green* Butorides virescens C C C 

Heron, Little Blue Egretta caerulea U U U U 

Heron, Tri-colored Egretta tricolor U U U U 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night Nyctanassa violacea R 

Hummingbird, Rubythroated* 

Archilochus colubris U U O R 

Ibis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellus U U U U 

Ibis, White Eudocimus albus O O O 
Appendices 

SPECIES 

(Common Name) Scientific Name SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Jay, Blue* Cyanocitta cristata U U U U 

Junco, Dark-eyed Junco hyemalis U U U 

Kestrel, American Falco sparverius C C 

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus O O O U 

Kingbird, Eastern* Tyrannus tyrannus U U O 

Kingbird, Western Tyrannus verticalis R 

Kingfisher, Belted Ceryle alcyon C C C C 

Kinglet, Golden-crowned Regulus satrapa U 

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned Regulus calendula U U C 

Knot, Red Calidris canutus O O 

Lark, Horned Eremophila alpestris R R 

Loon, Common Gavia immer U C 

Loon, Red-throated Gavia stellata U C 

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos U U C C 

Martin, Purple Progne subis U U 

Meadowlark, Eastern* Stumella magna C C C C 

Merganser, Common Mergus merganser U U 

Merganser, Hooded Lophodytes cucullatus U U 

Merganser, Red-breasted Mergus serrator U U 

Merlin Falco columbarius U U 

Mockingbird, Northern* Mimus polyglottos C C C C 

Moorhen, Common Gallinula chloropus U U O O 

Nighthawk, Common Chordeiles minor U U U 

Nuthatch, Brown-headed* Sitta pusilla U U U U 

Nuthatch, Red-breasted Sitta canadensis R R 

Nuthatch, White-breasted* Sitta carolinensis U U R R 

Oriole, Baltimore Icterus galbula O R 

Oriole, Orchard* Icterus spurius U U O 

Osprey* Pandion haliaetus C C U O 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla U U U 

Owl, Barn Tyto alba O O O O 

Owl, Barred* Strix varia U U U U 

Owl, Eastern Screech* Megascops asio U U U U 

Owl, Great Horned* Bubo virginianus U U U U 

Owl, Northern Saw Whet Aegolius acadicus R R R R 

Oystercatcher, American Haematopus palliatus O 

Parula, Northern Parula americana U O U 

Pelican, American white Pelecanus erythrorhynchos R R 

Pelican, Brown Pelecanus occidentalis U U U U 

Phalarope, Red-necked Phalaropus lobatus R 

Phoebe, Eastern Sayomis phoebe O U U C 

Pintail, Northern Anus acuta C C 

Pipit, American Anthus rubescens U U 

Plover, America Golden PLUVIALIS DOMINICA R 

Plover, Black-bellied Pluvialis squatarola U U U U 

Plover, Semipalmated Charadrius semipalmatus U U U O 

Plover, Wilson’s Charadrius wilsonia U U O 

Rail, Black Laterallus jamaicensis U U R 

Rail, Clapper* Rallus longirostris U U U U 

Rail, King* Rallus elegans U U U U 
242 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES 

(Common Name) Scientific Name SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Rail, Virginia Rallus limicola U U 

Rail, Yellow Coturnicops 

noveboracensis 

 R R 

Redhead Aythya americana U U 

Redstart, American Setophaga ruticilla U U 

Robin, American* Turdus migratorius C C U U 

Sanderling Calidris alba O O 

Sandpiper, Baird’s Calidris bairdii R R 

Sandpiper, Least Calidris minutilla U U U 

Sandpiper, Pectoral Calidris melanotos O O 

Sandpiper, Semipalmated Calidris pusilla U U U U 

Sandpiper, Solitary Tringa solitaria U U 

Sandpiper, Spotted Actits macularius U U U 

Sandpiper, Upland Bartramia longicauda R R 

Sandpiper, Western Calidris mauri U U U U 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius U U U U 

Scaup, Greater Aythya marila U U 

Scaup, Lesser Aythya affinis C C 

Scoter, Black Melanitta nigra U U 

Scoter, Surf Melanitta perspicillata U U 

Scoter, White-winged Melanitta fusca O O 

Shoveler, Northern Anas clypeata O C C 

Shrike, Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus R 

Siskin, Pine Carduelis pinus R 

Skimmer, Black Rynchops niger O O R R 

Snipe, Common Gallinago gallinago U U U U 

Sora Porzana carolina U U 

Sparrow, American Tree Spizella arborea O O 

Sparrow, Chipping Spizella passerina O O U U 

Sparrow, Field Spizella pusilla U U U U 

Sparrow, Fox Passerella iliaca U U U 

Sparrow, Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum O 

Sparrow, House* Passer domesticus U U U U 

Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sharptailed 

Ammodramus caudacutus O O 

Sparrow, Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis U U C 

Sparrow, Seaside* Ammodramus maritimus U U U u 

Sparrow, Song Melospiza melodia U U C 

Sparrow, Swamp Melospiza georgiana U U C 

Sparrow, Vesper Pooecetes gramineus U 

Sparrow, White-crowned Zonotrichia leucophrys U U 

Sparrow, White-throated Zonotrichia albicollis U U C 

Starling, European* Stumus vulgaris C C C C 

Stilt, Black-necked Himantopus mexicanus O O R 

Swallow, Barn* Hirundo rustica C C O 

Swallow, Northern Roughwinged 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis U 

Swallow, Tree Tachycineta bicolor O U A A 

Swan, Tundra Cygnus columbianus O R A A 

Swift, Chimney Chaetura pelagica U U O 
Appendices 

SPECIES 

(Common Name) Scientific Name SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Tanager, Scarlet Piranga olivacea R 

Tanager, Summer Piranga rubra U U 

Teal, Green-winged Anas crecca C C 

Teal, Blue-winged Anas discors U U U 

Tern, Black Chlidonias niger O 

Tern, Caspian Stema caspia O O 

Tern, Common* Stema hirundo U U U 

Tern, Forster’s* Stema forsteri U U U U 

Tern, Gull-billed Stema nilotica O O 

Tern, Least Stema antillarum U 

Tern, Royal Stema maxima O O O R 

Tern, Sandwich Stema sandvicensis R 

Thrasher, Brown* Toxostoma rufum C C C C 

Thrush, Hermit Catharus guttatus U U U 

Thrush, Swainson’s Catharus ustulatus O O 

Thrush, Wood* Hylocichla mustelina U U U 

Titmouse, Tufted* Baeolophus bicolor C C C C 

Towhee, Eastern* Pipilo erythrophthalmus C C C C 

Turkey, Wild Meleagris gallopavo O O O O 

Turnstone, Ruddy Arenaria interpres O R 

Vireo, Blue-headed Vireo solitarius O O R 

Vireo, Red-eyed* Vireo olivaceus U U U 

Vireo, White-eyed* Vireo griseus U U U R 

Vireo, Yellow-throated Vireo flavifrons O O O 

Vulture, Black* Coragyps atratus U U U U 

Vulture, Turkey* Cathartes aura C C C C 

Warbler, Black-and-white Mniotilta varia O U O 

Warbler, Blackburnian Dendroica striata R 

Warbler, Blackpoll Dendroica fusca O 

Warbler, Black-throated Blue Dendroica caerulescens O O O 

Warbler, Black-throated 

Green 

Dendroica virens O O 

Warbler, Canada Wilsonia canadensis R U R 

Warbler, Cape May Dendroica tigrina R R 

Warbler, Chestnut-sided Dendroica pensylvanica R U R 

Warbler, Hooded* Wilsonia citrina U U 

Warbler, Magnolia Dendroica magnolia R 

Warbler, Nashville Vermivora ruficapilla R 

Warbler, Orange-crowned Vermivora celata U U 

Warbler, Palm Dendroica palmarum U U U 

Warbler, Pine* Dendroica pinus U U U U 

Warbler, Prairie* Dendroica discolor U U R R 

Warbler, Prothonotary* Protonotaria citrea U U 

Warbler, Swainson’s Limnothlypis swainsonii R R 

Warbler, Worm-eating Helmitheros vermivorum R 

Warbler, Yellow* Dendroica petechia O O R R 

Warbler, Yellow-rumped Dendroica coronata C C C 

Warbler, Yellow-throated* Dendroica dominica U U O 

Waterthrush, Northern Seiurus noveboracensis O O 

Waxwing, Cedar Bombycilla cedrorum U U U 
244 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES 

(Common Name) Scientific Name SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus O O 

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus U U 

Wigeon, American Anas americana U C C 

Wigeon, Eurasian Anas penelope O O 

Willet* Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

U U O O 

Wood Pewee, Eastern* Contopus virens U U U O 

Woodcock, American Scolopax minor O O U C 

Woodpecker, Downy* Picoides pubescens U U U U 

Woodpecker, Hairy* Picoides villosus U U U U 

Woodpecker, Pileated* Dryocopus pileatus U U U U 

Woodpecker, Red-bellied* Melanerpes carolinus C C C C 

Woodpecker, Red-headed* Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

O O O O 

Wren, Carolina* Thryothorus ludovicianus C C C C 

Wren, House* Throglodytes aedon U U U U 

Wren, Marsh* Cistothorus palustris U U U U 

Wren, Sedge Cistothorus platensis U U 

Wren, Winter Troglodytes troglodytes U U 

Yellowlegs, Greater Tringa melanoleuca O O U U 

Yellowlegs, Lesser Tringa flavipes U O U O 

Yellow-throat, Common* Geothlypis trichas C C C C 
Appendices 

MAMMALS

 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Bat, Big Brown Eptesicus fuscus 

Bat, Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus 

Bat, Evening Nycticeius humeralis 

Bat, Hoary Lasiurus cinereus 

Bat, Red Lasiurus borealis 

Bat, Silver-haired Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Bear, American Black Ursus americanus 

Beaver, American Castor canadensis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Cottontail, Eastern Sylvilagus floridanus 

Deer, White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus 

Dolphin, Atlantic Bottlenosed Tursiops truncates 

Fox, Gray Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Fox, Red Vulpes fulva 

Manatee Trichechus Manatus 

Mink, American Mustela vison 

Mole, Eastern Scalopus aquaticus 

Mole, Star-nosed Condylura cristata 

Mouse, Cotton Peromyscus gossypinus 

Mouse, Eastern Harvest Reithrodontomys humulis 

Mouse, Golden Ochrotomys nuttalli 

Mouse, House Mus musculus 

Mouse, White-footed Peromyscus leucopus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Nutria (Exotic) Myocastor coypus 

Opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Otter, River Lontra canadensis 

Rabbit, Marsh Sylvilagus palustris 

Raccoon, Northern Procyon lotor 

Rat, Black Rattus rattus
246 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Rat, Hispid Cotton Sigmodon hispidus 

Rat, Marsh Rice Oryzomys palustris 

Rat, Norway Rattus norvegicus 

Shrew, Least Cryptotis parva 

Shrew, Short-tailed Blarina brevicauda

Shrew, Southeastern Sorex longirostris 

Squirrel, Eastern Gray Sciurus carolinensis 

Squirrel, Southern Flying Glaucomys volans 

Vole, Meadow Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Weasel, Long-tailed Mustela frenata 

Wolf, Red (Endangered) Canis rufus 
Appendices 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Alligator, American (Threatened) Alligator mississippiensis 

Amphiuma, Two-toed Amphiuma means 

Anole, Green (Carolina Anole) Anolis carolinensis 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Cooter, Florida Chrysemys floridana floridana 

Cooter, River Pseudemys concinna concinna 

Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix 

Cottonmouth, Eastern Agkistrodon piscivorus 

Frog, Brimley.s Chorus Pseudacris brimleyi 

Frog, Carpenter Rana virgatipes 

Frog, Gray Tree Hyla chrysoscelis (diploid form) 

Frog, Green Rana clamitans 

Frog, Little Grass Pseudacris ocularis 

Frog, Southern Cricket Acris gryllus 

Frog, Southern Leopard Rana utricularia (Rana sphenocephala) 

Kingsnake, Scarlet Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides 

Lizard, Eastern Glass Ophisaures ventralis 

Mudpuppy, Dwarf Necturus punctatus 

Mudturtle, Eastern Kinosternon subrubrum 

Newt, Eastern Notophthalmus viridescens 

Peeper, Spring Pseudacris crucifer 

Racer, Black Coluber constrictor 

Rattlesnake, Canebrake (Timber) Crotalus horridus 

Rattlesnake, Pygmy Sistrusus miliarius barbouri 

Salamander, Marbled Ambystoma opacum 

Salamander, Slimy Plethodone glutinosus glutinous 

Salamander, Southern Dusky Desmognathus auriculatus 

Siren, Greater Siren lacertian 

Skink, Broad-headed Eumeces laticeps 

Skink, Five-Lined Eumeces fasciatus 
248 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Skink, Ground Scincella lateralis 

Skink, Southeastern Five-lined Eumeces inexpectatus 

Slider, Yellow-bellied Trachemys scripta scripta 

Snake, Banded Water Nerodia fasciata fasciata 

Snake, Brown Storeria dekayi 

Snake, Brown Water Nerodia taxispilota 

Snake, Carolina Swamp Seminatrix pygaea paludis 

Snake, Corn (Red Rat Snake) Elaphe guttata 

Snake, Eastern Garter Thamnophis sirtalis 

Snake, Eastern Hognose Heterodon platirhinos 

Snake, Eastern King Lampropeltis getula 

Snake, Eastern Ribbon Thamnophis sauritus 

Snake, Glossy Crayfish Regina rigida 

Snake, Green Rat Senticolis triaspis 

Snake, Mud Farancia abacura 

Snake, Northern Water Natrix sipedon sipedon 

Snake, Rainbow Farancia erytrogramma 

Snake, Redbelly Storeria occipitomaculata 

Snake, Redbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster erythrogaster 

Snake, Ringneck Diadophis punctatus 

Snake, Rough Earth Virginia striatula 

Snake, Rough Green Opheodrys aestivus 

Snake, Worm Carphophis vermis 

Spadefoot, Eastern Toad Scaphiopus holbrooki holbrooki 

Terrapin, Diamondback Malaclemys terrapin 

Toad, Eastern Narrow-mouthed Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Toad, Fowler's Bufo fowleri 

Toad, Oak Bufo quercicus 

Toad, Southern Bufo terrestris 

Treefrog, Green Hyla cinerea 

Treefrog, Pine Woods Hyla femoralis 

Treefrog, Squirrel Hyla squirella 
Appendices 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Turtle, Common Snapping Chelydra serpentina 

Turtle, Eastern Box Terrapene carolina 

Turtle, Painted Chrysemys picta 

Turtle, Redbelly Chrysemys rubiventris 

Turtle, Spotted Clemmys guttata 

Watersnake, Carolina Nerodia sipedon williamengelsi 
250 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

FISH 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 

Anchovy, Bay Anchoa mitchilli 

Bass, Largemouth Micropterus salmoides 

Bass, Striped Morone saxatilis 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Bowfin Amia calva 

Bullhead, Brown Ameiurus nebulosus 

Bullhead, Yellow Ameiurus natalis 

Carp, Common Cyprinus carpio 

Catfish, Channel Ictalurus punctatus 

Catfish, White Ameiurus catus 

Chubsucker, Lake Erimyzon sucetta 

Crappie, Black Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus 

Darter, Swamp Etheostoma fusiforme 

Darter, Tessellated Etheostoma olmstedi 

Drum, Red Sciaenops ocellatus 

Eel, American Anguilla rostrata 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus 

Flounder, Southern Paralichthys lethostigma 

Flounder, Summer Paralichthys dentatus 

Gar, Longnose Lepisosteus osseus 

Goby, Green Microgobius thalassinus 

Goby, Naked Gobiosoma bosci 

Goldfish Carassius auratus 

Herring, Blueback Alosa aestivalis 

Hogchoaker Trinectes maculatus 

Killifish, Banded Fundulus diaphanus 

Killifish, Rainwater Lucania parva 

Ladyfish Elops Saurus 
Appendices 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Madtom, Tadpole Noturus gyrinus 

Menhaden, Atlantic Brevoortia tyrannus 

Minnow, Sheepshead Cyprinodon variegates 

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Mudminnow, Eastern Umbra pygmaea 

Mullet, Striped Mugil cephalus 

Mullet, Yellow Mugil curema 

Mummichog Fundulus h. heteroclitus 

Needlefish, Atlantic Strongylura marina 

Perch, Pirate Aphredoderus sayanus 

Perch, Silver Bairdiella chrysoura 

Perch, White Morone americana 

Perch, Yellow Perca flavescens 

Pickerel, Chain Esox niger 

Pickerel, Redfin Esox americanus 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboids 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Shad, American Alosa sapidissima 

Shad, Gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum 

Shad, Hickory Alosa mediocris 

Shiner Notropis spp. 

Shiner, Golden Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Silverside, Inland Menidia beryllina 

Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

Sturgeon, Atlantic Acipenser oxyrhynchus 

Sunfish, Banded Enneacanthus obesus 

Sunfish, Bluespotted Enneacanthus gloriosus 

Sunfish, Mud Acantharchus pomotis 

Sunfish, Redbreast Lepomis auritus 

Sunfish, Redear Lepomis microlophus 

Swampfish Chologaster cornuta 
252 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Tonguefish, Blackcheek Symphurus plagiusa 

Trout, Spotted Sea Cynoscion nebulosus 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

OTHER AQUATIC ORGANISMS

 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Crab, Blue Callinectes sapidus 

Crab, Brackish-Water Fiddler Uca minax 

Crayfish Procambarus acutus 

Oyster, Common Crassostrea virginica 

Periwinkle, Marsh Littorina irrorata 

Shrimp, Brown Penaeus aztecus 

Shrimp, Freshwater Palaemonetes paludosus 

Shrimp, Pink Penaeus duorarum 

Shrimp, White Penaeus setiferus 
Appendices 

Appendix K. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) 

Tier I Mattamuskeet

Station 

Rank/ 

Tier

Project 

 Number

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring)

Positions Project Title 

1/1 97009 $377K 

($333K/$44K) 

0 Control Invasive Phragmites and 

Alligator Weed 

2/1 00005 $118K 

($106K/$12K) 

0 Conduct Biological and Aquatic Study of 

Lake Mattamuskeet 

MATTAMUSKEET TIER I

Project: 97009 

First Year Request: $333,000, Recurring Request: $44,000 

Station Rank – 1 (Mattamuskeet Tier 1) 

Enhance wetland habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds by controlling two invasive plant 

species: Phragmites and Alligator Weed. These two invasive plants readily out compete desirable 

wetland plant species, resulting in degraded habitat that is less attractive to migratory birds. An 

existing herbicide treatment program for Phragmites needs to be expanded by 25 per cent. Also, to 

reduce the program's dependence on toxic chemicals, a mechanical treatment option needs to be 

implemented. A specialized marsh vehicle (with a hydraulic-driven mower or a roller chopper head) is 

needed to mechanically control Phragmites in the marsh areas of Lake Mattamuskeet. Herbicide 

chemicals are also needed to treat Alligator Weed. The project includes a storage building (approved 

for herbicide and toxic chemicals) to comply with current safety and environmental standards. 

Project: 00005 

First Year Request: $106,000, Recurring Request: $12,000 

Station Rank – 2 (Mattamuskeet Tier 1) 

Conduct a study of fish communities, aquatic organisms, and water quality in the 40,000-acre Lake 

Mattamuskeet, North Carolina's largest natural lake. The 50,180-acre refuge winters 125,000 to 

200,000 birds annually, mostly waterfowl, including about 30 percent of the Atlantic population of 

tundra swans. These migratory birds are very dependent on the refuge lake and surrounding habitats. 

This study will assess the health of the lake's fishery, document the status of other aquatic 

organisms, and analyze water quality (salinity, dissolved oxygen, pollutants, toxins). The shallow 

nature of Lake Mattamuskeet, and the recent shift in local agricultural practices to cotton farming 

(which requires a significant use of pesticides), warrants this study. The purpose of the study is to 

collect essential data needed to assess and monitor the health of this significant lake basin and to 

identify any existing and potential impacts to refuge wildlife and habitat.
254 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Tier II - Mattamuskeet

Station 

Rank/ 

Tier

Project 

Number

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring)

Positions Project Title 

1/2 97004 $301K 

($290K/$11K) 

0 Improve Moist Soil Management 

2/2 97003 $133K 

($65K/$68K) 

1 Improve Water Management on Lake 

Mattamuskeet and 11 Impoundments 

3/2 00003 $38K 

($30K/$8K) 

0 Increase Law Enforcement Capabilities 

and Public Safety 

4/2 97002 $160K 

($150K/$10K) 

0 Conduct Four Biological Studies to 

Improve Management Techniques 

5/2 00006 $95K 

($90K/$5K) 

0 Conduct Waterfowl Food Studies on 

Three National Wildlife Refuges 

6/2 97023 $133K 

($65K/$68K) 

1 Enhance Environmental Education and 

Outreach Programs 

7/2 97028 $192K 

($192K/$0) 

0 Develop Conceptual Site and Exhibit 

Plans 

8/2 00007 $50K 

($50K/$0) 

0 Acquire High Resolution Aerial 

Photographs for Three National 

Wildlife Refuges 

9/2 99005 $76.5K 

($47.5K/$29K) 

0.5 Improve Management and Protection 

of Farm Service Agency Easements 

10/2 00017 $100K 

($100K/$0) 

0 Conduct a Cultural Resource Survey 

MATTAMUSKEET - TIER 2

Project: 97004 

First Year Request: $290,000, Recurring Request: $11,000 

Station Rank – 1 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Improve management capabilities for 2,100 acres of moist soil units. This will be achieved by 

purchasing equipment to properly manage the units and constructing a pumping station at MI-9. 

Equipment needs include an offset disc and excavator for moist soil management. Supplies for the 

MI-9 pumping station include a 30" low-lift pump, a diesel motor power unit, and materials needed to 

fabricate the pump station and shed. Mattamuskeet NWR has 9 impoundments (2,100 ac) managed 

as moist soil units to provide habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds and other wildlife. These moist soil 

areas comprise only 5% of the refuge's land base, but account for a significant proportion of 

waterfowl use. Mattamuskeet is one of the most important wintering areas for waterfowl along the 

Atlantic Flyway, especially for northern pintails and tundra swans. 
Appendices 

Project: 97003 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $68,000 

Station Rank – 2 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Improve water level manipulation capabilities of Lake Mattamuskeet (40,000 ac) and 11 managed 

impoundments (2,648 ac). Some impoundments are not properly managed each year due to time 

and staff restraints. The addition of a biological technician position will increase management 

capabilities and maximize the benefits of the lake and impoundments. Proper water level 

management is crucial to the production of plants that provide food and cover to sustain waterfowl 

and other migratory birds during the winter and migration periods. This position will monitor water 

levels, operate and maintain pumps, regulate water control structures and maintain dikes. This 

complexity of wetlands provides feeding and resting habitat for 125,000-175,000 wintering waterfowl 

each year, as well as other migratory birds and resident wildlife. Mattamuskeet Refuge is one of the 

largest over wintering areas for northern pintails and tundra swans in the Atlantic Flyway. 

Project: 00003 

First Year Request: $30,000, Recurring Request: $8,000 

Station Rank – 3 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Improve law enforcement capabilities to protect wildlife, facilities and visitor safety. Current law 

enforcement equipment is not sufficient to deal with problems that occur on the refuge. New supplies will 

be purchased to provide the law enforcement staff with equipment that will increase officer safety and the 

effectiveness of their activities. Equipment such as night vision scopes, surveillance cameras, field test 

kits for drugs and alcohol, lockers, etc. will be used to document violations. The lockers are needed to 

properly secure evidence, abandoned property, and law enforcement equipment. 

Project: 97002 

First Year Request: $150,000, Recurring Request: $10,000 

Station Rank – 4 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Conduct four biological research studies to improve resource management on all three refuges 

(Mattamuskeet/Cedar Island/Swanquarter). The studies are 1) analyzing specific needs and use patterns 

of declining Neotropical birds on all three refuges; 2) analyze the effects of aluminum flap gates and 

experimental fish weirs, installed in water control structures, to permit the passage of fish into the lake. 

This could lead to recommendations for improvements to benefit anadromous fishes; 3) analyze water 

quality, particularly its impacts on fish, vegetation, and waterfowl; 4) evaluate the effects of fire in marsh 

habitats on plants and wildlife. Results of the studies will be used to determine management practices 

that will benefit habitat quality and wildlife. Funding will be used to contract with universities or other 

research entities to conduct the studies and make management recommendations. 

Project: 00006 

First Year Request: $90,000, Recurring Request: $5,000 

Station Rank – 5 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Conduct a food habitats study for wintering waterfowl on Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter and Cedar 

Island NWRs. This study will analyze the food habitats in natural and managed wetlands. A current 

understanding of waterfowl food habitats on the wintering grounds is critically needed to make wise 

habitat management and restoration decisions. The existing information on waterfowl habitats is 

several decades old and in need of updating. Equipment is available, but a temporary technician and 

a contractor to identify food items is needed to conduct this study. 
256 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Project: 97023 

First Year Request: $65,000, Recurring Request: $68,000 

Station Rank – 6 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Increase environmental education, outreach and public use programs by the addition of an 

environmental education specialist position. This position will coordinate and expand ongoing 

educational activities with the Partnership for the Sounds, East Carolina University and other 

environmental and educational groups. Environmental programs and workshops will be presented at 

the Mattamuskeet Lodge and off-refuge locations. Off site exhibits, outreach videos, and 

informational leaflets will be developed and presented to the public in various ways. News releases 

highlighting refuge and ecological events will be made available to media on a regular basis. Filling 

this position will help to get the message of the Service, refuge and ecosystem out to the public. 

Project: 97028 

First Year Request: $192,000, Recurring Request: $0 

Station Rank – 7 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Develop concept plans for future interpretive facilities and visitor center exhibits. The plans will locate 

appropriate sites for trails, boardwalks, observation areas and other interpretive facilities. The types 

of interpretive facilities needed will be addressed. The scope and types of future visitor center 

exhibits will be developed. The plan will provide information and details needed to develop future 

public use facilities and provide adequate cost estimates for planning purposes. 

Project: 00007 

First Year Request: $50,000, Recurring Request: $0 

Station Rank – 8 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Acquire a complete updated set of high resolution aerial photographs for Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter 

and Cedar Island NWRs. The photographs are needed to assess habitat types for management 

decision-making purposes. The maps will help in tracking invasive plant species and monitoring the 

effectiveness of various treatments to eradicate and control their spread. The current conventional 

sources of photographs are outdated and have limited value for reference. 

Project: 99005 

First Year Request: $47,500 Recurring Request: $29,000 

Station Rank – 9 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Improve protection and management of Farm Service Agency easements. Mattamuskeet is assigned 

the responsibility to manage 14 FSA easements located on private lands. The easements, totaling 

623 acres, are scattered throughout 7 counties. The refuge has a legal mandate to protect the 

easements. Annual inspects need to be made to ensure compliance by the landowners. Habitat 

work can also be done to improve to easements for wildlife. The easements do not receive the 

attention they need, due to other refuge priorities and limited staff. This project will hire a part-time 

biological technician to write a habitat management plan for each easement, conduct annual 

compliance checks, and implement management to improve wildlife habitat. The easements are 

considered part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Appendices 

Project: 00017 

First Year Request: $100,000 Recurring Request: $0 

Station Rank – 10 (Mattamuskeet Tier 2) 

Conduct a comprehensive cultural resource survey and literature and background search on 

Mattamuskeet NWR. A limited survey and search was done in 1978. This survey only concentrated 

on development sites. The original survey report suggested that 460 acres of the refuge contained 

possible prehistoric sites and recommended additional surveys. An intensive survey is needed to 

complete the cultural resource inventory. The work will be contracted out. This information is needed 

to protect areas of significant cultural importance. 
258 Mattamuskeet Na

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NEEDS 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

99103054 Replace the existing oil/paint storage building. 42530 10041804 COMP DM 

2.01E+09 98103062 40190 Rehabilitate Central Canal ENG Child of 98103062 42530 10016369 COMP DM 2.01E+09 Bridge Repairs 10016312 42530 10016312 COMP DM 2.01E+09 KRW - E4AA Purchase storm shutters 42530 10016328 COMP DM 2.01E+09 KRW - E4AA Purchase generator for shop 42530 10016325 COMP DM 2.01E+09 KRW - E4AA Purchase generator for office 42530 10016324 COMP DM 2.01E+09 KRW - E4AA Purchase storm shutters 42530 10016329 COMP DM 2.01E+09 KRW - E4AA Purchase storm shutters 42530 10016326 COMP DM 2.01E+09 KRW - E4AA Purchase storm shutters 42530 10016327 COMP DM 

103063 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate the West Main Canal. 42530 10016368 INPRG DM 103064 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate East Main Canal 42530 10016367 INPRG DM 103060 2.01E+09 Replace the Rose Bay boat ramp. Access to current 42530 10016383 INPRG DM 
Appendices 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

98103062 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate Central Canal. The canal has silted 42530 10016369 INPRG DM 

3124783 2.01E+09 Replace deteriorating equipment storage 42530 10016424 INPRG DM 3124785 2.01E+09 Replace the 40 year old shop/maintenance building. 42530 10016325 INPRG DM 

90110137 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate Outfall Canal and adjoining canals at 42530 10016379 INPRG DM 

2.01E+09 103064 Rehabilitate East Main Canal DM child of 00103064 42530 10016367 INPRG DM 2.01E+09 103063 Rehabilitate West Main Canal DM child of 00103063 42530 10016368 INPRG DM 2.01E+09 103063 Rehabilitate West Main Canal ENG child of 00103063 42530 10016368 INPRG DM 2.01E+09 103064 Rehabilitate East Main Canal ENG child of 00103064 42530 10016367 INPRG DM 2.01E+09 90110137 

Rehabilitate Outfall Canal and adjoining canals at refuge headquarters. ENG child of 90110137 

42530 10016379 INPRG DM 

2.01E+09 98103062 Rehabilitate Central Canal DM Child of 98103062 42530 10016369 INPRG DM 2.01E+09 3124785 Replace shop building DM child of 03124785 42530 10016325 INPRG DM 
260 Mattamuskeet Na

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 3124783 Replace deteriorating equipment storag DM child of 03124783 42530 10016424 INPRG DM 2.01E+09 3124783 Replace deteriorating equipment storag CI child of 03124783 42530 10016424 INPRG DM 2.01E+09 3124783 Replace deteriorating equipment storag ENG child of 03124783 42530 10016424 INPRG DM 2.01E+09 90110137 Rehabilitate Outfall Canal 42530 10016379 INPRG DM 2.01E+09 103060 Replace Rose Bay Boat Ramp DM child of 00103060 42530 10016383 INPRG DM 

99133096 Construction & Construction Engineering. Planning 42530 WAPPR DM 

4135012 Replace the Highway 94 public boat ramp. This pub 42530 10016438 WAPPR DM 

99103072 Preliminary Engineering. Planning and design to re 42530 10016314 WAPPR DM 80133093 Construction & Construction Engineering. Planning 42530 WAPPR DM 94103050 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate the dikes around MI-10. The dike's s 42530 10016363 WAPPR DM 80103069 Preliminary Engineering. Planning and design to re 42530 10016448 WAPPR DM 
Appendices 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

99103071 REHAB FHWA RTE WAUPOPPIN CANAL ROAD 42530 10016349 WAPPR DM 99103055 Preliminary Engineering. Planning and design for 42530 10016414 WAPPR DM 

103059 Rehabilitate MI-11 rim canal. The canal is approx 42530 10016386 WAPPR DM 

98103045 2.01E+09 Replace grain storage bin, constructed in 1967. T 42530 10016439 WAPPR DM 80103053 2.01E+09 Replace the deteriorated equipment wash facility b 42530 10041799 WAPPR DM 

122122 2.01E+09 Repair Refuge Quarters Road. The road is bumpy an 42530 10016448 WAPPR DM 

99122116 REHAB FHWA RTE FARM AREA ROAD 42530 10016314 WAPPR DM 99122117 Construction. Planning and design to reshape and r 42530 WAPPR DM 

4136214 Repair public use parking areas along Wildlife Drive 42530 10016446 WAPPR DM 4136220 REHAB FHWA RTE 150 LAKE LANDING ROAD 42530 10040933 WAPPR DM 4136509 The Federal Highway Administration, under authorit 42530 10016441 WAPPR DM 
262 Mattamuskeet Na

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

4136099 REHAB FHWA RTE 130 SANDY DIKE ROAD 42530 10016447 WAPPR DM 4136158 Repair public use parking areas located on and nea 42530 10016447 WAPPR DM 4136088 REHAB FHWA RTE 020 WILDLIFE DRIVE 42530 10016446 WAPPR DM 4136074 REHAB FHWA RTE 140 ROSE BAY CANAL ROAD 42530 10016347 WAPPR DM 4136180 Repair public use parking areas (FHA Rt. #905 & 90 42530 10041952 WAPPR DM 4136171 Repair the parking areas (FHA Rt. # 900, 901, 902) 42530 10041952 WAPPR DM 4136079 REPAIR FHWA RTE 110 CENTRAL CANAL ROAD 42530 10016350 WAPPR DM 

2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate MI-11 Rim Canal DM child of 00103059 42530 10016386 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 103059 Rehabilitate MI-11 Rim Canal ENG child of 00103059 42530 10016386 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Repair Refuge Ouarters Road DM child of 00122122 42530 10016448 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 122122 Repair Refuge Ouarters Road ENG child of 00122122 42530 10016448 WAPPR DM 
Appendices 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 4136509 Rehabilitate West Main Canal Bridge ENG child of 04136509 42530 10016441 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Replace water lines 42530 10041745 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4135012 Replace Highway 94 Boat Ramp DM Child of 04135012 42530 10016438 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 94103050 Rehabilitate the dikes around MI-10 ENG Child of 94103050 42530 10016363 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 98103045 Replace grain storage bin ENG child of 98103045 42530 10016439 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 80103053 Replace equipment wash building ENG child of 80103053 42530 10041799 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Replace grain storage bin DM child of 98103045 42530 10016439 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 80103069 

resurface the deteriorating asphalt pavement road by the refuge headquarters. ENG child of 80103069 

42530 10016448 WAPPR DM 

2.01E+09 2.01E+09 R4 Mattamuskeet Entrance Road Bridge Rte 10 (Child) 42530 10016414 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 RRP R4 FY 08 Mattamuskeet Roads And Parking Lots 42530 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 R4 Mattamuskeet #1 East Canal Bridge Rte 20 (Parent) 42530 WAPPR DM 
264 Mattamuskeet Na

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 2.01E+09 R4 Mattamuskeet #1 East Canal Bridge Rte 20 (Child) 42530 10016345 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 R4 Mattamuskeet East Canal Bridge (Parent) 42530 10016345 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 R4 Mattamuskeet East Canal Bridge (Child) 42530 10016345 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 RRP R4 FY 10 Mattamuskeet Roads And Parking Lots 42530 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 R4 Mattamuskeet Entrance Road Bridge Rte 10 (Child) 42530 10016414 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 R4 Mattamuskeet Entrance Road Bridge Rte 10 (Parent) 42530 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 99133096 

reshape and regravel the Farm Area Road (Rte 160) and adjacent parking lots (Rtes 940, 941). DM Child of 99133096 

42530 WAPPR DM 

2.01E+09 4136171 Repair Rtes 900, 901, 902 ENG Child of 04136171 42530 10041952 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 R4 Mattamuskeet Entrance Road Bridge Rte 10 (Parent) 42530 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 99103072 

Preliminary Engineering. Planning and design to reshape and regravel the Farm Area Road (Rte 160) ENG Child of 99103072 

42530 10016314 WAPPR DM 
Appendices 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 4136099 Repair Rte 130 DM Child of 04136099 42530 10016447 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136099 Repair Rte 130 ENG Child of 04136099 42530 10016447 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136180 Repair Rtes 905, 906 DM Child of 04136180 42530 10041952 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136180 Repair Rtes 905, 906 ENG Child of 04136180 42530 10041952 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136079 Repair Rte 110 DM Child of 04136079 42530 10016350 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 99103072 

Preliminary Engineering. Planning and design to reshape and regravel the Farm Area Road (Rte 160) DM Child of 99103072 

42530 10016314 WAPPR DM 

2.01E+09 4136074 Repair Rte 140 DM Child of 04136074 42530 10016347 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136079 Repair Rte 110 ENG Child of 04136079 42530 10016350 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136074 Repair Rte 140 ENG Child of 04136074 42530 10016347 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136088 Repair Rte 020 DM Child of 04136088 42530 10016446 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 99103055 

Preliminary Engineering. Planning and design for the replacement of the Entrance Road Bridge. ENG Child of 99102055 

42530 10016414 WAPPR DM 
266 Mattamuskeet Na

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 99103071 

Preliminary Engineering. Planning and design to reshape and regravel. DM Child of 99103071 

42530 10016349 WAPPR DM 

2.01E+09 4136088 Repair Rte 020 ENG Child of 04136088 42530 10016446 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136214 Repair Wildlife Drive ENG child of 04136214 42530 10016446 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136220 Repair public parking areas DM child of 04136220 42530 10040933 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 4136158 Rehab Parking Sandy Dike Rd. ENG child of 04136158 42530 10016447 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 99122116 

regravel the Farm Area Road (Rte 160) and adjacent parking lots (Rtes 940, 941 ENG Child of 99122116 

42530 10016314 WAPPR DM 

2.01E+09 4136220 Repair public parking areas ENG child of 04136220 42530 10040933 WAPPR DM 

5138029 2.01E+09 Replace the aged and worn out metal storage buildi 42530 10016311 WAPPR DM 5138233 Replace the removed flap gate lifting devises for 42530 10016313 WAPPR DM 5137952 Replace aged and worn out concrete block office/vi 42530 10016324 WAPPR DM 
Appendices 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehab Entrance Road Bridge Rte 10 42530 10016414 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 R4 Mattamuskeet East Canal Bridge (Child) 42530 10016345 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 5137952 Replace aged and worn out concrete block office DM Child of 05137952 42530 10016324 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 5137952 Replace aged and worn out concrete block office ENG Child of 05137952 42530 10016324 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Replace worn residence for Law Enforcement Officer 42530 10016328 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Replace deteriorating metal storage building 42530 10016391 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Replace broken above ground fuel tanks 42530 10016452 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Replace worn residence for Assistant Refuge Manager 42530 10016327 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Bridge Repairs 10016342 42530 10016342 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Bridge Repairs 10016346 42530 10016346 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Bridge Repairs 10016384 42530 10016384 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Bridge Repairs 10016362 42530 10016362 WAPPR DM 
268 Mattamuskeet Na

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 Bridge Repairs 10016429 42530 10016429 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Bridge Repairs 10016414 42530 10016414 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Bridge Repairs 10016441 42530 10016441 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 900 WILDLIFE VIEWING PULL-OUT PARKING 42530 10040940 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB HQ LOOP ROAD 42530 10040904 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 901 & 902 BOAT LAUCH PARKING AREA 42530 10042028 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Bridge Repairs 10016361 42530 10016361 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 903 FISH DECK PARKING AREA 42530 10040982 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 904 HQ PARKING AREA 42530 10040994 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 905 HQ PARKING AREA 42530 10040998 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 906 HQ/BOAT RAMP PARKING 42530 10041008 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 909 NEM HOLLAND TRAILHEAD PARKING 42530 10041043 WAPPR DM 
Appendices 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 910 WILDLIFE VIEWING #12 PARKING 42530 10041047 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 927,928,929,930, WILDLIFE VIEWING PARKING AREA 42530 10041487 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 908 FISHING DECK PARKING AREA 42530 10041029 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 931 SR 94 BOAT RAMP PARKING 42530 10041310 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 934 CULVERT #2 PARKING AREA 42530 10041319 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 940 LAKE LANDING PARKING AREA 42530 10016432 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 941 WAUPOPPIN CANEL PARKING 42530 10016430 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 942 WILDLIFE VIEWNG PARKING AREA 42530 10041358 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 943 NEW HOLLAND TRAILHEAD PARKING 42530 10041359 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB REFUGE HQ ROAD 42530 10016340 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE WILDLIFE VIEWING #11 PARKING AREA 42530 10041050 WAPPR DM 
270 Mattamuskeet Na

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 924 DUCK BLIND PARKING 42530 10041254 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 935 CULVERT #3 PARKING AREA 42530 10041323 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 936 CULVERT #4 PARKING AREA 42530 10041349 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 937 CULVERT #5 PARKING AREA 42530 10041353 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 938 BOAT LAUNCH PARKING AREA 42530 10016431 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 939 WILDLIFE VIEWING PARKING AREA 42530 10041357 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 926 FISHING ACCESS PARKING 42530 10041265 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 932 CULVERT #1 PARKING AREA 42530 10041313 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 933 CULVERT #2 PARKING AREA 42530 10041317 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 

REHAB FHWA RTE 916,917,918,919,920,921,922,925 WILDLIFE VIEWING #1-7 PARKING 

42530 10041475 WAPPR DM 
Appendices 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 923 WILDLIFE VIEWING #8 PARKING AREA 42530 10041250 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 912 WILDLIFE VIEWING #10 PARKING 42530 10041443 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 913,914,915 #1 CANAL WILDLIFE VIEWING PARKING 42530 10041458 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair Levees Dikes 42530 10016363 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 REHAB FHWA RTE 919 WILDLIFE VIEWING #4 42530 10041177 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Rehab FHWA Route 907 42530 10041020 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair Levees Dikes 42530 10016395 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair Levees Dikes 42530 10016354 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Dredge Canal 42530 10016370 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Dredge Canal 42530 10016371 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair Levees Dikes 42530 10016352 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair Levees Dikes 42530 10016396 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Dredge Ditch 42530 10041706 WAPPR DM 
272 Mattamuskeet Na

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Dredge Ditch 42530 10041696 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Dredge Canal 42530 10016417 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Dredge Canal 42530 10016387 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair Levees Dikes 42530 10016364 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Dredge Canal 42530 10016380 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Dredge Canal 42530 10016319 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabiliate worn MI-10 bridge which crosses the MI-10 rim canal. 42530 10016384 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate silted Sandy Dike Canal. 42530 10016387 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate silted MI-11 canal. 42530 10016386 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate silted MI-1 rim canal. 42530 10016370 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate silted MI-2 rim canal. 42530 10016371 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate silted MI-9 interior Canal. 42530 10016417 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate silted canal. 42530 10016319 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate silted MI-10 rim canal. 42530 10016380 WAPPR DM 
Appendices 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Replace worn Refuge residence water lines. 42530 10041745 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair rotting Quarters #40 residence 42530 10016326 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate worn levee. 42530 10016363 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair damaged guardrail on side of West Main Canal Bridge. 42530 10016441 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate worn MI-8 levee. 42530 10016396 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Replace deteriorating metal storage building 42530 10016391 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Repair broken above ground fuel tanks DM child of 2006407479 42530 10016452 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Replace equipment wash building DM child of 80103053 42530 10041799 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 

Rehabilitate the marsh impoundment (MI) #2 pumping station and reshape the MI #1 and #2 dikes.DM child of 93103049 

42530 10016344 WAPPR DM 

2.01E+09 Rehabilitate the dikes around MI-10 DM Child of 94103050 42530 10016363 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Repair Rose Bay Boat Ramp 42530 10016383 WAPPR DM 
274 Mattamuskeet Na

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate silted-in internal ditches in Refuge impoundments. 42530 10041706 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate worn levee. 42530 10016354 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair rotting Quarters #43 residence 42530 10016329 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate worn levee. 42530 10016364 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate worn MI-9 levee. 42530 10016395 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate damaged wood bridge which crosses Lake Landing Canal. 42530 10016346 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate silted-in ditches in Refuge agricultural fields. 42530 10041696 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Repair weathered Old West Main Canal trail bridge 42530 10016366 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Repair deteriorated FA-2 water control structure 42530 10016405 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair eroded MI-2 levee 42530 10016422 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 Repair severely damaged mobile home 42530 10041891 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehabilitate the eroded MI-2 impoundment levee. 42530 10016352 WAPPR DM 
Appendices 

WONUM PARENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION EQNUM STATUS WORK TYPE 

2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair eroded MI-2 levee 42530 10016422 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair rotting Quarters #40 residence 42530 10016326 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Repair rotting Quarters #43 residence 42530 10016329 WAPPR DM 2.01E+09 2.01E+09 

Repair the worn Wildlife Drive Bridge (bridge # 42530-00057) that spans Central Canal. 

42530 10016342 WAPPR DM 

2.01E+09 2.01E+09 Rehab Entrance Rd Bridge and East Canal Bridge Rte 10 and 20 (PE) 42530 10016345 WAPPR DM 
276 Mattamuskeet Na
Appendices 277

Appendix L. List of Preparers 

Bruce Freske, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Jerry Fringeli, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Don Temple, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge (formerly) 

Dan Sheill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge (formerly) 

John Stanton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds 

Robert Glennon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecosystem Planning Office, Edenton, N.C. (formerly) 

David Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecosystem Planning Office, Edenton, N.C. (formerly) 

Mark Buckler, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Outer Banks Center for Wildlife Education 

Kevin Dockendorf, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, District Fisheries Biologist 

Doug Howell, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Waterfowl Biologist 

Woody Webster, N.C. Division of Coastal Management, Buckridge Coastal Reserve 

Leon Kolankiewicz, Mangi Environmental Group 

Jessica Butts, Mangi Environmental Group 

Jeff DeBlieu, The Nature Conservancy 

Roger Rulifson, East Carolina University 

Mac Gibbs, North Carolina Cooperative Extensive Service, Swan Quarter 

Tom Stroud, Partnership for the Sounds 
278 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge