DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

CURRITUCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Currituck County, North Carolina

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

1875 Century Boulevard 

Atlanta, Georgia 30345 

January 2006 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

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

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

Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................2

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

Refuges of the Ecosystem............................................................................................................4

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

National Conservation Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................4

Relationship to State Partners......................................................................................................5

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

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

Location and size ................................................................................................................7

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

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

Acquisition History...............................................................................................................7

Purposes.............................................................................................................................7

Special Designations..................................................................................................................10

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

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

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

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

Alterations to Hydrology....................................................................................................13

Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems........................................................................................14

Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants.............................................................................14

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

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

Physical Resources....................................................................................................................16

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

Geology.............................................................................................................................18

Soils ..................................................................................................................................22

Hydrology..........................................................................................................................24

Water Quality ....................................................................................................................25

Air Quality..........................................................................................................................27

Visual Resources/Aesthetics.............................................................................................27

Biological Resources..................................................................................................................28

Habitat...............................................................................................................................28

Wildlife...............................................................................................................................36

Exotic Organisms..............................................................................................................45

Socioeconomic Environment ......................................................................................................45

Socioeconomic Conditions in the Area .............................................................................45

History of the Area ............................................................................................................46

Land Use in the Area ........................................................................................................50

Demographics of the Area ................................................................................................54
ii 

Employment in the Area....................................................................................................56

Forestry in the Area ..........................................................................................................57

Outdoor Recreation in the Area ........................................................................................58

Outdoor Recreation Economics........................................................................................58

Tourism in the Area ..........................................................................................................59

Transportation...................................................................................................................60

Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................60

Refuge Administration and Management...................................................................................61

Land Protection and Management....................................................................................61

Visitor Services .................................................................................................................61

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ........................................................................63

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................65

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................65

Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................66

Wilderness Review.....................................................................................................................66

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities.....................................................................66

Global Warming and Sea Level Rise................................................................................67

Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................67

Habitats.............................................................................................................................69

Public Use.........................................................................................................................70

Resource Protection .........................................................................................................71

General Administration .....................................................................................................71

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................73

Introduction ................................................................................................................................73

Vision .........................................................................................................................................75

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies..............................................................................................75

Goals ................................................................................................................................75

Objectives and Strategies.................................................................................................75

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ..............................................................................................................97

Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................97

Refuge Administration..............................................................................................................101

Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................101

Volunteers ................................................................................................................................102

Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................102

Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................102

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

SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................107

Purpose and Need for the Environmental Assessment............................................................107

Decision Framework.................................................................................................................107

Planning Study Area.................................................................................................................107

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility.......................................................................108

Compatibility ...................................................................................................................108

Planning Process and Public Involvement ...............................................................................108
iii

Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................109

Issues and Concerns................................................................................................................109

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................................................111

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................113

Formulation of Alternatives.......................................................................................................113

Alternatives...............................................................................................................................113

Alternative 1 – No Action.................................................................................................113

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)................................................................................114

Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................116

Features Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................139

Land Acquisition..............................................................................................................139

Refuge Revenue-sharing ................................................................................................139

Visitor Services ...............................................................................................................139

Refuge Administration.....................................................................................................139

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................140

Compatible Secondary Uses ....................................................................................................140

Other Management...................................................................................................................141

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................................143

Overview...................................................................................................................................143

Comparison of Effects among Management Alternatives ........................................................143

Biological Environment....................................................................................................144

Physical Environment......................................................................................................145

Social Environment .........................................................................................................145

Economic Environment ...................................................................................................147

Effects Common to All Management Alternatives ....................................................................148

Regulatory Effects...........................................................................................................148

Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................148

Environmental Justice.....................................................................................................149

Water Quality, Wetlands, and Floodplains......................................................................149

Public Health and Safety Effects.....................................................................................149

Refuge Revenue Sharing................................................................................................150

Uncertainty of Future Action Effects................................................................................150

Cumulative Effects ..........................................................................................................150

Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................150

Wildlife Disturbances.......................................................................................................150

User Group Conflicts.......................................................................................................151

Effects on Adjacent Landowners.....................................................................................151

Land Ownership and Site Development..........................................................................152

Summary of Environmental Effects ..........................................................................................152

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .....................................................................................155

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................159
iv 

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES .............................................................................175

APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...........................................................................................183

APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................191

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation...........................................................................191

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determinations.............................................195

APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................209

APPENDIX VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS ...............................................229

APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS.............................................................................................231

APPENDIX IX. BIOLOGICAL REVIEW .............................................................................................245
v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, Currituck County, North Carolina ................8 

Figure 2. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area 11 

Figure 3. Soils of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................................23 

Figure 4. National Wetland Inventory map of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge...............................29 

Figure 5. Profile of vegetative communities of coastal barrier islands ................................................30 

Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Currituck National Wildlife Refuge....................................62 

Figure 7. Current visitor facilities at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge..............................................64 

Figure 8. Proposed visitor facilities at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge under Alternative 2 ...........74 
vi 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Acquisition history of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge........................................................9

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Currituck National Wildlife 

Refuge...................................................................................................................................9

Table 3. Federally listed threatened and endangered animal species in the Coastal Plain of North 

Carolina ...............................................................................................................................13

Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge...............................................24

Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding Currituck National Wildlife Refuge

.............................................................................................................................................26

Table 6. Vegetative composition of the Swan Island Moist Soil Unit..................................................35

Table 7. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge waterfowl survey results, 2002-2003 .............................38

Table 8. Species of management concern at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge ..............................44

Table 9. Currituck County agricultural statistics, 2002 .......................................................................52

Table 10. Commodity production in Currituck County, 1997 and 2002 ..............................................52

Table 11. Dare County agricultural statistics, 2002 ............................................................................53

Table 12. Commodity production in Dare County, 1997 and 2002.....................................................53

Table 13. Virginia Beach agricultural statistics, 2002 .........................................................................53

Table 14. Commodity production in Virginia Beach, 1997 and 2002..................................................54

Table 15. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties ..........................55

Table 16. Staff of Mackay Island and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges - 2005..............................63

Table 17. Projects supporting Wildlife Strategies ...............................................................................97

Table 18. Projects supporting Habitat Strategies ...............................................................................98

Table 19. Projects supporting Public Use Strategies .........................................................................99

Table 20. Projects supporting Resource Protection Strategies ........................................................100

Table 21. Projects supporting Refuge Administration Strategies .....................................................101

Table 22. Proposed staffing plan for Mackay Island and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges .........102

Table 23. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans...................................104

Table 24. Summary of Wildlife Objectives and Strategies................................................................118

Table 25. Summary of Habitat Objectives and Strategies................................................................120

Table 26. Summary of Public Use Objectives and Strategies ..........................................................122

Table 27. Summary of Resource Protection Objectives and Strategies...........................................124

Table 28. Summary of Administration Objectives and Strategies.....................................................126

Table 29. Summary of projects proposed in each Alternative ..........................................................128

Table 30. Summary of costs of projects proposed in all Alternatives ...............................................131

Table 31. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 1........................................................................132

Table 32. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)....................................133

Table 33. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 3........................................................................135

Table 34. Cost of equipment projects benefiting all Alternatives......................................................137

Table 35. North Carolina present use value calculation ....................................................................148

Table 36. Comparison of the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1...................................153

Table 37: Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Core Planning Team members...................................155

Table 38. Biological Review Team members, Currituck National Wildlife Refuge.............................156

Table 39. Expert contributors to the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and their area(s) of expertise ....................................................................................157
Executive Summary 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment to guide the management of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in 

Currituck County, North Carolina. The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for 

the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

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

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

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

state agencies and nongovernmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge 

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

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

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

status quo. The refuge currently manages its impoundments by managing water levels and 

vegetation to create 50% good vegetation for migrating waterfowl, but does not manage for mudflats 

for shorebirds. It also manages marshes with prescribed fire. The staff surveys waterfowl on a 

routine basis. The refuge allows the six priority public use activities: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The staff 

conducts environmental education and interpretation on an as-requested basis only. The refuge 

currently has seven staff members, all of whom are stationed at Mackay Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. They spend 2.85 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

and 4.15 FTE staff years on Mackay Island. 

Alternative 2 proposed moderate program increases. The refuge would develop a habitat 

management plan and manage all habitats on the refuge. The refuge would manage its 

impoundments by managing water levels and vegetation to create 60% good vegetation for migrating 

waterfowl and 20% mudflats in the spring for shorebirds when feasible. The staff would monitor 

vegetation in the marshes before and after prescribed burns and inventory vegetation in the maritime 

swamp forest. They would survey a wide range of wildlife on the refuge. The refuge would continue 

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

opportunities. The staff would conduct regularly scheduled environmental education and 

interpretation programs. The Service would partner with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission to use the environmental education center being built by the Commission in Corolla. 

There would be fifteen staff members, four of whom would be stationed at Currituck and eleven of 

whom would be stationed at Mackay Island. They would spend 7.2 FTE staff years at Currituck and 

7.8 FTE staff years at Mackay Island. The staff would include a biologist, public use specialist, refuge 

operations specialist, and law enforcement officer. 

Alternative 3 proposed substantial program increases. The refuge would develop a habitat 

management plan and manage all habitats on the refuge. The refuge would manage its 

impoundments by managing water levels and vegetation to create 70% good vegetation for migrating 

waterfowl and 20% mudflats in the spring and10% in the fall for shorebirds. The staff would survey 

invertebrates in the mudflats to determine the effect of management. The staff would monitor 

vegetation in the marshes before and after prescribed burns, adapt the burn plan to the monitoring 

results, and inventory vegetation in the maritime swamp forest. They would survey all wildlife on the 

refuge. The refuge would increase further the number of public use opportunities. The Service would 

use the environmental education center being built by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission. There would be twenty-four staff members, seven of whom would be stationed at 
Currituck and seventeen of whom would be stationed at Mackay Island. They would spend 12.75 

FTE staff years at Currituck and 11.25 FTE staff years at Mackay Island. The staff would include 

separate law enforcement officers and public use specialists for each refuge. 

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

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

the proposed program. 
1

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

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

Plan to provide a foundation for the management and use of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in 

Currituck County, North Carolina. The plan will serve as a guide for the refuge’s management 

programs and actions over the next 15 years. 

The Service developed this plan in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Service achieved compliance with this Act through 

the involvement of the public and the incorporation of an Environmental Assessment in this 

document, which describes the alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives. When fully implemented, this plan will strive to achieve the vision 

and purposes of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. 

The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

 Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows and encourages 

public uses (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, 

the refuge’s mission and purposes. 

A planning team prepared the plan. The planning team consisted of representatives from various 

Service programs, including the divisions of Refuges, Fisheries, Ecological Services, Realty, and 

Migratory Birds. In developing this plan, the planning team and the refuge staff incorporated the input 

of local citizens and the general public through a series of stakeholder and public scoping meetings. 

A description of this public involvement and the planning process itself are provided in Chapter III, 

Plan Development. 

The plan represents the Service’s proposed alternative and is being put forward after considering two 

other alternatives, as described in the accompanying Draft Environmental Assessment (Section B). 

After reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the planning team 

developed these alternatives in an attempt to determine how to best meet the goals and objectives of 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed alternative is the Service’s recommended course of 

action for the future management of the refuge, and forms the basis for this comprehensive 

conservation plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

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

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

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

years. The plan is needed to 

• provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuge; 
2 

• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 

• ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational and 

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

Improvement Act of 1997; 

• ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; 

and 

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

maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 

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

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

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

with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System. This Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan supports the Partners in Flight Initiative; South Atlantic Coastal Plain Migratory 

Bird Conservation Plan; North American Waterfowl Management Plan; Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Network; and National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

states and several island territories. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

1997, is: 

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

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

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

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

mission of wildlife conservation for the national wildlife refuge system. The Act states that each 

refuge shall be managed to 

• fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 
3

• fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

• fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the 

Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans; 

• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are legitimate 

and priority public uses; and 

• retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses. 

Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. 

The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, The Service is 

preparing all refuge comprehensive conservation plans in conjunction with public involvement, and 

each refuge is completing its own plan within a 15-year schedule. 

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

observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, substantial economic 

benefits are being generated to the local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have 

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

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

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

pursuits in 2001 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 

Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 1998, 

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on the refuges nationwide, a service 

valued at more than $20.6 million. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for the national wildlife refuges stresses the following principles: 

• Wildlife comes first. 

• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management. 

• Refuges must be healthy. 

 

• Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad 

participation from others. 
4 

REFUGES OF THE ECOSYSTEM 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is one of the ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. 

Those ten national wildlife refuges—Alligator River, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, 

Mackay Island, Mattamuskeet, Pea Island, Pocosin Lakes, Swanquarter, Roanoke River, and the 

Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia—are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, 

Neuse, and Cape Fear rivers, which has been classified as Ecosystem Unit #34 by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

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

and presidential executive orders guide the administration of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The 

documents and acts listed in Appendix III contain management options under the refuge’s 

establishing authority; the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966; and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the legal and policy guidance for the operation of 

national wildlife refuges. 

NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

coordinate planning initiatives involving federal, state, and local agencies; local communities; 

nongovernmental organizations; and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on 

and off public lands. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan and the Waterbirds for the Americas outline 

approaches to conserving those species groups. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a 

high priority of the Partners in Flight Plan. It also provides strategies for conserving and managing 

wintering, breeding, and migration habitat for midcontinental wood duck and colonial bird populations. 

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

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

priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified focal species for each habitat type from 

which they will determine population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of 

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

The Farm Bill programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture provide cost-share 

funding and technical assistance to private landowners to install and manage conservation practices 

on working farms and forests and to restore cropland to natural habitats. The programs provide 

opportunities for landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to better manage their land as 

wildlife habitat or protect it with easements. 
5

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS 

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

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

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

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

of fish and wildlife throughout the United States. 

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

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

managing the state’s natural resources. It also manages approximately 1.8 million acres of game 

lands in North Carolina. 

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

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

several boat ramps located near Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The Commission’s participation 

and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable. It 

is continuing its work with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the 

public to improve the condition of fish and wildlife populations in North Carolina. Not only has the 

Commission participated in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field reviews as part of the 

comprehensive planning process, it also is an active partner in the planning and coordination of 

annual hunting seasons and various wildlife and habitat surveys. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

provides hunting opportunities for waterfowl in cooperation with the Commission. A key part of the 

comprehensive planning process is the integration of common mission objectives between the 

Service and the Commission, where appropriate. 
6 
7

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

LOCATION AND SIZE 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is located in Currituck County in the northeastern corner of North 

Carolina. The refuge is named for the county where it is located. The refuge’s approved acquisition 

boundary lies entirely in Currituck County (population 18,190). 

The city of Virginia Beach, Virginia (population 425,257) is about 27 miles north of the refuge. Other 

nearby cities include Chesapeake, Virginia (population 199,184), 27 miles northwest; and Norfolk, 

Virginia (population 234,403), about 31 miles northwest (Figure 1). 

The refuge covers a total of 4,570 acres in fee title ownership and 3,931 acres in conservation 

easements. It is bounded by Currituck Sound on the west; the Atlantic Ocean on the east; the city of 

Virginia Beach on the north; and Dare County, North Carolina, on the south. This region is part of a 

physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The area is also part of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s administrative ecosystem known as the Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear 

Ecosystem. 

ESTABLISHMENT 

The refuge was established on August 2, 1983, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

through the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The Service established the 

refuge’s approved acquisition boundary of 18,015 acres in 1981. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES 

ACQUISITION HISTORY 

The Service acquired 1,770 acres in 1985 by fee simple purchase and 166 acres by conservation 

easement. Since 1985, the refuge has acquired 2,800 additional acres in fee simple purchase for a 

total of 4,570 acres. It has added 3,931 acres of conservation easements (Table 1). 

PURPOSES 

The purpose of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, as reflected in the legislation under which 

Congress authorized the refuge and the Service has acquired land, is to protect and conserve 

migratory birds and other wildlife resources through the protection of wetlands, in accordance with the 

following laws: 

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

birds... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929) 

...for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of 

natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species... 16 

U.S.C. Sec 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962) 
8 

Figure 1. Location of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, Currituck County, North Carolina 
9

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s Atlantic Coast Joint Venture office, working 

through a collaborative effort with private, state, and federal agencies, has established certain habitat 

objectives for the physiographic area. 

Table 1. Acquisition history of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITIONS 

YEAR TRACTS ACRES COST COST

ACRE 

TOTAL 

ACRES 

TOTAL 

COST 

1984 1 17.97 $380,000 $21,146 17.97 $380,000

1985 1 1,747.78 $3,430,000 $1,962 1,765.75 $3,810,000

1988 1 54.21 $0 $0 1,819.96 $3,810,000

1997 3 1,576.28 $1,285,200 $815 3,396.24 $5,095,200

1998 2 889.64 $1,600,848 $1,799 4,285.88 $6,696,048

2003 1 284.00 $2,327,336 $8,195 4,569.88 $9,023,384

TOTAL 9 4,569.88 $9,023,384 $1,974 

EASEMENT ACQUISITIONS 

YEAR TRACTS ACRES COST COST

ACRE 

TOTAL 

ACRES 

TOTAL 

COST 

1985 2 225.76 $120,000 $531 225.76 $120,000

1996 1 3,705.00 $0 $0 3,930.76 0

TOTAL 3 3,930.76 $120,000 $31 $120,000

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Currituck National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank 

Maritime Evergreen Forest S1 G2 

Maritime Swamp Forest S2 G2 

Maritime Dry Grassland S2 G3 

Tidal Freshwater Marsh S2 G4 

Maritime Shrub S3 G4 

S1 = Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity 

or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state. 

S2 = Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise very 

vulnerable to extirpation in the state. 

S3 = Rare or uncommon in North Carolina. 

G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or 

otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. 

G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise very vulnerable 

to extinction throughout its range. 

G3 = Either very rare or local throughout its range, or found locally in 

a restricted area. 
10 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

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

soil management area, as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. The Nature Conservancy ranks certain 

vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 2). 

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

National Wildlife Refuge as outstanding resource waters or high quality waters. 

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

the borders of the refuge as anadromous fish spawning habitats. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge lies within the South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic region (Figure 2). 

The South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 25 million-hectare complex of forested wetlands and uplands, 

dunes, and marshes that extended from Florida to North Carolina. Historically, the extent and duration of 

seasonal flooding along the ecosystem’s rivers has fluctuated annually, recharging the South Atlantic Coastal 

Plain’s aquatic systems and creating a rich diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and 

wildlife resources. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

coordinate planning initiatives involving regional, state, and local agencies; local communities; 

nongovernmental organizations; and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on 

and off public lands. 

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

Biological planning for species groups targeted in this plan reflect the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture; the joint venture between the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission and Fish and Wildlife Service; the Partners in Flight Plan; and the South Atlantic 

Migratory Bird Initiative. 

The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focus is that of the middle and upper Atlantic coast. Within the Atlantic Coast 

Joint Venture was the joint venture formed between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and private conservation organizations. 

The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration habitat for migratory songbirds returning from 

Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migration habitat for mid-continental wood 

duck and colonial bird populations. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a high priority of the 

Partners in Flight Plan for the South Atlantic Physiographic Region. 

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

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

species. Further, biologists from local offices of the Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 

and conservation organizations such as the Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy have identified focal 

species for each habitat type from which they will determine population and habitat objectives 
11

Figure 2. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area 
12 

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 have state-level 

plans and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. The Service also utilizes those 

programs to assist private landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges manage habitat for 

wildlife or protect their land with easements. 

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has its own Comprehensive Wildlife 

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

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

strategy. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

The South Atlantic Coastal Plain has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread 

throughout the area. An estimated 40 percent of the coastal plain’s natural vegetation has been lost 

to land conversion. The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for 

agriculture and urban development (Hunter et al. 2001). 

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

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

Atlantic Coastal Plain. Vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest 

fragments ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas that 

have maintained many of the original functions and values of forested values. Severe fragmentation 

has resulted in a substantial decline in biological diversity and integrity. Species endemic to the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, endangered, or threatened include the red 

wolf and red-cockaded woodpecker (Table 3). 

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

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

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

depend on special habitat requirements such as mature forests or a particular food source; and/or 

those that depend on good water quality. Nest parasitism is also common in fragmented forests. 

More that 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds are found in the region. Some of these, 

including the Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kite, wood thrush, and 

cerulean warbler, have declined substantially and need the benefits of large forested blocks to 

recover and sustain their existence. 
13

Table 3. Federally listed threatened and endangered animal species in the Coastal Plain of 

North Carolina 

Region Status Common name Scientific Name 

Coastal Plain Endangered Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus 

Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Coastal Plain Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Coastal Plain Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana 

Coastal Plain Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum 

Coastal Plain Endangered Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis 

Coastal Plain Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon 

Coastal Plain Endangered Wolf, Red Canis rufus 

Coastal Plain Endangered Woodpecker, 

Red-cockaded 

Picoides borealis 

Coastal Plain Threatened Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis 

Coastal Plain Threatened Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Coastal Plain Threatened Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas 

Coastal Plain Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Coastal Plain Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa 

Fragmentation has also brought the forest edge and brown-headed cowbird (a seed-eating bird 

common in agricultural areas) closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting birds. 

The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds, rather than 

building a nest of its own. Nestling cowbirds are typically bigger and more aggressive, and outcompete the young of the species building the nest. This results in poor reproductive success and 

declining populations of forest interior-nesting species that are forced to nest near forest edges. 

Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts 

surrounded by a sea of agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested 

corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of connectivity between 

the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts and reduces the 

functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also result in a loss of 

gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel corridors is 

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

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland forested wetlands, substantial alterations have 

occurred in the region’s hydrology due to managed stream flows from flood control and hydroelectric 

power generation reservoirs; drainage ditches; river channel modifications; flood control levees; 

deforestation; and degradation to aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation, contaminants, and 

urban development. 
14 

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

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

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

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

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

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

addition, these alterations have modified both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding. 

The alteration of this annual flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the forested wetlands 

and their associated wetland-dependent species. Specifically, the combination of managed stream 

flows and drainage ditches in bottomland forests exposes the forests to more frequent flooding than 

occurs naturally, drains the back swamps through natural levees, and floods the back swamps at low 

flows through the ditches. 

In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to fully emulate and reconstruct 

the structure and functions of a natural wetland. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993), 

restoration of wetland functions is especially difficult because wetlands depend on a dynamic 

interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes. 

SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs and bayous, have been degraded as a result of 

deforestation and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an 

accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies 

are now filled with sediments, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the nonpoint source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic 

resources. Turbidity caused by sediment limits light penetration into the water and consequently the 

growth of submerged aquatic vegetation. The federal threatened and endangered species list for the 

coastal plain of North Carolina includes four species of aquatic organisms that are listed as 

threatened and 10 species that are listed as endangered. 

Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created oxbow 

lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration 

of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with 

flood control and navigation. 

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS 

Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic 

vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and reduced water depths 

resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for the establishment and 

proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic 

(nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening the viability of aquatic 

systems. These invasive aquatic plants threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic 

systems, and choke waterways to a degree that limits biodiversity and often prevents recreational 

use. 
15

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

The declines in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s dune, marsh, shrub, and forest communities and 

their associated fish and wildlife resources have prompted the Service to designate the Currituck 

Banks an area of special concern. A collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal 

conservation partners is now underway to implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and 

values of wetlands and other coastal habitats in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The goal is to 

prioritize and manage areas to most effectively maintain and possibly restore the biological diversity 

in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Some areas are prioritized as focus areas for intensive 

management, others for reforestation, and still others for preservation. 

Conservation agencies and organizations have initiated several coordinated efforts to set priorities 

and establish focus areas to overcome the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. 

Conservationists established a cooperative private–state–federal partnership, known as the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, in 1986 to help provide 

sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain. 

The initial Atlantic Coast Joint Venture effort for waterfowl has expanded to also establish breeding 

bird objectives for shorebirds and neotropical migratory forest-nesting birds. The Atlantic Coast Joint 

Venture is working with the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Working Group to establish step-down 

objectives for shorebird foraging habitat for the fall migration period throughout the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain. 

Partners in Flight has developed bird conservation plans to focus a number of private, state, and 

federal restoration programs into specific areas in an effort to provide maximum program benefits for 

neotropical migratory songbirds. The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide islands 

or blocks of habitat, especially forested habitat, in an otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The 

targeted block sizes range from 10,000 to 100,000 acres. Such areas are large enough to support 

viable populations of various suites of neotropical migratory songbirds. Of course, these areas would 

also support other species that depend on large forested blocks. Existing or proposed state wildlife 

management areas or national wildlife refuges are the anchors of the plans. These public lands 

serve as centers of biodiversity that landowners and managers enhance and support by the 

expansion of forested blocks, either through public or private management. 

One of the biggest challenges to the management and restoration efforts underway in the South 

Atlantic Coastal Plain, and one that affects refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term 

management objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs, including those of wintering 

migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, large mammals, and other wide-ranging 

species. Often management for one species or species group conflicts with the management 

objectives for another species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term priorities that 

frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources shift. Agencies 

and organizations must exercise caution to prevent the start-up of management and restoration 

actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive management needs 

of the ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An example might be a tendency to 

suppress large areas of shrubs in an effort to provide habitat for species of neotropical migratory 

songbirds that require a marsh habitat, such as the sharp-tailed sparrow and seaside sparrow. Such 

an approach may overlook the critical habitat needs of other songbirds that prefer a scrub/shrub 

habitat, such as the painted bunting. 
16 

The habitat goals of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture can only be met through active management of 

croplands, moist soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private lands (Reinecke and 

Baxter 1996). Active management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration) is 

required to compensate for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that have been caused by 

deforestation and hydrologic alterations throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. When properly 

managed, Currituck National Wildlife Refuge would make a substantial contribution to meeting the 

objectives of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. Setting habitat and species objectives from the 

perspective of the South Atlantic Coastal Plain is advantageous because it looks at the big picture 

and enables managers to plan and provide habitat for a diversity of species throughout their range. 

Although the management of marshes, shrub/scrub areas, and forest stands is probably the best 

solution for restoring the vast forests that have been altered, it must be remembered that hydrology 

(flooding) drives the ecological system in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The plant and animal 

community throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain is dependent upon the hydrologic cycle. It is 

incumbent upon land managers to manage hydrology in an effort to restore the ecological diversity 

that once characterized the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Refuges can install impoundments and 

structures to control and manage water in an effort to mimic historic flood cycles and to meet wildlife 

habitat objectives. 

CHALLENGES 

In order for Currituck National Wildlife Refuge to meet its multiple objectives of national, regional, and 

local scope—ranging from marsh management to reducing habitat fragmentation to providing for 

public use—it must be funded and staffed well above current levels. Securing adequate funding and 

personnel and then implementing a variety of programs to achieve the best balance of all objectives, 

through a system of coordinated planning, is the refuge’s biggest challenge. In the interim, as the 

needed funding and personnel become available, the refuge must concentrate on its highest priorities 

without committing irreversible actions that would preclude future implementation of the desired 

management programs. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge exhibits a maritime climate because of its proximity to the Atlantic 

Ocean and the surrounding bays and sounds. Winter temperatures on the average are milder than 

those of mainland weather stations. The refuge’s summer temperatures are also cooler than those 

on the mainland. 

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

influence is much greater on most of the state than the ocean or marine influence. Therefore, the 

area experiences a fairly large variation in temperature from winter to summer. 

The Gulf Stream current flows only a short distance off the North Carolina coast. One might think this 

"river" of warm water would have a profound effect on the climate. Its direct effects are limited by the 

fact that the prevailing winds in winter are westerly. 

Lows usually 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. 
17

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 steady rains to occasional 

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

summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn, North Carolina's driest season, is 

to many people the most pleasant, with its many clear, warm days and cool nights with little rain. 

This weather usually lasts until November. 

The study area is situated along a coastline with a long history of storm activity. Two basic storm 

types present a substantial threat to the coastal zone. Tropical storms and hurricanes, spawned over 

the warm ocean waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, are probably the best known 

and feared storms. Hurricanes, which are characterized by winds greater than 75 miles per hour and 

accompanied by intense rainfall, plague the Gulf and Atlantic seaboards from midsummer to late 

autumn. During the 1950s, a total of nine hurricanes affected the North Carolina coastline. Since 

then, only seven major hurricanes have occurred along the Outer Banks. 

Most storms pass off the coast east of the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, but many bring large 

quantities of rain to the refuge. These extratropical storms, often called “northeasters,” present a 

greater problem than hurricanes to the Atlantic coast, the Outer Banks in particular. Such storms 

may develop as strong low-pressure areas and move slowly offshore into the Atlantic Ocean. The 

winds, sometimes reaching hurricane force, blow onshore from a northerly or easterly direction for 

sustained periods of time. The damage from these storms may ultimately far exceed the destruction 

from a hurricane. The March 1962 “northeaster,” also known as the “Ash Wednesday Storm,” proved 

that point decisively. The flood height and duration of extratropical storms often have equaled or 

exceeded those of hurricanes affecting North Carolina. 

Most North Carolina tornadoes occur in the Piedmont and the interior of the coastal plain, which 

spares Currituck County. 

The average annual precipitation is 46 inches, and the average annual snowfall is 3 inches. The 

record daily snowfall was 14.2 inches at Norfolk, Virginia, and 25 inches at Elizabeth City, North 

Carolina. Snow accumulations of more than one inch for more than a day are rare. Rainfall is evenly 

distributed throughout the year; the average monthly rainfall ranges from 2.98 in November to 5.17 in 

July. Ten months have an average precipitation between 3 and 5 inches. Of the total annual 

precipitation, about 25 inches usually falls in April through September. The growing season for most 

crops falls within this period. 

The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 60 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and 

the average at dawn is about 85 percent. The sun shines 65 percent of the time in the summer and 

60 percent in the winter. The prevailing wind is from the southwest. The average wind speed is 

highest, 10 miles per hour, in the spring. The average daily maximum temperature is 68 degrees 

Fahrenheit, and the average daily minimum is 51 degrees. 

In January the average temperature is 40 degrees; the average daily minimum temperature is 32 

degrees; and the average daily maximum is 48 degrees. In July the average temperature is 79 

degrees; the average daily maximum temperature is 89; and the average daily minimum is 71. 

The average growing season is 247 days long. The average last date of frost in the spring is March 

20 and the first frost in the fall is November 23. 
18 

GEOLOGY 

The northern Currituck Banks are part of an extensive coastal lowland that stretches from 

Newfoundland southward to Florida, and westward into the Gulf of Mexico. The submerged portion 

of this landmass, the continental shelf, varies in width from 300 miles off the coast of Newfoundland, 

150 miles off the middle Atlantic coast, and to less than five miles off the coast of Florida. The 

emergent area of this land mass is the coastal plain, which extends from southern New Jersey to 

Florida. These two units comprise the Atlantic Coastal Plain, a major physiographic province 

(Fenneman 1938). 

Continental Shelf. The continental shelf begins at the beach face where there is a steepening of 

slope to a depth of about 30 feet. The gradient then decreases to approximately two feet per mile 

until a depth of slightly over 100 feet is reached; then the gradient increases to approximately one 

foot per 20 feet. 

Coastal Plain. Pliocene and lower Pleistocene sediments in the Carolinas were deposited in several 

distinct basins believed to be the result of structural downwarping, possibly due to reactivation of 

older fault systems. These depocenters were the loci of marine embayments and are bounded by 

arches over which less sedimentation has occurred. The major Pliocene–Pleistocene depocenter in 

North Carolina, the Albemarle embayment, occupied most of northeastern North Carolina and 

extended into southeastern Virginia (Ward et al. 1991). 

The Coastal Plain Province lies east of the Piedmont Province. The boundary is the "Fall Line," 

which is a broad transition zone where the crystalline rocks of the Piedmont (i.e., the igneous and 

metamorphic rocks that cause the rapids in the Roanoke River at Roanoke Rapids) become buried 

by the marine sediments of the Coastal Plain. Near the western border of the coastal plain at 

elevations greater than 270 feet, the depositions are different from those found farther east and are 

classified as high level gravels, sand, and clay, indicative of continental origin. Underlying the coastal 

plain are older bedrock formations of Cretaceous age, overlain with deposits of sand and clay. 

Below this elevation, the surface layers of sand and clays, which vary in thickness from 10 to 40 feet, 

occur as belts 10 to 15 miles wide that lie at different elevations of sea level and extend in a 

northeast–southwest direction across the region. It is commonly agreed that these are marine 

terraces of Pleistocene origin (Oaks and Coch 1973). Each terrace is located at an elevation that 

reflects the sea level at that time. Geologists have subdivided these terraces into more distinct ridges 

and scarps to better reflect their respective morphology and stratigraphy. 

The tidewater region is bounded on the west by the Suffolk scarp, which passes just west of the 

Dismal Swamp in Virginia extending south into North Carolina, and on the east by a series of shallow 

embayments. This region of the coastal plain is characterized by low, often poorly drained land 

generally averaging less than 20 feet above sea level. The only other areas of greater elevation in 

this region are sand ridges, such as the Pungo and Knotts Island ridges in Virginia, the Powells Point 

ridge in North Carolina, and large sand hills located on the Currituck Banks. 

Thin beds of Quaternary sediments were deposited on the surface of the Coastal Plain during the 

past three million years (Riggs and Belknap 1988). This Quaternary history and the resulting surface 

veneer of unconsolidated sediments directly dictates the general characteristics of the coastal plain, 

including the regional morphology and character of the drainage systems and flooded estuaries, soil 

types, and potential land use. Quaternary sediments were deposited by the coastal system, which 

rapidly migrated back and forth across the coastal plain–continental shelf as the sea level fluctuated 

in response to repeated episodes of glaciation and deglaciation. Within this rapidly changing coastal 
19

system, extremely varied sediments (including gravel, sands, clays, and peat in all possible 

combinations) were deposited in river, estuarine, barrier island, and continental shelf environments. 

The Quaternary history continues today. 

Barrier Islands. The last unit in the coastal plain physiography is the barrier island. These units 

were formed when melting glaciers caused a worldwide rise in the sea level. Later, the slowing of 

sea level rise set a combination of factors in motion to create barrier islands on the shallow shelf. 

The bays and estuaries that have formed behind these barriers have become shallow, due to 

sediments received from river systems draining the coastal plain and overwash from storm surges. 

Along the Currituck Banks, inlets have periodically formed and reformed depending on the 

occurrence of storms, amount of sedimentation, the tidal heights, and degree of vegetation of the 

barrier beach. These inlets, when they were active, enabled the embayments to exist as true 

estuarine environments. 

Theories of Barrier Island Formation. The Outer Banks barrier beach complex is of relatively 

recent geologic origin. When the sea level began to rise at the end of the last glacial period (15,000 

years ago), coastal processes began to create this barrier island complex. There are various theories 

as to the method of formation of these islands. The earliest theories stated that barrier islands 

formed as the ocean pushed up ridges of sand off the sea floor, with new islands continually forming 

offshore (Johnson 1919). 

Two other basic theories are presently being debated. Fisher (1962) has proposed that the barrier 

islands began as spits located downdrift from eroding headlands. Hoyt (1967) maintains that the 

barrier beach system formed during the last 5,000 years when the Holocene sea level rise slowed 

down. Dune ridges had a chance to build up along a seashore that was some distance seaward of 

the present coast. The rising sea then isolated the dune ridges from the mainland and lagoons or 

embayments formed behind them. 

It appears that the “multiple causality” approach introduced by Schwartz (1971), which proposes a 

combination of factors, is the most valid of all proposed theories to date. 

The formation of the Outer Banks represents a combination of several processes, with submergence 

being the primary process. 

Barrier Island Dynamics. Currituck Spit and the surrounding Outer Banks islands are primarily 

perpetuated by the following processes: longshore currents, tides and tidal currents, wave action, 

storm surges and wind action. These dynamic ongoing processes, coupled with sea level rise, cause 

the shorelines and dune environments to undergo constant change. The adaptability of these islands 

to constant physical change is a major part of their natural ecology (Godfrey and Godfrey 1976). 

Unlike the much more stable interior lands such as the Appalachian Highlands and Piedmont, where 

ecosystems have changed little for thousands of years, the entire barrier island system is less than 

5,000 years old. Some alterations of the dune system can be measured in centuries with noticeable 

changes occurring in mere decades. The Currituck Spit has undergone many physical changes, 

such as barrier island migration, inlet formation, and marsh building. 
20 

Shorelines along the Currituck coast from Cape Henry to Oregon Inlet have undergone varying 

degrees of erosion and accretion. Beach profile data for this area allows a comparison of recent 

beach changes and historical changes. Sutton and Goldsmith (1976) showed historical shoreline 

changes between Cape Henry and Cape Hatteras over the greatest period of time for which data is 

available. Studies by Goldsmith et al. (1977) and Dolan et al. (1979) involving measurements of 

beach profiles from Cape Henry to False Cape State Park, parallel the historic data and indicate 

alternating areas of erosion and accretion. Additional data indicates that the coastline south of False 

Cape State Park to Duck, North Carolina, also contains alternating areas of accretion and erosion. 

Barrier Dunes. The Currituck Spit is 1-1/2 to 2 miles wide and extends from just south of Salt Pond 

near Sandbridge, Virginia, to Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, a distance of 69 miles. Two linear chains 

of dunes border the barrier beach along most of the coast. In Virginia, large portions of these dunes 

have been stabilized since the late 1930s through Civilian Conservation Corps programs and various 

state and federal dune maintenance programs. Elevations of dune crests typically range from 15 to 

25 feet. A few large dunes such as Lewark Hill, north of Corolla, and Whalehead Hill, just south of 

Corolla, exceed 60 feet. 

Goldsmith has divided the dunes into four basic types (Goldsmith et al. 1977): vegetated dunes, 

artificial or manmade dunes, medanos, and parabolic dunes. 

Vegetated dunes form as sand accumulates around existing vegetation, which acts as a sandtrapping baffle, and also as an internal skeleton fixing the dunes in place. This type of dune is 

generally found in the foredune or frontal dune line. In the study area, the highest and most 

prominent vegetated dunes are located at the north end of Virginia Beach (Cape Henry) and in False 

Cape State Park where they reach 30 feet. 

Artificially induced dunes have their origins in dune fencing, vegetation planting, bulldozing, and maninduced sedimentation. Frequently, these types of dunes are accidental in origin. Sand builds 

around beach homes, shipwrecks, or discarded vehicles. Municipalities and landowners in Currituck 

County use dune fencing in an effort to slow wave erosion and protect homes built close to the 

beach. They also carry out bulldozing on a small scale to prevent blowouts from forming on the 

frontal dunes. 

Medanos are large isolated hills of sand, asymmetrical in profile and lacking vegetation. Within the 

study area, the tendency of medanos is to migrate in a southwesterly direction. These dunes have 

characteristic slipfaces of unconsolidated sand facing the southwest. There are about 24 medanos in 

Currituck County with elevations up to 75 feet, such as Lewark Hill, and with migration rates up to 40 

feet per year, such as Jones Hill (1940–1975). The building of these medanos depends primarily on 

wind direction and intensities. It is these dunes that have historically destroyed or interfered with 

towns, roads, and maritime forests on the Outer Banks. 

The last dune type, parabolic dunes, are similar to medanos in that they have a slipface formed in 

direct response to the wind and have a deflation zone within their concave side. Unlike medanos, 

their internal geometry is characteristic of vegetated dunes and is fixed in place. Parabolic dune 

complexes sometimes evolve from unvegetated sand sheets and often from medanos. They occur in 

False Cape State Park and also in southern Currituck County (Goldsmith et al. 1977). 
21

Hennigar (1979) delineated a sequence of dune succession for Currituck Spit. Active, unvegetated 

sand sheets first break up into discrete sand hills, which in turn are stabilized by vegetation. These 

sand hills or medanos become semi-vegetated, large parabolic dunes. Dune fencing promotes this 

sequence by creating a stable foredune that reduces sand supply to the interior of the spit. Portions 

of the study area are presently in early stages of dune succession. Man’s influence on these dunes 

during certain vegetation stages may be critical in affecting the stability of improvement within the 

area. 

Wind Effects. The role of wind in both the erosion and accretion aspects of dune dynamics is 

obviously critical. Wind is essential in the dune building as well as other long-term processes such as 

barrier island migration and marsh formation. Prevailing winds on the Currituck Spit (north–northeast 

in September–February and southwest from March–August) have greatly influenced the 

establishment of an artificial frontal dune system in the Back Bay and False Cape area. Averaging 

11.7 miles per hour throughout the year, winds have promoted dune succession by creating massive 

dune complexes from unvegetated sand sheets. There are examples of this wind effect in Currituck 

County. Some sand hills such as Barbour’s Hill (just north of the Virginia/North Carolina line) and 

Whalehead Hill south of Corolla have migrated 2-1/2 feet per year and 18 feet per year, respectively 

(Gutman 1978). The migration rate differences are due primarily to the degree of vegetation of each 

hill and the supply of sediments. Besides sand movement within the barrier island complex, the 

prevailing winds create “blowouts” or cut into the foredune in unvegetated areas, thus allowing 

overwash during periods of storm surges. This can be detrimental or beneficial, depending on the 

barrier protection philosophies. 

Wave Effects. Waves, along with other environmental factors such as wind, currents, tides, storms, 

and sea level rise, interact with the sand of the beach to form the complex and dynamic shoreline and 

beach characteristics observed daily and seasonally. Sand transport, which is influenced by wave 

direction and energy, is critical in both accretion and erosion processes along the study area 

coastline. Beach profile studies, conducted during periods of both low wave activity and periods of 

higher wave activity including storm surge, have confirmed the existence of alternating areas of 

erosion and accretion. 

The overwash process is another factor of wave action. This process, defined as “continuation of the 

uprush over the crest of the most landward (storm) berm” (Shepard 1973), is essential in the survival 

of barrier islands during a period of slowly rising sea level. It allows the barrier island to “migrate” as 

a unit by depositing sediments toward the rear of the island and often into the lagoon behind. Areas 

along the foredune line that are weakened and/or lowered by blowouts and vehicular passage serve 

as corridors for penetration of the overwash. During severe storms, such as in March 1962, large 

sections of the barrier dune were flattened to form extensive washover flats with sediment being 

deposited into bay waters. Portions of the coastline north of Corolla and north of the Dare County 

line have been identified in The Currituck Plan for Outer Banks (1972) as areas of potential overwash 

and termed unsuitable for development. 

Inlet Areas. Inlets are temporary features that form when a spit or barrier island is breached by 

severe storm surges. They are important both in the geomorphic evolution of the barrier island 

complex and in the maintenance of the ecological productivity of estuaries. Although there are no 

active inlets within the study area at the present time, several inlets have severed the Currituck Spit in 

previous years. Of the five inlets that have been active along the spit, two relict flood tidal deltas can 

easily be delineated. The relict delta of the “Old Currituck Inlet” is located on the west side of the 

barrier island in the Carova Beach area. This inlet, which was the basis for establishing the original 

North Carolina/Virginia boundary, migrated southward before closing in 1731. 
22 

The relict tidal delta for the “new Currituck Inlet” is located approximately four miles south of Carova 

Beach. This inlet was active from 1713 to 1828. Potential inlet areas can be identified by the 

narrowness of the barrier island, frequent overwash zones, and low profile foredune ridges (Fisher 

1962). 

SOILS 

The soil types identified on the refuge are Corolla fine sand; Corolla and Duckston fine sands; 

Currituck mucky peat;* Duckston fine sands; Duneland; Duneland and Newhan fine sands; Newhan 

fine sands; Newhan and Corolla fine sands; Osier fine sand;* and Ousley fine sand (USDA Soil 

Conservation Service 1982a, 1982b). Soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in Hydric Soils of the 

United States (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985). Hydric soils are . . . "soils that in their 

undrained condition are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to 

develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (water-loving) 

vegetation" (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985) (Figure 3 and Table 4). 

Most of the refuge is Currituck mucky peat, an organic soil with 60 inches of mucky peat and muck 

over sand. It floods routinely with tidal fluctuations and has a water table from the surface to one foot 

below the surface. Currituck soils support freshwater and brackish herbaceous marsh vegetation. 

Duckston fine sands occur on the eastern edge of the Currituck soils. They have 72 inches of fine 

sand with rapid permeability above the water table. They are somewhat poorly drained with water 

tables from one to two feet below the surface. They flood more than once every two years, but only 

for two to seven days. Duckston soils support shrub and herbaceous vegetation adapted to poor 

drainage. 

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

eastern edge of the refuge. Corolla fine sand occurs on the backsides of dunes and has 15 inches of 

fine sand over sandy subsoil. The water table is one and a half to three feet below the surface. 

Corolla soils support herbaceous dune vegetation that is adapted to good drainage, but not 

necessarily tolerant of extremely droughty conditions. They are also excellent soils for building 

construction, but are poor filters for septic systems. 

Newhan fine sand occurs on low flats along the edges of freshwater marshes and has five inches of 

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

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

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

Osier fine sand occurs on the tops of dunes and has 45 inches of fine sand over sandy subsoil. The 

water table extends from the soil surface to one foot below the surface. Osier soils support woody 

forest vegetation that is tolerant to high water tables. They are not suited for development. 

Ousley fine sand occurs on flats near the sounds and has 80 inches of fine sand over sandy subsoil. 

The water table is one and a half to three feet below the surface. Ousley soils also support woody 

forest vegetation that is tolerant to high water tables. They are not suited for development. 
23

Figure 3. Soils of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 
24 

Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

Series Approximate 

Acreage 

Surface 

Texture 

Muck 

Depth 

Water 

Table 

Depth 

Flooding 

Frequency1

Vegetation 

Currituck* 2,584 Mucky Peat 60” 0-+1’ Routine Marsh 

Osier* 190 Fine Sand None 0-1 Common Forest 

Duckston 300 Fine Sand None 1-2’ Frequent Shrub 

Ousley 160 Fine Sand None 1.5-3 Common Forest 

Corolla 440 Fine Sand None 1.5-3 Rare Dune Grass 

Newhan 200 Fine Sand None 6+’ None Dune Grass 

Beaches 225 Fine Sand None 6+’ None Dune Grass 

Total 4,099 

* - hydric soil that has wetland hydrology and will support wetland plants 

1

 = frequent = more than once every two years, common = likely under normal conditions, 

rare = unlikely under normal conditions, none = not probable 

HYDROLOGY 

The hydrologic setting of the Currituck Banks is similar to that of the Cape Hatteras area immediately 

to the south. Studies of that area have shown that the fresh ground water reservoir on the Outer 

Banks consists of two types of aquifers: an unconfined or water table aquifer that extends from the 

land surface to the first confining beds of silt and clay, and a confined or semiconfined aquifer 

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

to 50 feet and averages 15 feet. The water table altitude averages 3 feet above sea level along the 

narrower sections of the banks north of Cape Hatteras and as high as 10 feet in the Cape area itself 

(Winner 1975). 

Maintenance of the fresh groundwater on the Outer Banks depends on the amount of rainfall. 

Measurements taken at Cape Hatteras indicate 55 inches per year. Because of the sandy nature of 

the soil, rainfall enters the water table aquifer with little or no surface runoff except during periods of 

intensive rainfall when the soil becomes saturated. Small intermittent fresh water ponds may then be 

formed. At present, a few open fresh water ponds exist on the Outer Banks in Currituck County, 

some of which are manmade and others exist as a result of barrier beach processes. 

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

whose thickness ranges from five to 20 feet. Exact thicknesses are difficult to define due to the 

gradational nature of sediments below the water table aquifer. 

The fresh groundwater on the Outer Banks may best be described as a lens-shaped mass floating on 

top of denser salt water. The quantity of water in this fresh water lens changes depending on the 

amount of recharge and discharge. Below the fresh water lens, a zone of diffusion occurs indicating 

the fresh water–salt water interface. This zone periodically changes in response to flooding, tidal 

movement, precipitation rates, and pumping rates. 
25

Rainfall and Groundwater Recharge. In order to evaluate the availability of fresh groundwater on 

the Outer Banks, it is necessary to examine the methods of recharging the system. Rainfall at Cape 

Hatteras, south of the study area, averages 55 inches per year. At Norfolk, at the extreme northern 

end, it averages 44 inches per year. Monthly water balances at Cape Hatteras show that May, June, 

and July are water-deficit months, that is, there is insufficient rainfall or soil moisture to satisfy 

potential evapotranspiration. These deficit months are also peak months for water demand all along 

the barrier island because of the seasonality of water requirements. Rainfall during the months of 

August and September restore water losses of previous months. The amount of precipitation 

occurring from September to May is in excess of potential evapotranspiration losses and the result is 

a surplus ranging up to 20 inches in Cape Hatteras. Because runoff is negligible, all of this surplus 

water is used to charge the groundwater system. 

Natural Groundwater Discharge. Natural discharge from the groundwater system occurs in two 

ways: lateral movement toward the sounds and bays, and through soil evaporation and plant 

transpiration. These two processes (soil evaporation and plant transpiration) are referred to 

collectively as evapotranspiration and account for a return to the atmosphere of 33 to 35 inches of 

rainfall per year on the Outer Banks. 

When the rate of recharge is less than discharge, the lens of salt water underlying the barrier island 

rises. This problem of saltwater intrusion is common in coastal communities. 

Surface Water Resources. Because of their location along the Atlantic Coast, the Outer Banks are 

extremely vulnerable to flooding from major storms. Overwash from these storms have in places 

breached the entire barrier island and sent large volumes of salt water into the adjoining embayment. 

 Flooding has also occurred on the bay shoreline by wind tides, which frequently inundate low-lying 

areas. These flooding and overwash processes can contaminate the groundwater table, depending 

on salinity of overwash or floodwaters and amount of fresh water recharge following contamination. 

WATER QUALITY 

The Back Bay–Currituck Sound area is a highly productive ecosystem. Stretching from Sandbridge 

in Virginia, south to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, this embayment complex exhibits a brackish to fresh 

wetland community. 

Earliest references to this area indicate a true estuarine environment with inlets along the Currituck 

Banks. When there were inlets, shellfish beds flourished and provided a market access for 

harvestable marine resources. 

In 1828, when the Currituck inlet closed along the northern portion of the Banks, the Back Bay–

Currituck Sound complex began its reversion to a brackish environment. 

Since that closure, the area has periodically been subjected to “rapid” increases in salinity due to 

beach overwash caused by major coastal storms. The last major increase in salinity occurred during 

the Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962. This rapid increase of salinity to 75% of sea strength resulted in 

massive fish kills and losses of aquatic vegetation important to waterfowl. 
26 

Following this major overwash, the salinity in portions of the Back Bay–Currituck area remained at 

10–15% of seawater. Later as salinities decreased, the City of Virginia Beach instituted a pumping 

program. Under this program, the city pumped seawater across the barrier beach into Back Bay in 

order to reduce turbidity and increase the aquatic plant life. This pumping project attempted to keep 

salinities between 5–6% of seawater. Records indicate that pumping maintained the salinities within 

this range until late 1974. However, mechanical problems caused the program to operate 

intermittently after 1979, and the city has since discontinued the program. 

Information from local water quality control boards as late as 1978 indicate that the water of the Back 

Bay–Currituck complex is that of high quality in an unpolluted, expansive, shallow, grassy brackish 

embayment; however, recent concern has been expressed for agricultural/chemical pollution as a 

possible source of disease outbreak among fish populations. 

Dissolved oxygen levels continue to exceed state water quality standards (5 mg/liter), with the 

average being 7.5 mg/liter. Although this indicates a supersaturated condition due to photosynthetic 

activity, there has been a slight decrease over the past few years. 

The pH values observed (7.5 to 10.0 pH units) are indicative of high photosynthetic activity. 

The bacteriological water quality has also been monitored to detect the presence of animal or human 

waste contamination. Using the fecal coliform filter method, no colonies were counted in 159 of the 

176 tests conducted (Jackson 1978). 

The water quality on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is related directly to the water quality in 

Currituck Sound. The refuge staff maintains the impoundment waters through exchange with 

Currituck Sound. 

Developments and agricultural operations in the area located on hydric soils, nonhydric soils with 

high water tables, or soils with rapid permeability all have the potential to pollute the water table with 

septic system percolate, household wastes, and nutrients, pesticides, and petroleum products. 

Recreational use of the sounds and bays also has the potential to impact water quality. 

There is only one facility on the Outer Banks of Currituck County in the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES); the permit has had no violations. The State of North Carolina has 

classified the water bodies around Currituck National Wildlife Refuge for minimum water quality 

standards (Table 5). All water bodies and streams meet the standards established for the best uses. 

The State of North Carolina lists no water body or stream surrounding the refuge as impaired. 

Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding Currituck National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Water Body or Stream Classification Best Uses 

Currituck Sound 

Knotts Island Bay 

Knotts Island Channel 

South Channel) 

Ships Bay 

Raccoon Bay

SC – Saltwater Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 
27

AIR QUALITY 

In North Carolina, state law mandates that no source of air pollution shall cause any listed ambient air 

quality standard (Section .0400) to be exceeded or contribute to a violation of any listed ambient air 

quality standard (Section .0400) except as allowed by Rules .0531 or .0532 [.0401(c), NCAC, Title 

15A, Subchapter 2D - Air Pollution Control Requirements (North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources)]. 

Subchapter 2D lists ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides (measured as sulfur dioxide); total 

suspended particulates; carbon monoxide; ozone; hydrocarbons; nitrogen dioxide; lead; and 

particulate matter. Section .0508 enumerates control of particulates from pulp and paper mills. 

Section 0.0520 (7) indicates that fires purposely set to forest lands for forest management practices 

acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the Environmental Management 

Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and regulations of governmental entities 

having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses certain potential 

liabilities of burning even though permissible. 

The area closest to the refuge that an environmental agency monitors is the Virginia Beach–Norfolk 

metropolitan area. The Environmental Protection Agency monitors carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

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

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

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

levels twice and unhealthy levels for sensitive groups thirteen times. The air quality is due to the 

breezes blowing through the area from the ocean. 

VISUAL RESOURCES/AESTHETICS 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is part of an extensive complex of brackish marshes along the 

Currituck Sound. The marshes are largely undisturbed and are protected by the federal government 

at the Currituck, Mackay Island, and Back Bay national wildlife refuges; by the State of North Carolina 

at the 2,958-acre Northwest Marsh Game Land and the 14,657-acre North River Game Land; by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia at the 1,546-acre Princess Anne Wildlife Management Area, the 4,321-

acre False Cape State Park, the 3,441-acre North Landing River Natural Area Preserve, and the 

2,417-acre Northwest River Natural Area Preserve; by the City of Virginia Beach at the North Landing 

Park; and by The Nature Conservancy. 

Visitors to the refuge have the opportunity to experience solitude, wildness, uninterrupted quiet, spirit 

and adventure, and observe the signs and sounds of the marsh and forested wetlands. Breezes off 

the water move the dune and marsh grasses like flags waving across a vast landscape. During the 

growing season, the marshes appear alive with neotropical songbirds, raptors, wading birds, marsh 

birds, mink, otter, and other wildlife species. The forests of loblolly pine, red maple, black gum, 

sweetgum, green ash, and wax myrtle echo the sounds of songbirds, wood ducks, and deer. During 

the late fall, winter, and early spring, migrating waterfowl and songbirds fill the air in the managed 

wetlands, sounds, bays, and streams with their sights and sounds. 
28 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is a typical southeastern United States coastal barrier island 

system that has formed dunes, brackish marshes and forested swamps in the Coastal Plain region. 

Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) is the only plant species from the federal endangered 

species list known to occur on the refuge. The National Wetlands Inventory describes the refuge as 

an estuarine emergent herbaceous or palustrine, forested wetland with deciduous or broad-leafed 

deciduous vegetation and a water regime ranging from temporarily flooded to semipermanently 

flooded (Cowardin et al. 1979). Schafale and Weakley (1990) identify five natural communities within 

the refuge boundary: dune grass, maritime dry grassland, maritime shrub, brackish marsh, and 

maritime swamp forest. Other habitats have been altered or created by man. The National Wetlands 

Inventory map delineates the refuge habitats (Figure 4). Vegetative communities on coastal barrier 

islands are spatially distributed in a pattern relative to the location of the ocean and sound (Figure 5). 

The large number of plant species listed in Appendix IV is indicative of the diverse habitats on the 

refuge. Levy (1976) delineated 178 species representing 50 families and 132 genera in his study at 

Duck, North Carolina. Hosier and Cleary (1979) listed over 200 plant species but felt that intensive 

study would produce many more species. The vegetation communities present on the Outer Banks 

include extensive dune systems, maritime grasslands, maritime shrub thickets, maritime forests, and 

vast brackish marshes. 

Man has had a substantial effect on the flora. Historic records suggest that livestock severely 

overgrazed the barrier beach system in the 19th century, resulting in the mobilization of large sand 

sheets (Hennigar 1979). Loggers have culled the forested areas numerous times in the past. That 

culling undoubtedly changed the vegetative composition of the area. 

The coastal processes discussed in the previous section further serve to shape the vegetative 

distribution and diversity on the Banks. Local controlling factors, depth to water table, salt spray, 

substrate stability, water salinity, and tidal effects contribute to the vegetative pattern that exists on 

the Banks. 

Salt spray is one of the most critical of the coastal processes affecting vegetation on the barrier 

system. Besides limiting the plant species along the beachfront, the spray serves to “deliver” 

nutrients to those plants growing in the sandy soils of the beachfront. The “pruning effect” of the 

spray on maritime shrubs and trees acts to tighten the tree and shrub canopy and provide shade 

during periods of low rainfall and high evaporation, thus conserving the limited freshwater resources. 

Beach 

Unvegetated beaches occupy 202 of the refuge’s 8,501 acres and occur on the eastern edge of the 

refuge above the normal high water elevation. These areas would be important nesting areas for 

colonial nesting birds and sea turtles if there was authority to limit access to the beach below the 

normal high water elevation. Extensive use of the beach for recreation discourages nesting efforts. 

Tire ruts would limit successful movement of bird chicks and turtle hatchlings if they hatched 

successfully. 
29

Figure 4. National Wetland Inventory map of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 
30 

Figure 5. Profile of vegetative communities of coastal barrier islands 
31

Dune Grass and Maritime Dry Grassland 

Dunes and grasslands occupy 137 of the refuge’s 8,501 acres and tend to occur in the eastern 

section of the refuge. The dunes immediately west of the beach are dominated by American 

beachgrass, bitter panicum, saltmeadow cordgrass, and sea oats. The grasslands west of the dunes 

are dominated by saltmeadow cordgrass with goldenrod, Indian blanket, and many other forbs in 

areas eroded by winds. 

Dune Grass. The floral diversity and distribution on the North Carolina portions of the Currituck 

Banks are interesting and complex. The barrier beach system is located in a transition zone between 

northern and southern groups of plant species. The warm Gulf Stream waters turn offshore at Cape 

Hatteras and the Labrador Current moves southward along the Currituck Banks, creating a zone 

where northern species have their southern limits and southern species have their northern limits. 

American beachgrass is near its natural southern limit, while sea oats is considered to be at the 

northern limit of its range (Hosier and Cleary 1979). 

Both American beachgrass and sea oats develop extensive horizontal and vertical rhizomes that 

capture moisture from rainfall. These rhizomes further serve to bind sand and stabilize sand 

surfaces. Beach grass and sea oats are adapted to tolerate stresses such as salt spray, overwash, 

sand blast, and drought, all of which are characteristic of the foredune area (Seneca et. al 1977). 

However, both species are extremely vulnerable to mechanical disturbance of the soils. 

As the dunes are stabilized and conditions become more favorable, other species will invade the 

strand community. Sea rocket, evening primrose, seaside goldenrod, beach pea, sandspurs, daisy 

fleabane, and spurge are other common dune plants. 

The width of the dunes varies along Currituck Banks. In those areas where artificial dunes have been 

built, the berm crest and backslope often no longer exist or are severely eroded. Generally, those 

areas with natural berms are wide, gently sloping and frequently overwashed by storm tides. 

Maritime Dry Grassland. Two basic types of terrestrial grasslands cover Currituck National Wildlife 

Refuge. They are interdunal depressions and barrier flat grasslands. Interdunal depressions occur 

where sand is moved from the surface forming a blowout. Mesic conditions, a relatively diverse flora, 

and often standing water prevail in these areas. Barrier flat grasslands found on the overwash 

terraces comprise the other terrestrial grassland community. 

Interdunal depressions occur between the fore and back dunes along the seashore. The depressions 

are “generally bowl-to-saucer shaped with semicircular-to-irregular perimeter” (Tyndall 1977). 

Aeolian sand transport and oceanic overwash are the generative forces in the formation of these 

depressions. The depth varies from just below to several feet above the water table. Floral 

development is in response to the erosion of these depressions to or below the water table. Some 

depressions possess standing water for varying amounts of the year. 

A high diversity of plant species occurs in these depressions. At False Cape State Park and Back 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge, both in Virginia, 129 species of plants were surveyed (Tyndall 1977). 

Distribution and succession of these species are controlled by several abiotic and biotic factors, 

including soil moisture, interspecific competition, salt spray, migratory waterfowl activity, and feral hog 

disturbance (Tyndall 1977). 
32 

Dominant species in these depressions include salt meadow cordgrass, black needlerush, chairmaker’s rush, and broom sedge. Other common herbaceous species include Centella asiatica, water 

pennywort, aster, and water purslane. 

Species on the perimeter of these depressions include groundsel tree, wax myrtle, bayberry, black 

cherry, and live oak. 

Availability of fresh water, diversity of seed-producing and food plants, as well as vegetative cover 

provide habitat for many species of wildlife. Hosier and Cleary (1979) believe that these depressions 

act as “reservoirs of genetic systems which, as conditions on the islands change, serve as a source 

of new species for colonizing the new environments.” 

The barrier flats begin on the backside of the beach berm and cover the flat overwash terraces. Salt 

spray and overwash develop and maintain this community. It is common in areas where dunes are 

low and have not been stabilized. The vegetation of this zone is adapted to withstand frequent storm 

tide inundation and sand burial. Dominant species consist of grasses, sedges, and some forbs. 

Species diversity on the flats adjacent to the beach berm is low. It is composed of salt meadow 

cordgrass, seaside goldenrod, and sea rocket. In an area where overwash is less frequent, diversity 

and cover are greater. In addition to the above-mentioned species are marsh fleabane, sandspurs, 

sea pink, and ladies tresses. Godfrey and Godfrey (1976) described similar terraces on Cape 

Lookout National Seashore as having greater than 50% cover and a standing crop of up to 1500 

grams per square per year. 

Dune buildup has occurred in several overwash passes and shrubs have invaded the terrace areas. 

Sea elder, wax myrtle, groundsel tree are common species. 

Maritime Shrub 

Shrubs occupy 778 of the refuge’s 8,501 acres and tend to occur in the central part of the refuge 

between the dunes and the marshes. The maritime shrub occurs along the length of the refuge on 

areas that are naturally or artificially protected from oceanic influence. The buffering action provided 

by the fore- and mid-dunes is essential for the establishment of this arborescent zone. Where salt 

spray effects are the greatest, these species form a low spreading cover with many areas of maritime 

grassland in between. Away from the ocean, in the shrub-dominated area, the growth pattern is low 

and dense forming a closed canopy. 

This community is dominated by wax myrtle, yaupon holly, American holly, groundsel tree, eastern 

red cedar, and stunted live oak. The understory of greenbrier, Virginia creeper, grape, poison ivy, 

and American beautyberry contributes substantially to its habitat value. The shrubs are sculpted by 

salt spray and susceptible to wild fires that can temporarily return the area to an herbaceous stage of 

succession. 

Cleared edges, roadways, and rights-of-way have been invaded by shrub thicket stands. This pattern 

possesses large areas of “edge space,” a habitat that many wildlife species prefer. 

Brackish Marsh 

Brackish marshes occupy 2,202 of the refuge’s 8,501 acres and tend to occur on the poorly drained 

peat soils in the western section of the refuge. Tidal flooding is rare and usually less than one foot. 

Tides are generally wind driven with water levels dependent upon wind velocity and direction. Marsh 

salinity is a function of the salinity of the overlying water (which varies between 2% and 20%), the 
33

relative frequency and duration of inundation caused by oceanic overwash, periodic wind-flooding 

waters, and the rate of flushing through the Currituck Sound (Odum et al. 1974). These wetlands are 

classified as slightly to moderately estuarine intertidal areas that irregularly flood and support 

persistent emergent vegetation (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

The Northwest and North Landing rivers and Back Bay have high levels of dissolved oxygen, 

nutrients, and detritus material that feed Currituck Sound. Coupled with the suspended materials 

from periodic oceanic overwash, the marsh substrate provides a nutrient-rich area for plants. 

These marshes are both physically and biologically important. The marshes of the sound act as 

buffer strips, protecting the Outer Banks from erosion by waves on the sound side. Without the 

marshes, the western shore of the Outer Banks would receive the full brunt of the waves. If not 

protected, the slope of the barrier island western shore would cause the expenditure of the energy 

contained in the waves over a smaller area. The higher the energy received in an area, the higher 

the likelihood of erosion. The nearly flat plains of the marshes allow for large areas of dissipation. 

Biologically, the marshes serve as important nesting and migrating grounds for numerous animal 

species at all trophic levels. The vegetation allows for good forage and cover. 

The marshes are dominated by black needlerush and saltmeadow cordgrass with big cordgrass and 

seashore saltgrass in substantial quantities. With frequent fires, the black needlerush is suppressed 

and the other grasses dominate. 

The black needlerush occurs just above mean high tide in relatively pure stands. Other species 

found with the needlerush include big cordgrass. The net primary productivity for needlerush 

marshes in Dare County averages 478 grams per square meter per year (Stiven and Plotecia 1976). 

This amount of dead or decaying marsh vegetation is contributed to the open estuary where it is 

utilized directly by consumer organisms, including important fish and shellfish. While this figure is 

less than the productivity of the smooth cordgrass marshes of Dare County, it is still important to the 

ecosystem. 

The northern marshes exhibit a more heterogeneous composite of species including cattails, 

arrowheads, seashore mallow, smartweeds, Olney three square, salt grass, chair-maker’s rush, and 

black needlerush. No primary productivity data were available for this area; however, based on 

related studies, productivity is assumed to be greater than the monotypic black needlerush stands. 

Maritime Forest 

The maritime forest occupies 637 of the 8,501 acres and tends to occur in the central part of the 

refuge between the dunes and marshes. Bellis and Proffitt (1976) defined the maritime forest 

community of North Carolina as “all forested areas occurring in relict sand dunes either on the Outer 

Banks or immediately adjacent to a permanently salty sound.” The maritime forest of the refuge is 

generally located on the back dunes of the barrier beach system in areas not directly influenced by 

storm-tide flooding and migrating dune systems. 

The forest is dominated by swamp black gum, red maple, sweetgum, white ash, loblolly pine, 

baldcypress, and water oak. It usually has a dense understory of wax myrtle, American hornbeam, 

swamp red bay, stiff dogwood, and other shrubs. There is usually not a notable herbaceous 

understory.
34 

Forests that are close to the ocean are low, generally less than 20 feet, and exhibit dense lateral 

branching. This lack of apical dominance is caused by wind and salt spray. Dominant species 

include live oak, red cedar, and laurel oak. Understory shrub species include American holly, black 

cherry, poison ivy, Virginia creeper, and grape. 

Forests that are further away from the ocean are taller (20 to 40 feet) and exhibit a more open canopy 

that is structurally more diverse. Loblolly pine is a dominant member in this community, along with 

live oak and American holly. Yaupon holly, hudsonia, greenbrier, and grape are common understory 

species. 

Bellis and Proffitt (1976) found that the primary value of the maritime forest is that it helps reduce 

erosion caused by storm surge and wave action. Other benefits of the forest include protection of 

loose sandy soils from wind erosion; accumulation and storage of freshwater; mineral iron filtration; 

production of soil by trapping blowing sand; deposition of humus; and wildlife habitat. 

Conservation Easements 

There are 3,931 acres of easements in the refuge’s 8,501 acres. These areas are predominately 

open water and brackish marshes owned by hunting clubs. The refuge assists the hunting clubs in 

managing the marshes with prescribed burning. 

Managed Wetlands (Impoundments) 

The refuge has 143 acres of impoundments managed to provide seed-producing herbaceous 

vegetation for migrating waterfowl. The staff manages the water levels in the areas and discs the 

vegetation to maintain an early successional stage vegetation that produces the most seed. The staff 

monitors the vegetation sporadically to assess the effectiveness of management (Table 6). 
35

Table 6. Vegetative composition of the Swan Island Moist Soil Unit 

Percent Composition 

by Year 

Common Name Scientific 

Name 

Food 

Value 

2002 2000 1994 1987 1986 

Asian Pennywort Centella 

asiatica 

Fair 20.6 7.7 13.0 0.0 0.0

Buttonweed Diodia virginica None 12.9 0.2 8.5 15.2 10.7

Spikerush Elocharis 

parvula 

Good 12.4 27.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Three Square Scirpus 

pungens 

Good 10.0 11.6 9.8 12.2 5.8

Water Hysop Bacopa spp. Good 8.7 1.5 4.5 9.4 0.7

Switchgrass Panicum 

virgatum 

Good 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fall Panicum Panicum 

dichotomflorm 

Good 6.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Baldrush Fimbristylis spp. Fair 4.4 4.2 14.3 20.0 32.9

Smartweed Polygonum spp. Good 3.3 3.7 0.5 0.0 0.0

Cordgrass Spartina patens Fair 3.1 0.0 8.0 1.3 0.4

Water Primrose Ludwigia 

palustris 

None 0.0 7.3 0.3 0.0 0.0

Knotgrass Paspalum 

distichum 

Fair 0.6 5.6 3.3 12.7 4.4

Panicgrass Panicum spp. Fair 1.6 4.5 6.8 6.6 5.8

Foxtail Setaria spp. Good 0.3 0.0 4.8 5.1 4.2

Bermudagrass Cynodon 

dactylon 

None 0.0 0.0 4.3 8.4 8.6

Broomsedge Andropogon 

virginicus 

None 0.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0

Rush Juncus spp. None 0.0 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.2

Pennywort Hrdrocotyle 

spp. 

Fair 0.4 1.2 0.3 4.1 0.5

Crabgrass Digitaria spp. Good 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 7.4

Total Good 61.2 45.5 20.4 30.7 19.2

Total Fair 27.7 24.0 46.7 44.0 44.2

Total None 11.1 30.5 32.9 25.3 36.6

Grand Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
36 

Threatened and Endangered Plants 

The threatened seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) is the only federally listed plant on the 

refuge. The last citing was in 1989, when a biologist found a single plant on the refuge beach in 

association with a threatened piping plover nesting colony. Disturbance from unrestricted vehicular 

traffic on the beach destroys stands as they germinate. Seabeach amaranth also suffers from the 

absence of washover habitat between and in back of the dunes. 

Two plant species listed as threatened in the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program’s database 

occur on the Outer Banks in Currituck County. One is the seabeach amaranth; the other is the 

Carolina grasswort (Lilaeopisis carolinensis), an aquatic perennial herb. 

Thirteen species are listed as rare. Twelve occur in marshes: the marsh straw sedge (Carex

hormathodes); twig rush (Cladium mariscoides); toothed flatsedge (Cyperus dentatus); sand 

spikerush (Eleocharis montevidensis); beaked spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata); riverbank quillwort 

(Isoetes riparia); long-awned sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis var. maritima); awl-leaf mudwort 

(Limosella australis); winged seedbox (Ludwigia alata); long beach seedbox (Ludwigia brevipes); 

grassleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria weatherbiana); and pale mannagrass (Torreyochloa pallida). 

Wooly beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa) occurs behind the primary dune in open, sandy areas. 

Insect and Disease Pests of Habitats 

In recent years, the forest tent caterpillar has caused widespread defoliation in the state. Prolonged 

flooding and saturation on coastal plain soils adversely impacts the parasitic wasp that preys on the 

forest tent caterpillar. The parasitic wasp spends part of its life cycle in the ground. Prolonged 

flooding kills the wasp so that it can no longer serve as a check on the populations of forest tent 

caterpillar. This may account for the large outbreaks of forest tent caterpillars that resource 

managers have been observing during the last decade on the coastal plain. 

Another insect pest, the gypsy moth, is now well established as far south as northeastern North 

Carolina. The North Carolina Division of Plant Industry and U.S. Forest Service closely monitor 

gypsy moth populations. Both agencies use pheromone traps located throughout the state, including 

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

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

The southern pine beetle is becoming a more common pest of pines in northeastern North Carolina. 

The beetles feed on the inner bark of stress-weakened trees. The needles turn yellow or strawcolored within two or three weeks of the attack, before finally turning reddish-brown. Land managers 

treat infected stands by cutting down a swath of trees around the area where the beetles are actively 

feeding, thus removing their food and starving them. Managers must monitor their pine stands and 

investigate any trees that appear infected. 

WILDLIFE 

The animal communities found on the refuge exhibit a low species diversity when compared to other 

coastal areas. Two notable exceptions are the unusually large number of migrating hawks that pass 

through the area each fall and the thousands of wintering waterfowl in Currituck Sound. Generally, 

the fauna of this area consist of ecologically tolerant forms that are rather widespread in the coastal 

plain, and some that are essentially statewide in distribution (Cooper et al. 1977). 
37

The following text discusses five general species groups: birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, 

finfish and shellfish, and benthic invertebrates. Species lists are in Appendix IV. 

Birds 

The Outer Banks exhibits a great diversity and distribution of birds. This is due to many factors, 

including the location of this area within the Atlantic Flyway and along the Gulf Stream. 

Observations of raptors during fall migrations indicate that large numbers follow the Outer Banks, 

notably accepters and falcons (Lee and Lee 1978; Ward 1976). Many other species such as migrant 

warblers, shorebirds, gulls, terns, herons, and egrets use the Outer Banks as a migration corridor 

during spring and fall migrations. Currituck Sound and the barrier beach system are important 

wintering grounds for 23 species of waterfowl, as well as numerous other avian species. Additionally, 

offshore winds and hurricanes undoubtedly bring transient species to the barrier beach system. 

Located in the transition zone between northern and southern groups, the refuge is the northern 

distribution limit for many southeastern coastal plain species. Additionally, species that are common 

to the mainland (indigo bunting, bobwhite) as well as those common to the barrier beach system 

(osprey, barn swallow) are represented on the refuge. 

The variety of plant communities found on the refuge also contributes to the diversity and distribution 

of bird life. As vegetative complexity and mass increase, so do available habitats. The forest/shrub 

thicket communities support the majority of species on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. This is due 

in part to the layering effect of understory, woody vine, and shrub and forest vegetation. 

The threatened bald eagle has nested on Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge across the 

Currituck Sound for the past seven years. Several species listed as high priority by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and/or listed by the state as rare and of special concern include the prairie warbler; 

hooded warbler; black-throated green warbler; yellow-throated warbler; prothonotary warbler; 

northern parula; sharp-tailed sparrow; northern bobwhite; king rail; solitary sandpiper; semipalmated 

sandpiper; black tern; American black duck; American woodcock; short-eared owl; and American 

kestrel, to name a few. The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker has been seen on rare occasion, 

and the most recent sighting was more than 20 years ago. At least 182 species of birds, including 55 

breeding species (16 migratory and 39 resident) use the refuge. 

Wintering and migrating waterfowl make extensive use of the refuge's wetlands and the water bodies 

surrounding the refuge. Factors that affect waterfowl distribution and population in Currituck Sound 

include the overall Atlantic Flyway population, food availability, waterfowl disturbance, and local land 

use trends (Sincock et al. 1965). Aquatic plant production affects the persistence of wintering 

waterfowl in an area. The major change in aquatic plant production in Currituck Sound has been the 

growth of Eurasian water milfoil. Florshutz (1972) reported the use of milfoil as a food source by 

twelve species of waterfowl, most notably scaup, gadwall, and widgeon. A comprehensive survey of 

aquatic vegetation in Currituck Sound is now underway. Growth of submerged vegetation, once felt 

to be sufficient for waterfowl populations using the sound (Florshutz 1979), is now thought to be 

declining. 

Disturbances that affect waterfowl distribution can take many forms, including boat activity and 

hunting. Currituck Sound has 737 licensed waterfowl blinds, the majority being blinds on platforms 

over the water (Snowden 1979). 
38 

Land use trends in surrounding areas have influenced the use of the sound by waterfowl. The 

availability of corn and winter wheat is important to field feeders such as mallard and black duck, as 

well as Canada and snow geese. Sincock et al. (1965) forecasted the effects of changes in 

agricultural practices and the conversion of farmland to other uses on waterfowl use on Currituck 

Sound. The refuge provides an area managed for moist soil vegetation that provides food and rest 

areas. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has identified areas that are of importance to wintering waterfowl in 

general and wintering black ducks in particular. In both the Black Duck Coastal Wintering Habitat 

Concept Plan and the Wintering Duck Concept Plan, the Service identified Currituck Sound as a 

habitat warranting preservation for waterfowl (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1975 and 1979). 

Principal species include the snow goose, tundra swan, mallard, wood duck, American black duck, 

American widgeon, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, ruddy duck, and northern pintail (Table 7). 

The marshes surrounding Currituck Sound, Back Bay, and Knotts Island Bay provide habitat for a 

substantial portion of the duck species in North Carolina. 

Table 7. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge waterfowl survey results, 2002-2003 

Species October November December January February 

Gadwall 54 191 223 585

American Black Duck 94 205 92 182 268

Northern Pintail 8 270 290

Mallard 23 98 39 135 66

American Widgeon 42 104 10 78 80

Green-winged Teal 165 55 

Hooded Merganser 11 1 5

Ring-necked Duck 11

Tundra Swan 1 325 875 722

Canada Goose 25 23 7

Total Ducks 332 472 605 673 1305

Grand Total 333 497 930 1571 2035

Mammals 

The mammal species composition for the refuge includes information from several sources, including 

trapping data from biologists working in the area and information from the North Carolina State 

Museum of Natural History. Nomenclature follows A Field Guide to the Mammals (Burt and 

Grossenbeider 1964). Appendix IV lists24 species of mammals on the refuge. 

Distribution and diversity of mammal populations on the refuge are defined by several factors, 

including habitat preference and/or dispersal ability of species and competition of native species with 

introduced species. Introduced species often reduce diversity by forcing native species to adapt to a 

wide range of ecological tolerances. For example, feral hogs (Sus scrofa) and horses (Equus 

caballus) have overgrazed areas near Carova Beach to the elimination of habitat for native mammal 

species. Other introduced species include nutria (Myocaster coypus), the house mouse (Mus 

musculus), and the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus). 
39

Habitat associations also influence the diversity and distribution of mammal species on Currituck 

National Wildlife Refuge. As the vegetative complexity increases in general, so do the number of 

species using the area. 

Furbearers. The marshes on the backside of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge are valuable habitat 

for several mammals. Factors that influence distribution and density of these species include salinity, 

plant species present (for use as food and nest construction), depth and frequency of water 

inundation, and local weather conditions (Brower et al. 1976). Species that are most valuable 

commercially include muskrat, nutria, otter, and mink. 

Feral Populations. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge supports a feral hog and horse population. No 

population estimates were available for the hogs. In the past, hogs were released in the area that is 

now False Cape State Park in the fall for grazing and collected in the spring. Collection of the hogs 

was incomplete, resulting in the present feral population (Tyndall 1977). 

Feral horses of uncertain origin inhabit the refuge. Some residents and others believe that these 

horses have origins that date back to Spanish origins and indicate that these horses may have 

existed here for over 400 years. Other sources indicate that these horses were brought to the island 

to avoid mainland taxes and to provide summer grazing. Investigation of the genetics of the horses 

to determine the origin of the horses has been inconclusive. Currituck County has passed an 

ordinance to protect the horses. The county has also developed a group that advises the county 

commissioners on matters relating to the maintenance of the wild horse herd. The Wild Horse 

Advisory Board is composed of two citizen representatives and representatives from the Corolla Wild 

Horse Fund, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Estuarine Research Reserve. The 

approved Currituck Banks Wild Horse Management Plan calls for the population of the horses to be 

maintained at or below 60 individuals. As funding becomes available, the Service will study the 

effects of the horses on refuge lands and incorporate recommendations based on the studies into 

the Currituck Wild Horse Management Plan. 

Historically, grazing animals were left to forage wherever food was available; most of these animals 

fed in the marshes and dunes as the forests were not particularly conducive to grazing. The result of 

this grazing was the reduction of vegetation, encouraging the formation of sand sheets and sand hills, 

destabilizing much of Currituck Banks (Hennigar 1979). 

Evidence of grazing exists south of Carova Beach where a large area is devoid of vegetation. The 

hog population has had a regressive successional effect on vegetation in the interdunal depressions 

(Tyndall 1977). 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reptiles and amphibians represent two separate groups of vertebrates that are considered together 

in this report. Forty-four reptiles occur on the Outer Banks in Currituck County, including 12 species 

of turtles, 8 species of lizards, and 25 species of snakes. Thirty-three species of amphibians occur in 

the area; 12 species are salamanders and 21 species are frogs and toads. A total of 77 species and 

subspecies of reptiles and amphibians occur in the area. The rich herpetofauna of the Outer Banks is 

explained, in part, by the diversity of habitats along the barrier beach system. 
40 

Examination of the distribution of refuge amphibians and reptiles reveals some geographic patterns. 

Many species reach the northern limits of their ranges in eastern North Carolina. Included in this 

category is the pinewoods snake, as well as other species. Many species occur only in the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain and have their centers of distribution or the greater part of their ranges in North 

Carolina. Included in this category are the many-lined salamander and Brimley’s chorus frog. 

Though the herpetofauna is relatively well known, basic information on the distribution and ecology of 

many species is lacking. Appendix IV lists the species present on the refuge. 

Finfish and Shellfish 

Ecologically dominant fish in the sound are represented by seven species. The species with the 

largest number of fish per acre are yellow perch, tidewater silverside, pumpkinseed, and blue spotted 

sunfish. The most important species on a weight per acre basis are carp, pumpkinseed, yellow 

perch, largemouth bass, and golden-shiner (Borawa et al. 1979). 

Borawa et al. (1979) found that the length of largemouth bass is less at given age than in the early 

1960s. Additionally, this same study found that bass also weigh less at a given length than during the 

1960s. These changes in the bass population were apparently due to the increase in vegetative 

biomass in 1979, particularly Eurasian water-milfoil. 

In addition to the largemouth bass, other important sport fish include the black crappie, chain pickerel, 

bream, white perch, and pumpkinseed. Striped bass, largemouth bass, and white perch are the most 

sought after species, with fishing pressure concentrated in the northern two-thirds of the sound 

(Sincock et al. 1965). 

Surf fishing and haul seining are important recreationally and commercially along the ocean shore. 

Striped bass, bluefish, mullet, croaker, spot, and gray trout are important to those fisheries. 

Currituck Sound is an important nursery ground for the young of many sport and commercial fish 

species found in North Carolina and Virginia. The abundance and distribution of these species are 

highly seasonal, with peak occurrences being related to migration and spawning periods. Currituck 

Sound is used by these species during three migration periods: inshore migration (juveniles) to 

estuarine nursery grounds after being spawned offshore; during upstream migration (adults) from sea 

to fresh water spawning; and downstream migration (adults) from freshwater for oceanic spawning. 

Fish migration and nursery ground productivity are controlled by seasonal environmental factors such 

as salinity, temperature, water flow, food availability, food type, and bottom substrates. 

The nursery areas are dominated by small spot and croaker during the winter and spring months, 

with menhaden and trout during the spring and summer. Shad, alewives, and striped bass move 

through the system on their way to river spawning areas in the spring, with juveniles moving back 

through the system on their way to the ocean later in the year. Important freshwater species such as 

white perch and catfish move down into the brackish water systems during the spring. 
41

Benthic Invertebrates 

The majority of benthic invertebrates use two habitats on the refuge, the ocean beach and the sound. 

Other areas such as freshwater ponds are more than likely to be inhabited by benthic organisms, but 

have not been studied to date. Appendix IV lists those organisms that are most commonly found in 

these areas. 

The ocean zone is a narrow stretch of bare sand that extends from the surf to the landward reach of 

lunar tide. The subtidal and intertidal zones of the ocean beach present two distinct habitats and 

consequently a great diversity of organisms. Unconsolidated sediments and coarse sand that are 

subject to constant shifting and stirring underlie the subtidal area. Sand-burrowing, filter-feeding 

decapods, dependant upon tidal influx for their food, were the most common organisms in this zone 

(Levy 1976). 

The intertidal or swash zone is firm, wet and sloping. Wave action and beach slope are limiting 

factors for organisms in this stretch. Mole crabs (Emertia talpoida), ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata), 

coquina (Donax sp.), and various polychaetes exhibited the greatest diversity and density in this zone 

(Levy 1976). 

Several investigators studied the organisms in the swash zone at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(Munse 1975; Leggett and Butler 1975). Distribution and population of burrowing organisms varied 

inversely with the amount of traffic on any one area. The type of travel (vehicular or foot) also 

reflected on the population size and distribution of these organisms. Those areas subject to foot 

travel exhibited greater densities of burrowing species than those areas subject to vehicular travel. 

The marshes along Currituck Sound support a diverse macrobenthic community. Those species 

which are important to wildlife include the marsh periwinkle (Littorina irrorata), pulmonate snail 

(Melampus bidentatus), ribbed mussel (Modiolus demissus), and Carolina marsh clam (Polymesoda 

caroliniana) (Matta 1977). Various amphipods and isopods, characteristic of broad environmental 

tolerances, were common in the study area (Perry 1979). Of note from these collections were two 

uncommon beetles, Paracymus nanus and Derallus altus. 

Nearshore benthos is mostly composed of burrowing amphipods that are able to escape exposure 

from wind tides. In the deeper waters, where substrate exposure from tides is negligible, invertebrate 

diversity increases. Oligochaetes, chironomids and brackish water clam (Rangia cuneata) were the 

most commonly sampled species (Matta 1977). 

The diversity and density of benthic organisms is further increased in the submerged grass beds of 

Currituck Sound. The plant rhizomes provide a protective habitat for infauna. The leaves and stems 

of the vegetation are attachment sites for epifauna. 

Threatened and Endangered Animals 

Threatened and endangered animals on the refuge include six federally listed species and 63 species 

recognized by either the State of North Carolina or the State Museum of Natural History, both of 

which have published lists. Only the seven on the federal and state lists have the benefit of legal 

protection and regulation. The refuge will give state-listed species emphasis in planning and 

management actions. 
42 

After an absence of many years, the threatened bald eagle recently returned to nest on Mackay 

Island National Wildlife Refuge, across the sound from Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. There 

have been numerous incidental sightings of nonnesting bald eagles in Currituck County. 

The federally listed piping plover occurs in Currituck County. The last documented sighting was in 

2001 when a refuge staff member observed a single plover foraging. In 1999, volunteers conducted 

transects on eight occasions and observed at least one plover foraging each time. They observed as 

many as 13 plovers foraging on one occasion. Disturbance from unrestricted vehicular traffic on the 

beach discourages nesting. Plover nesting also suffers from the absence of washover habitat 

between and in back of the dunes. 

There are records of the occurrence of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker in the county from 

more than 20 years ago. 

The only federally listed reptiles listed for Currituck County are the threatened loggerhead sea turtle 

and endangered leatherback sea turtle. There are records of loggerheads within the past 20 years; 

there was a stranded leatherback in the county in 1979. The last record of loggerhead nesting was in 

1998 when eggs were laid in a nest 3.5 miles south of the North Carolina–Virginia state line. 

Biologists relocated the nest of 118 eggs from its original location below the high tide elevation to a 

location above the high tide elevation. Forty-five (38%) of the eggs hatched. 

The turtles, inhabitants of the open ocean, nest just above high water on the open beaches. Mating 

takes place in the water near nesting beaches. The turtles lay eggs from April to early October, 

though most often through August. Eggs are subject to predation from a variety of creatures 

including hogs, dogs, crabs, raccoons, and humans. Disturbance from unrestricted vehicular traffic 

on the beach discourages nesting. 

There have been incidental reports of endangered West Indian manatees in the county within the last 

twenty years. The county is well north of its normal range. 

Unique Animal Associations 

Various state agencies and research biologists have identified numerous unique animal associations 

along the barrier beach system. Following are brief descriptions of these associations that have not 

been covered in other sections. 

Investigators have pinpointed several heron rookeries along the Currituck Sound. These colonies 

indicate that the area is an important breeding territory for wading birds. The colonies also reflect the 

health of the estuarine system. Osborne and Custer (1978) found that wading birds and their allies 

are a terminal link in many aquatic food chains and may be used to reflect changes in the ecosystem. 

The largest colony in Currituck Sound is located on Monkey Island that is within the study area. Five 

species totaling 935 adults are reported nesting on Monkey Island. Great blue herons, great egrets, 

glossy ibis, tricolored herons, and snowy egrets inhabit the island. Several other heron rookeries 

have been located in Currituck Sound and Back Bay (Osborne and Custer 1978). 
43

Several investigators have identified the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) as meriting special concern 

(Cooper et al. 1977). During the 1950s and 1960s, the species suffered considerable losses in the 

North Carolina and Virginia area due to organochlorine pesticide contamination. The residues 

produced eggs with thin shells that were easily broken during incubation, causing severe reproductive 

losses (Cooper et al. 1977). The population in Currituck Sound and Back Bay has since stabilized 

and is thought to be increasing. The ospreys nest on channel markers, manmade platforms, and in 

trees, and are reasonably tolerant of man. 

The peregrine falcon migrates through the area during the spring and fall of the year. During 

migration, peregrine falcons forage along the beaches and newly overwashed areas of the Banks. 

Segar (1979) considers the uninhabited beachfront and wash flats critical in the migratory habits of 

the peregrine falcon. Modification of these habitats may have a profound effect on the migratory 

ecology of the species. 

Systematic monitoring of peregrine falcons along the Currituck Banks reported 138 individual 

sightings over a 28-day period during the 1979 fall migration (Nichols 1979). Thirty-one observations 

were made along False Cape State Park, Virginia, while 107 were made in North Carolina. These 

falcons continue to migrate south following the Outer Banks migration corridor. 

The refuge staff will give primary consideration to the status and habitat requirements of the species 

listed in Table 8 when they plan and implement management actions. 
44 

Table 8. Species of management concern at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

Species Brackish 

Marsh 

Maritime 

Shrub and 

Swamp 

Forest 

Dune 

Grass and 

Dry 

Grassland 

Managed 

Wetlands 

(Moist Soil Units) 

Piping Plover* X 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle* X 

Leatherback Sea Turtle* X 

Bald Eagle* X 

West Indian Manatee* X 

Seabeach Amaranth* X 

Black Rail X 

Sharp-tailed Sparrow X 

Seaside Sparrow X 

Yellow Rail X 

King Rail X 

Wood Stork X 

Sedge Wren X 

Prairie Warbler X 

Eastern Painted Bunting X 

Yellow-throated Warbler X 

Northern Parula X X 

Red Knot X 

Wilson’s Plover X 

Roseate Tern X 

Least Tern X 

Black Skimmer X 

American Oystercatcher X 

Reddish Egret X 

Wood Duck X 

Canada Goose X 

Snow Goose X 

Tundra Swan X 

American Black Duck X 

Mallard X 

American Widgeon X 

Blue-winged Teal X 

Green-winged Teal X 

Ruddy Duck X 

Ringneck Duck X 

Northern Pintail X 

Greater Scaup X 

Lesser Scaup X 

* = Federally Threatened and Endangered Species 
45

EXOTIC ORGANISMS 

Six exotic organisms are present within the area and are impacting or have the potential to impact 

refuge lands. They are the wild horse (Equus caballus), wild pig (Sus scrofa), Asian clam (Corbicula 

fluminea), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), nutria (Myocaster coypus), and the gypsy moth (Lymantria 

dispar). Exotic plants that threaten refuge resources include the common reed (Phragmites australis) 

and alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides). 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The refuge has three documented cultural resource sites located on Monkey Island. One site is a 

hunting club clubhouse that is falling down and is on an eroding island in Currituck Sound. The 

Service’s Regional Archeologist has examined the site and determined that the structure cannot be 

saved. He has recommended that the refuge interpret the club and clubhouse at the refuge’s visitor 

contact station. 

The other two documented sites are oyster shell midden sites that were dated as being from between 

50 and 1600 A.D. Ceramics have also been found on the island. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The current area of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge lies in Currituck County, North Carolina, and 

Virginia Beach, Virginia. The refuge contributes to and affects the social and economic conditions in 

Currituck and Dare counties, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. The conditions in both 

counties and the city also affect the refuge. The refuge staff must consider the social and economic 

conditions of the counties in planning and implementing refuge activities. The land use in the 

communities influences the water and air quality in the water bodies surrounding the refuge and on 

the refuge. The relative availability of open space will affect the availability of land for wildlife habitat 

and the habitat off the refuge that wildlife use. 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE AREA 

Currituck County 

Currituck County is in the northeastern corner of North Carolina with the Atlantic Ocean to the east; 

Dare County, North Carolina, to the south; Camden County, North Carolina, to the west; and the city 

of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to the north. The county is split into east and west segments by the 

Currituck Sound. The only bridge over the sound is in the southern part of mainland Currituck 

County; it connects to northern Dare County on the Outer Banks, the barrier island next to the ocean. 

 The southern tip of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is 20 miles north of that bridge. Knotts Island, 

where Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge is located, is only accessible from the Currituck Refuge 

by traveling from mainland Currituck County through the cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, 

Virginia, or by ferry. A ferry connects the town of Currituck, North Carolina, to Knotts Island. 

Despite the difficulty of traveling, Currituck County has experienced a great amount of growth in the 

last 30 years due to its proximity to Virginia Beach and the ocean. The county’s unemployment and 

poverty rates are much lower than the state average. 
46 

Currituck County is still predominantly rural, with the largest town and county seat being Currituck 

(2000 population: 18,190). Like other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor activities are both 

popular and necessary. Hunting and recreational fishing are popular pastimes. Farming, commercial 

fishing, and forestry are important elements of the economy. 

Dare County 

Dare County is located in the northeastern part of North Carolina and is bounded by Currituck County 

to the north, Tyrrell County on the west, and Hyde County on the south. The Alligator River forms the 

western boundary of Dare County, the Albemarle Sound forms the northern boundary, and the 

Atlantic Ocean forms the eastern boundary. 

Traditionally, Dare County has been in the forefront of economic growth or development in the State 

of North Carolina, and historically, unemployment has been lower than the state average. The 

closest areas of other economic growth and social life are Greenville, North Carolina, 100 miles west 

of the refuge, and Virginia Beach, Virginia, 27 miles north of the refuge. 

Despite the growth on the Outer Banks, Dare County is still predominantly rural. Its largest town is 

Kill Devil Hills (2000 population: 5,897). Like other rural areas, outdoor activities are also popular and 

necessary in Dare County. Hunting, recreational fishing, and bird watching are popular pastimes and 

commercial fishing is an important element of the economy. 

Virginia Beach 

Virginia Beach is in the southeastern corner of Virginia with the Atlantic Ocean to the east, Currituck 

County, North Carolina, to the south, Chesapeake and Norfolk, Virginia, to the west, and the 

Chesapeake Bay to the north. The city is accessible to the Virginia capital of Richmond by Interstate 

Route 64 West. The national capital in Washington, D.C., is accessible from Virginia Beach by 

Interstate Route 64 West and Interstate Route 95 North. 

Virginia Beach has experienced steady growth in the last 120 years due its proximity to the ocean, its 

importance as a location of military bases, and its access by water, railroad, highways, and air. The 

city’s unemployment and poverty rates are much lower than the state average. 

Virginia Beach occupies the area that was once Princess Anne County and is still 61 percent rural. Outdoor 

activities are also popular among the city’s residents, with hunting and recreational fishing the preferred 

pastimes. Farming, commercial fishing, and forestry are still important elements of the economy. 

HISTORY OF THE AREA 

Currituck County 

The inhabitants of Currituck County at the time of European settlement were Coastal Algonkians. 

These Algonkians were the southernmost extent of a tribe that inhabited the Atlantic Coast north to 

Canada. They settled in relatively dispersed patterns with capital villages, villages, seasonal villages, 

and camps for specialized activities. The settlements were along the sounds, estuaries, major rivers, 

and tributaries. Some of the villages had a regular internal organization with palisades and some 

were less organized with an open structure. The Algonkians settled where they could conduct 

agriculture, fishing, shell fishing, hunting, and gathering close to the village. The farmsteads were 

occupied by extended families. The Coastal Algonkians grew corn, squash, sunflowers, beans, and 

native plants on sandy ridges. They traded extensively with the Tuscarora that inhabited the area 
47

west of the Tidewater region (Mathis and Crow 2000). The Algonkians called the area “Cora tank,” 

which means “The Land of the Wild Goose.” 

The governor of colonial North Carolina established Currituck County in 1670 from part of Albemarle 

County. It was one of the five original ports in North Carolina and one of the first counties. The 

county built the original courthouse in 1723 and established the town of Currituck Court House in 

1755. The county shortened the name of the county seat to Currituck. In 1875, the government built 

the Currituck Beach Lighthouse in Corolla on the Outer Banks to warn seafaring ships of the coast. 

The first attraction to settlement was the abundant fish and game which gave the county a reputation 

as a “Sportsmen’s Paradise.” John Mackie purchased Orphan’s Island, on which the refuge is 

located, in 1761. The island became known as Mackie Island after his purchase and as Mackay 

Island after his death. In the early twentieth century, wealthy sportsmen established lavish hunting 

clubs in the county. These included the Swan Island Club in 1870; the Whalehead Club in Corolla in 

1922; the Currituck Gunning and Fishing Club in 1923; the Monkey Island Hunt Club in 1931; and 

Joseph Knapp’s estate on Mackay Island in 1918. Joseph Knapp was a wealthy insurance 

businessman and philanthropist who contributed to and helped develop the education system in 

Currituck County. He also founded an organization known as More Game Birds in America, which 

later became Ducks Unlimited. The Knapp estate was located on land that is now the Mackay Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, where he experimented with wildlife management techniques. 

As Virginia Beach has grown, suburban development has occurred on the mainland of the county 

over the last thirty years. In 1984, the State of North Carolina extended North Carolina Highway 12 

thirteen miles north of Dare County into Currituck County. Extensive residential development of the 

dunes along the oceanfront began immediately after the state opened the highway. 

Dare County 

The original residents of Dare County were also Native Americans of the Coastal Algonkian linguistic group. 

 One chiefdom was located on the Outer Banks on Hatteras Island (Haag 1958). They lived in permanent 

villages where they could hunt, fish, shellfish, and farm in close proximity to the village. The Algonkians 

used seasonal villages to follow migrating fish and wildlife populations. They grew corn, beans, sunflower, 

and squash in small gardens; and hunted deer, bear, alligators, turtles, and a variety of small mammals. 

Mention of the Algonkians ceased by the mid-eighteenth century (Mathis and Crow 2000). 

As early as 1584, English officers spent two months exploring Roanoke Island and its surrounding area. In 

1585, a fleet of seven vessels returned to Roanoke Island. The settlers established a headquarters called 

“the City of Raleigh.” An earthen structure known as Lane’s Fort protected it. A band of 15 men stayed with 

the fort while the commanding officer returned to England. In 1587, a total of 115 men, women, and 

children landed at Roanoke Island. They found no survivors of the 15 men, yet went on to rebuild and 

establish the first English colony in the New World. Later that year, the first child of English parents was 

born in America. Her name was Virginia Dare. Shortly thereafter, Governor John White returned to 

England for supplies. Problems in England delayed his return. When White finally arrived, he found no 

trace of the colony he had left except the words “Croatoan” and “Cro” carved in two trees near the fort. The 

fate of the ”Lost Colony” remains a mystery (Sharpe 1954). 
48 

The area remained unpopulated for more than a half century after the disappearance of the Lost Colony. 

 Sir John Colleton established the first permanent settlement on Collington Island on the Outer Banks in 

the winter of 1664–1665. Shipwrecked sailors and settlers from Virginia established the first settlements. 

 These settlers made an effort to grow tobacco, grow grapes for a winery, and raise hogs. The only real 

profit was from oil extracted from beached whales. Raising livestock on the grasslands of the dunes 

became an important occupation. The only agriculture was in small gardens (Stick 1958). 

In the early 1700s, pirates moved into the area to prey on ships that passed too close to the shore. 

The most famous of these pirates, Blackbeard, made his headquarters on the Outer Banks. His 

death in 1718 brought an end to piracy. Around 1726, residents built windmills to grind grain on 

Roanoke Island and the Outer Banks. The residents made a living from farming, fishing, hunting, and 

beachcombing (U.S. Department of the Interior 1981). 

Modern tourists first found the Outer Banks of Dare County at Nags Head in the 1830s, when 

planters from inland counties came to escape the hot humid summer. Cottages and the Nags Head 

Hotel were home to visitors. The hotel was the scene of nightly dinners and dances, and the 

residents built a railway for transportation to the beach (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). 

In the early 1800s, the Outer Banks earned the name “Graveyard of the Atlantic” as numerous 

vessels sunk near the coast. During the Civil War, Union forces captured Fort Hatteras and Roanoke 

Island to secure access to North Carolina by sea. The Union ironclad ship USS Monitor sank in a 

gale off Cape Hatteras on December 30, 1862 (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). 

In 1870, the state assembly established Dare County from parts of Hyde, Currituck, and Tyrrell 

counties. During this time, most opportunities for work were in the Coast Guard, as lighthouse 

operators or weather station employees. The improvements of inlets and advances in navigation and 

transportation allowed commercial fishing to become an important part of the economy (Stick 1958). 

On December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright made the first successful power-driven airplane 

flight from Kill Devil Hills near Kitty Hawk on the Outer Banks. German submarines filled the waters 

off the North Carolina coast during World Wars I and II. Since World War II, tourism replaced hunting 

and fishing as the principal industry (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2003). 

The rivers and sounds were once the major transportation avenues in the area. As the area grew 

and the railroad arrived, boat traffic declined. In the twentieth century with the popularity of 

automobiles, the state developed a network of highways connecting the county to all areas of the 

eastern United States. The state replaced a drawbridge across the Croatan Sound on U.S. Highway 

64 at Manns Harbor in 2002 with a high-rise bridge so motorists can bypass downtown Manteo on 

their way to the Outer Banks. Today, the state is widening U.S. Highway 64 to four lanes that will 

connect the area to interstate 95 and the Outer Banks. There are small local airports in Manteo and 

Frisco; regional airports in Greenville; and an international airport in Norfolk, Virginia. Amtrak 

provides passenger rail service as far east as Rocky Mount. 

Virginia Beach 

The inhabitants of Virginia Beach at the time of European settlement were also Coastal Algonkians. 

There were 12,000 people living in a 9,000-square-mile area. The tribes in the Tidewater area of 

Virginia included the Chesapeakes, Powhatan, Arohatock, Appamattuck, Pamunkey, Youghtanund, 

and Mattaponi. All of these tribes except the Chesapeakes eventually surrendered to the Powhatan. 

All the tribes spoke the Powhatan dialect of the Algonquin language. 
49

They settled in relatively dispersed patterns with capital villages, villages, seasonal villages, and 

camps for specialized activities. The settlements were along the sounds, estuaries, major rivers, and 

tributaries. Some of the villages had a regular internal organization with palisades and some were 

less organized with an open structure. They settled where they could conduct agriculture, fishing, 

shell fishing, hunting, and gathering close to the village. The farmsteads were occupied by extended 

families. The Coastal Algonkians grew corn, squash, melons, pumpkins, sunflowers, beans, tobacco, 

and native plants on sandy ridges. They traded extensively with the Meherrin and Nottoway that 

inhabited the area west of the Tidewater region. 

The first English colonists landed at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay on April 26, 1607. They spent 

three days at the site of their first landing, erecting a cross and naming the spot Cape Henry. They 

later settled in Jamestown. In 1635, Captain Adam Thoroughgood earned a land grant of 5,350 

acres and persuaded 105 people to settle in colonial Virginia Beach. The colonial governor formed 

Princess Anne County from the eastern section of Norfolk County in 1691 and named it in honor of 

the youngest daughter of King James. The livelihood of the early settlers depended on fishing. The 

early fishing industry prompted the dredging of the Lynnhaven Inlet to connect the Lynnhaven River 

with Chesapeake Bay. 

Princess Anne County had a continuous shoreline from the North Carolina border, north along the 

Atlantic Coast to Cape Henry and then west along the banks of Chesapeake Bay to the Lynnhaven 

River. The extensive shoreline made merchant ships vulnerable to plundering by pirates. Until 1718 

when Blackbeard was killed, piracy inhibited permanent settlement. Heavy ship traffic congested the 

waterways and resulted in many shipwrecks. Local volunteers lit bonfires to warn vessels of the 

shoreline. The state government built the Cape Henry Lighthouse in 1792 to facilitate safe passage. 

The proximity of Virginia Beach to water also gave the area a role in the Revolutionary War. The French 

cut off the retreat route of Cornwallis’ British troops at Cape Henry and forced the surrender of the British 

at Yorktown in 1781. Continuing shipwrecks along the coast prompted the construction of five lifesaving 

stations along the coast in Virginia Beach until 1915, when the Coast Guard replaced them. 

Virginia Beach has been a popular tourist resort since 1883 when railroad service began from Norfolk. 

Tourism has spawned the area’s economy and further settlement to support that economy. The military 

has established five installations in Virginia Beach: the Oceana Naval Air Station, Little Creek Amphibious 

Base, Fort Story Army Base, Camp Pendleton, and Dam Neck Naval Base. These five bases and other 

military installations in adjacent cities have added support to the economy and attracted even more 

residents. The area is also a popular retirement location for retired military veterans. 

The local economy has diversified over the years and new residents have located in Virginia Beach to 

work. The 2000 population was 425,257. The city of Virginia Beach and Princess Anne County 

merged in 1963, adding the rural areas in the southern part of the county to the city. 
50 

LAND USE IN THE AREA 

Currituck County 

The historic land use in Currituck County depended for the most part on the nature of the land. 

Hydric soils cover 77 percent of the county and they remained in forest or marsh until the twentieth 

century. The major historic land uses have revolved around hunting upland game and waterfowl as 

the county was known as a “Sportsmen’s Paradise.” Native Americans and farmers descended from 

European settlers cultivated crops on the uplands for centuries. In the twentieth century, farmers 

drained much of the hydric mineral soil and shallow organic soil. 

Today, Currituck County is 39 percent forested (64,343 acres), 29 percent marsh (47,921 acres), and 

18 percent cropland (29,592 acres). 

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms decreased 12 percent from 39,571 acres to 34,802; the 

average size of farms decreased slightly to 424 acres; full-time farm operators increased 15 percent 

from 54 to 62 farms; the total market value of agricultural products sold decreased 38 percent to 

$9,208,000; and the average market value of agricultural products sold per farm decreased 35 

percent from $174,005 to $112,294 (Table 9). 

In 2002, soybeans accounted for 15,587 acres of cropland, the largest of any single crop in the 

county. Corn and wheat have also been important crops in Currituck County. Production of cotton 

and hogs has also been important, but there were not enough to report in 2002 (Table 10) (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 2002). 

Within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary, the major land use is farming and waterfowl 

hunting. There is little residential construction in the wetlands surrounding the refuge. The county’s 

well-drained areas have had extensive residential and commercial development. 

Dare County 

Logging and farming have never been important sources of income in Dare County due to the deep, 

sandy soils of the dunes; the saturated soils of the marshes on the Outer Banks; and the wetlands 

with deep organic soils on the mainland. The forest and marsh plant communities have always 

provided hunting opportunities, and the marshes are important nursery areas for fish. The beaches 

and dunes of the Outer Banks are the major attractions to tourists for their summer vacations. 

There is limited residential construction in the marshes, pocosins, and forested wetlands of the 

county. The largest development has been on the northern end of the coastal barrier island known 

as the Outer Banks. 

Before the Civil War, farmers cultivated up to 5,000 acres of corn and tobacco on mainland Dare 

County in a settlement known as Beechlands near Milltail Creek. They also grazed cattle on 25,000 

acres of marsh. The Dare County Lumber Company harvested enough timber on 168,000 acres of 

mainland Dare County to set up a settlement called Buffalo City, which eventually went bankrupt. 

Both areas are now part of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Today, Dare County is 57 percent forested (142,212 acres) and 3 percent farmland (4,961 acres). 
51

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms stayed the same at 4,961 acres; the average size of farms 

increased 13 percent from 551 to 620 acres; full-time farm operators remained the same at 6; the 

total market value of agricultural products sold increased 10 percent from $836,000 to $916,000; and 

the average market value of agricultural products sold per farm increased 23 percent from $92,920 to 

$114,470 (Table 11). 

Soybeans are the most important crop in Dare County. Production has decreased between 1997 and 

2002 (Table 12) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002). 

Virginia Beach 

The historic land use in Virginia Beach depended for the most part by the nature of the land. Hydric 

soils cover 74 percent of the city and they remained in forest or marsh until the twentieth century. 

Deep sandy dunes and beaches cover the eastern and northern sides of the city. The lack of access 

across the marshes and dunes restricted use of the barrier island. 

The major historic land uses have revolved around fishing and hunting upland game and waterfowl. 

Native Americans and farmers descended from European settlers cultivated crops on the uplands for 

centuries. In the twentieth century, farmers drained much of the hydric mineral soil and shallow 

organic soil. Development of the dunes and beaches along the ocean and the Chesapeake Bay 

began in 1883, when the railroad extended service from Norfolk. 

Today, Virginia Beach is 39 percent developed (71,557 acres); 25 percent forested (40,727 acres); 

18 percent marsh (29,948 acres); and 14 percent cropland (23,873 acres). 

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms decreased 5 percent from 29,958 to 28,382 acres; the average 

size of farms decreased 20 percent from 204 to 164 acres; full-time farm operators decreased 10 

percent from 71 to 64 farms; the total market value of agricultural products sold decreased 29 percent 

from $13,638,000 to $9,661,000; and the average market value of agricultural products sold per farm 

decreased 39 percent from $92,778 to $56,168 (Table 13). 

In 2002, soybeans accounted for 13,306 acres of cropland, the largest of any single crop in the 

county. Corn and wheat have also been important crops in Virginia Beach. Production of hogs has 

also been important and has decreased so much it was not reported in 2002 (Table 14) (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 2002). 
52 

Table 9. Currituck County agricultural statistics, 2002 

Number of Farms 82

Acres in Farms 34,802

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 424

Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,324,800

Market Value of Land Per Acre $3,010

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $100,534

Total Cropland (Acres) 29,594

Market Value of All Products Sold $9,208,000

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $112,294

Market Value of Crops Sold $8,918,000

Market Value of Livestock Sold $291,000

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 62

Operators with Anther Occupation as Principal Occupation 20

Hogs in Inventory 0

Hogs Sold 0

Beef Cows in Inventory 280

Beef Cows Sold 109

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 15,587

Land in Corn (Acres) 10,392

Land in Wheat (Acres) 7,576

Land in Cotton (Acres) 0

Table 10. Commodity production in Currituck County, 1997 and 2002 

 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1997-2002 Change 

Soybeans (acres) 15,587 18,489 Decreased16% 

Corn (acres) 10,392 11,309 Decreased 8% 

Wheat (acres) 7,576 9,880 Decreased 23% 

Cotton (acres) 0 1,780 N/A 

Hog Inventory 0 4,270 N/A 

Hogs Sold 0 11,205 N/A 

Cattle Inventory 280 290 Decreased 3% 

Cattle Sold 109 188 Decreased 42% 

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture 1997 and 2002 
53

Table 11. Dare County agricultural statistics, 2002 

Number of Farms 8

Acres in Farms 4,961

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 620

Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,098,170

Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,268

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $100,232

Total Cropland (Acres) 4,954

Market Value of All Products Sold $916,000

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $114,470

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 6

Operators with Anther Occupation as Principal Occupation 2

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 1,506

Table 12. Commodity production in Dare County, 1997 and 2002 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1997-2002 Change 

Soybeans (acres) 1,506 3,516 Decreased 57% 

Wheat (acres) 471 0 N/A 

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture 1997 and 2002 

Table 13. Virginia Beach agricultural statistics, 2002 

Number of Farms 172

Acres in Farms 28,382

Average Size of Farms (Acres) 165

Market Value of Land Per Farm $649,775

Market Value of Land Per Acre $3.645

Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $47,521

Total Cropland (Acres) 23,873

Market Value of All Products Sold $9,661,000

Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $56,168

Market Value of Crops Sold $7,716,000

Market Value of Livestock Sold $1,945,000

Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 90

Operators with Other Occupation as Principal Occupation 82

Hogs in Inventory 0

Hogs Sold 0

Beef Cows in Inventory 0

Beef Cows Sold 0

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 13,306

Land in Corn (Acres) 5,809

Land in Wheat (Acres) 7,928
54 

Table 14. Commodity production in Virginia Beach, 1997 and 2002 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1997-2002 Change 

Soybeans (acres) 13,306 11,656 Increased 12% 

Wheat (acres) 3,143 7,928 Decreased 60% 

Corn (acres) 4,852 5,809 Decreased 16% 

Hog Inventory 0 14,113 N/A 

Hogs Sold 0 43,964 N/A 

Cattle Inventory 0 259 N/A 

Cattle Sold 0 166 N/A 

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture 1997 and 2002 

DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE AREA 

Currituck County 

Currituck County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 18,190 in 2000 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). The county gained 32% of its population 

between 1990 and 2000. Currituck, the county seat, is the largest town but the population is widely 

dispersed throughout the unincorporated areas of the county. 

The population is 90.4 percent white, 7.2 percent black, 1.4 percent Hispanic, 0.5 percent Native 

American, and 0.4 percent Asian (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). In 

2000, the median family income was $36,287, slightly above the state average of $35,320. The 

poverty rate was 10.8 percent of the population, well below the state average of 12.6 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000c). The average unemployment rate in 2004 

was 2.8 percent, well below the State of North Carolina’s unemployment rate of 5.5 percent (North 

Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004) (Table 15). 

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years old is 77.6 percent; 

the percentage of college graduates is 13.3 percent. The state averages are 78.1 percent for high 

school and 22.5 percent for college (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). 

The home ownership rate is 81.6 percent, well above the state average rate of 69.4. There are 2.61 

persons per household in Currituck County, slightly above the state average of 2.49. 

Dare County 

Dare County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 29,967 in 2000 (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). The county population increased 32% between 1990 and 

2000. Kill Devil Hills is the largest town with a population of 5,897. 

The population is 94.7 percent white, 2.7 percent black, 2.2 percent Hispanic, 0.4 percent Asian, and 

0.3 percent Native American (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). In 

2000, the median family income was $35,258, about the same as the state average of $35,320. The 

poverty rate was 8.1 percent, well below the state average of 12.6 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2000c). The average unemployment rate in 2004 was 5.1 percent, slightly 

below the state’s unemployment rate of 5.5 percent (North Carolina Employment Security 

Commission 2004) (Table 15). 
55

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years old is 60 percent; the 

percentage of college graduates is 16 percent. The state averages are 56 percent for high school 

and 14 percent for college (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). The home 

ownership rate is 74.5 percent, above the state average rate of 69.4. There are 2.34 persons per 

household in Dare County, slightly below the state average of 2.49. 

Table 15. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties 

County Average 

Income1

Poverty 

Rate 

(%)1

Average 2004 

unemploymen

t 

Rate (%) 2, 3

2000 

Population

1

Population Trend1

North Carolina $35,320 12.6 5.5 +21% since 1990 

Virginia $23,975 9.6 3.7 +14% since 1990 

County in the Vicinity of the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

Currituck $36,287 10.8 2.8 18,190 +166% since 1970 

Dare $35,258 8.1 5.1 29,967 +328% since 1970 

Virginia Beach $22,365 6.5 3.6 425,257 +8% since 1970 

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 

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 

Hyde $23,568 24.8 7.2 5,826 -37% since 1900 

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 

Perquimens $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 

3

 Virginia Employment Commission, December, 2004 

Virginia Beach 

Virginia Beach is a primarily suburban community with a total estimated population of 425,257 in 

2000 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). The city gained 8.2% of its 

population between 1990 and 2000. 
56 

The population is 71.4 percent white, 19.0 percent black, 4.9 percent Asian, 4.2 percent Hispanic, 

and 0.4 percent Native American (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). In 

2000, the median family income was $48,705, slightly above below the state average of $46,677. 

The poverty rate was 6.5 percent of the population, well below the state average of 9.6 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000c). The average unemployment rate in 2004 

was 3.6 percent, slightly below the Commonwealth of Virginia’s unemployment rate of 3.7 percent 

(Virginia Employment Commission 2004) (Table 15). 

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years old is 90.4 percent; the 

percentage of college graduates is 28.1 percent. The commonwealth averages are 81.5 percent for high 

school and 29.5 percent for college (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000a). The 

home ownership rate in Virginia Beach is 65.6 percent, below the state average rate of 68.1. There are 

2.70 persons per household in Virginia Beach, slightly above the commonwealth average of 2.54. 

EMPLOYMENT IN THE AREA 

Currituck County 

Real estate sales, renting, and leasing is the largest employer in Currituck County, employing more 

than 500 of the county’s 1,600 employees with an annual payroll of $25 million in 2000 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000b). This is due in large part to the Resort 

Quest of the Outer Banks (the largest single employer) that employs over 500 employees (North 

Carolina Economic Security Commission 2002). 

The sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: real 

estate, retail trade, lodging and food service, health care, administrative and support services, and 

recreation (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1997). 

Dare County 

The hotel and food service and retail trade industries are the largest employer in Dare County, 

employing 3,028 and 3,022 of 12,543 employees with an annual payroll of $281.6 million in 2000 

(U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000b). This is due in large part to the tourist 

industry on the Outer Banks (North Carolina Economic Security Commission 2002). 

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

hotel and food service, retail trade, construction, real estate, wholesale trade, professional services, 

administrative support, and health care, manufacturing, and finance (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2000b). 

Virginia Beach 

The retail trade is the largest employer in Virginia Beach, employing 21,887 of 90,920 employees with an 

annual payroll of $1.5 billion in 2000 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000b). 

In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: 

retail trade, hotel and restaurant industry, administrative support, professional services, health care 

and social assistance, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and real estate, recreation, and agriculture 

(U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000b). 
57

FORESTRY IN THE AREA 

Currituck County 

Timber has always been a source of wealth for Currituck County. However, settlers cleared much of 

the timber in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops. 

Today, Currituck County is approximately 39 percent forested, with 64,343 acres of forestland. In 

contrast, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Thirty-three percent of the county’s forest is in 

oak–gum–cypress, 33 percent is in pine, 18 percent is in oak–pine, and 16 percent is in oak–hickory 

(USDA Forest Service 1991). 

In 1990, private landowners owned 74 percent of the county’s forested land. The state government 

owned 17 percent, the forest industry owned 8 percent, and federal, county, and local governments 

owned 2 percent (USDA Forest Service 1991). 

Despite the diminished wooded acreage, timber is still a large source of income for Currituck County. 

 In 1990, the value of the timber sold was $2.7 million. The payroll from forest products was 

$596,000 of the $1 million from all manufactured products (USDA Forest Service 1991). 

Dare County 

Timber was a source of wealth for Dare County before the Civil War. However, much of the 

forestland is now managed primarily for wildlife habitat, and timber is a secondary product of the land. 

Today, Dare County is approximately 57 percent forested, with 142,212 acres of timberland. In 

contrast, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Forty-nine percent of the county’s forest is in 

loblolly pine and 45 percent is oak–gum–cypress (USDA Forest Service 1991). 

Virginia Beach 

In the past, timber was a source of wealth for Virginia Beach. However, settlers cleared much of the 

timber in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops, and more recently to develop 

residential and commercial projects. 

Today, Virginia Beach is approximately 25 percent forested, with 40,727 acres of forestland. In 

contrast, 63 percent of Virginia is forested. Thirty-one percent of the city’s forest is in pine, 30 

percent is in oak–gum–cypress, and 24 percent is in oak–hickory (USDA Forest Service 1992). 

In 1990, private landowners owned 72 percent of the county’s forested land. The forest industry 

owned 19 percent, the federal government owned 5 percent, the state government owned 2 percent, 

and county and local governments owned 2 percent (USDA Forest Service 1992). 
58 

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE AREA 

Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Currituck County 

has always had an abundance of fish and game, due to its diversity of lands and waters. As early as 

1918, sportsmen's clubs were created in the area for the purpose of protecting game and wildlife. 

Later, as part of a comprehensive wildlife management program, Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

was created to preserve and restore habitat for native wildlife and migratory birds (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1980). In addition to the refuge, two North Carolina state game lands and one 

Virginia wildlife management area are located in the area. 

Recreation in the area is also based on the water in the North Landing River, Back Bay, Knotts Island 

Bay, and the Currituck Sound. Boat ramps provide access to the river and sound. A few outfitters 

provide boats and guided tours. The North Carolina Coastal Plain Paddle Trails Guide lists a 10-mile 

trail along the Moyock Creek and Northwest River through the Northwest River Marsh Game Land in 

Currituck County (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 2001). The State of North 

Carolina owns the 2,958-acre Northwest River Marsh Game Land in Currituck County and the 

14,657-acre North River Game Land in Camden and Currituck counties for wildlife management and 

hunting opportunities. The Commonwealth of Virginia owns the 1,546-acre Princess Anne Wildlife 

Management Area, 4,321-acre False Cape State Park, 2,000-acre First Landing State Park, 3,441 

North Landing River Natural Area Preserve, and the 2,417-acre Northwest River Natural Area 

Preserve. The City of Virginia Beach owns 3,200 acres of land in parks. 

Local events that revolve around natural resources include the Knotts Island Wildlife Festival, whale 

watching and dolphin watching boat trips in Virginia Beach, the Wildlife Arts Show and Waterfowl 

International Art Show in Virginia Beach, and fishing tournaments in Virginia Beach. 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS 

Fish and wildlife are not only the focus of refuge management, but they are also important to the local 

economy. First, a commercial fishery is present in the Currituck Sound. Blue crab and flounder 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 from outside the area. 

Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the preservation of fish and wildlife resources, combined 

with wetland clearing and draining, has led to the loss of valuable fishery spawning grounds and the 

loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In the attempt to restore and protect some of these 

resources, Currituck National Wildlife Refuge serves an important role, not only by providing habitat 

for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, but also as a place where people can go to enjoy these 

resources, either through observation, photography, hunting, or fishing. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service surveyed participants in wildlife-dependent recreation in North Carolina in 

2001. The survey documented an average expenditure of $69 per day by anglers, $74 per day for 

hunters, and $199 per day for wildlife observers and photographers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 

The Partnership for the Sounds had a study done of the economic impact of its facilities. The study 

demonstrated that the average visitor spent $108 per visit, with a range of $63.70 to $332.55 per day 

(Vogelsang 2001). A similar study of visitors at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia also 

showed a range of expenditures from $62 to $101 per day (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997). 
59

A study commissioned by the state of New Jersey demonstrated that the average visitor to the 

shorebird migration spent $130 per day (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2000). 

Birdwatchers on eight national wildlife refuges in New Jersey reported a range of expenditures from 

$25 to $41 per day (Kerlinger 1994). 

Ecotourists on Dauphin Island, Alabama, spent an average of $60 per visitor per day (Kerlinger 1999). 

Bird watchers from the local area in High Island, Texas, reported an average expenditure of $46 per 

day, and nonresidents reported $693 per trip (Eubanks et al. 1993). The average visitor to the Great 

Texas Coastal Birding Trail spent $78 per day (Eubanks and Stoll 1999). 

Studies at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas demonstrated a range of 

expenditures from $88 to $145 per day on nature-based tourist activities. The Laguna Atascosa 

National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas reported a range of $83 to $117 per day (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 1997). 

Bird watchers to the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge in California spent an average of $57 per 

day (National Audubon Society 1998). 

When improved access, facilities and staffing are added, Currituck National Wildlife Refuge can serve as 

an important commodity in the economic life of the community. Ecotourism, hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental interpretation are increasingly being seen as a 

desirable industry. As the population increases and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife decreases, 

the refuge may become even more important to the local community. It can benefit the community 

directly by providing wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the local population, and indirectly 

by attracting tourists from outside the county to generate additional dollars to the local economy. 

TOURISM IN THE AREA 

The area’s tourism is based on its natural resources and cultural attractions. Boat ramps provide 

access to the rivers, bays, and sounds for fishing, hunting, and boating. Numerous outfitters provide 

boats and guided tours. The oceanfront attracts swimmers, surfers, sunbathers, and anglers. 

More developed tourist attractions based on natural resources include Mackay Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, National Estuarine Research Reserve, and feral horses on the Outer Banks of 

Currituck County. Others in Virginia Beach include Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the First 

Landing and False Cape state parks, Munden Point City Park, Chesapeake Bay Center, and the 

Virginia Marine Science Museum. Local events that revolve around natural resources include those 

outlined in the Outdoor Recreation section. 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge could serve as an additional attraction to tourists visiting the area. 

If better trails and more facilities were provided within the refuge, tourists might be enticed to stay 

longer in the area to enjoy the opportunities provided for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education. This could generate more income for the local economy. 
60 

TRANSPORTATION 

In its early days, residents of the area relied on water transportation. The sounds, rivers, and 

streams that crisscross the counties served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication 

between almost every community in the area. The Currituck Sound, Back Bay, and North Landing 

River were once the major transportation avenues in the area. As the area grew and the railroad 

arrived, commercial river and boat traffic declined. The waterways are still important as sources of 

income and for recreation. Ferries still provide access across the sounds. 

In the twentieth century with the popularity of automobiles, the state developed a network of highways 

connecting the county to all areas of the eastern United States. State Route 168 and U.S. Highway 

158 connect the Outer Banks to Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Chesapeake, Virginia, through the 

mainland part of Currituck County. Interstate 64 connects the county with the northeastern United 

States. A number of smaller roads connect the various communities in the area. There is an 

international airport in Norfolk/Virginia Beach. 

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Currituck and Dare counties are 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 20 small galleries. There is a summer-long production of “The Lost 

Colony” at the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, commemorating the first English settlers on 

Roanoke Island. Greenville, North Carolina, and East Carolina University, which are located 100 

miles west of the Outer Banks, 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 the performing arts, with national touring collections and companies. 

Virginia Beach is in a major metropolitan area that supports a wide range of cultural facilities and 

events. The Virginia Beach Pavilion is a 63,000-square-foot convention center that hosts dozens of 

events annually from craft shows to musical and theatrical performances. The Little Theater of 

Virginia Beach hosts plays throughout the year. The 20,000-seat Virginia Beach Amphitheater is the 

site of live musical performances. The Contemporary Art Center of Virginia features changing 

exhibitions by national and international artists, as well as shows in the performing arts. It attracts 

400,000 visitors annually. The Atlantic Wildfowl Museum celebrates the art of decoy making that was 

instrumental in the lives of many of the first settlers to the area. 

The Scope in Norfolk is a 12,600-seat arena that hosts live music performances as well as sports 

events. The 2,400-seat Chrysler Hall is the site of theatrical performances. The historic Wells 

Theater is the 600-seat home to the Virginia Stage Company. The 675-seat Attucks Theater is the 

site of African-American stage performances. The 1632-seat Harrison Opera House is home to the 

Virginia Opera. The Chrysler Museum of Art is a venue for 30,000 pieces of paintings, sculptures, 

and decorative arts from the world over. The 12,067-seat Harbor Park is home to the Norfolk Tides 

baseball team. 
61

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT 

The Service acquired 1,770 acres in 1985 by fee simple purchase and 166 acres by conservation 

easement. Since 1985, the refuge has acquired 2,800 additional acres of fee simple purchase for a 

total of 4,570 acres. It has added 3,931 acres of conservation easements (Table 1). The refuge’s 

approved acquisition boundary totals 18,015 acres (Figure 6). 

The refuge staff manages the brackish marsh with prescribed fire on a three-year frequency. They 

manage the water levels with water control structures, and vegetative succession in the moist soil unit 

with prescribed fire and mechanical disturbance. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Hunting 

Visitors hunt waterfowl on the refuge from nine blinds on the shoreline of Currituck Sound. The 

refuge staff coordinates the hunts with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The 

Commission advertises the hunts in its annual proclamation. Community volunteers help to prepare 

and administer the hunts and provide essential support to the refuge staff. The refuge currently 

supports 480 annual hunter use-days for waterfowl hunting. 

Environmental Education 

The refuge does not have a developed environmental education program. The staff has taken 

groups out on the refuge to teach them about the marsh and dune ecosystems and the wildlife that 

inhabit the marsh. About 100 students currently use the refuge annually. 

Interpretation 

There are no dedicated facilities for interpretation on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. A small 

display references the refuge at the Joseph P. Knapp visitor contact station at Mackay Island National 

Wildlife Refuge. The Mackay Island staff occasionally leads groups to the Currituck Refuge for onsite interpretation. Currently, less than 100 visitors annually use the refuge for interpretation. 

Wildlife Observation 

The refuge has no improved facilities for wildlife observation. Visitors may observe wildlife almost 

anywhere on the refuge property during daylight hours. The various habitats found on the refuge provide 

for a diverse assemblage of birds and mammals. Sweeping marshlands and open coastal habitats 

provide uninterrupted viewing opportunities for wildlife. An estimated 25,000 visitors annually use the 

refuge for wildlife observation. Many of the visitors express an interest in the feral horses. 

Wildlife Photography 

No photography blinds are located on the refuge. Visitors may photograph wildlife almost anywhere 

on the refuge property during daylight hours. An estimated 250 visitors annually pursue wildlife 

photography on the refuge. Many other visitors participate in nature photography while on the refuge. 
62 

Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 
63

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Personnel 

The refuge’s current staff is headquartered at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge and manages 

both the Mackay Island and Currituck refuges. The staff includes seven positions (Table 16). 

Table 16. Staff of Mackay Island and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges - 2005 

Position Status Percent of Time on 

Currituck 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13 PFT 45 

Assistant Manager, GS-0485-09 PFT 35 

Park Ranger, GS-0026-09 PFT 75 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-05 PFT 15 

Maintenance Mechanic, WG-4749-10 PFT 15 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-08 PFT 40 

Forestry Technician, GS-0462-05 (Fire) PFT 40 

PFT = permanent full time; TFT = temporary full time; Fire = funded by fire budget 

Operations 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is administered from an office located on Knotts Island along the 

North Landing River. The refuge staff administers 4,570 acres of fee title land and 3,931 acres of 

land with conservation easements on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in Currituck County, North 

Carolina, and 8,047 acres of fee title land on Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge on Knotts 

Island, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. The marshes on the western edge of the 

Currituck Refuge lie six miles east of the Mackay Island Refuge headquarters across Currituck 

Sound. The western marshes are one-half mile east of the boat ramp on Knotts Island Bay; the 

upland portion of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge is two miles east of the boat ramp. It is a 

100-mile, two-hour drive by car on roads around the sound to Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Figure 1). 

Refuge Infrastructure 

Visitor Facilities. The refuge has waterfowl hunting blinds in the Currituck Sound (Figure 7). No other 

facilities are available to support public use on the refuge. 

Roads and Trails. There are no public roads or trails on the refuge. The public may park on the 

beach and walk to the refuge. Visitors can also access the refuge by boat from Currituck Sound. 

Utility Corridors and Distribution. Dominion Power Carolina has a right-of-way issued to provide 

power from the Corolla area through the refuge and private properties to the Virginia state line. This 

right-of-way provides the only source of power for the communities of North Swan Beach and Corova 

Beach. The buried power line transverses the Monkey Island, South Marsh, and Swan Island units of 

the refuge. Additionally, the primary telephone service is co-located along this corridor. 
64 

Figure 7. Current visitor facilities at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 
65

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

The Service formed a planning core team composed of representatives from its various divisions to 

prepare the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Initially, the 

team focused on identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to refuge management. The team met 

on several occasions from January 2001 to October 2002. In addition, a biological review team met 

on the refuges in the ecosystem four times between December 1999 and December 2000 to assess 

the habitats on the refuges and the needs of wildlife species in the ecosystem, and make 

recommendations on land management and acquisition needs. The core team also sought the 

contributions of experts from various fields. The members of the planning core team, the biological 

review team, and expert contributors are identified in Chapter V, Consultation and Coordination, of 

the Draft Environmental Assessment (Section B). 

Service and state wildlife agency personnel attended the initial planning meetings. At these initial 

meetings, they discussed strategies for developing the refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan; 

identified the refuge staff’s issues and concerns; and compiled a mailing list of likely interested 

government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and individual citizens. 

The Service invited agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in four public scoping 

meetings on June 19, 21, 26, and 28, 2001, in Currituck, North Carolina; Corolla, North Carolina; Virginia 

Beach, Virginia; and Knotts Island, North Carolina, respectively. A total of 61 citizens attended these 

public meetings. At each meeting, the audiences were introduced to the refuge and its planning process, 

and asked to identify their issues and concerns. Prior to the meetings, the Service published 

announcements giving the locations, dates, and times for the public meetings in the Federal Register and 

legal notices in local newspapers. The Service also sent press releases to local newspapers and public 

service announcements to television and radio stations. Fifty posters announcing the meetings were 

placed in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The planning team expanded the issues and concerns to include those generated by other 

government agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. These 

issues and concerns formed the basis for the development and comparison of objectives in the 

different alternatives described in the Draft Environmental Assessment (Section B). 

After the team developed the alternatives, the refuge manager and the planning staff met with the 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in October 2002. 

The objectives were subjects of discussion at a second round of public meetings on November 18, 

19, 20, and 21, 2002, in Corolla, Currituck, and Knotts Island, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, 

Virginia. Again, the Service published legal notices and press releases giving the locations, dates, 

and times for the public meetings, and sent public service announcements to television and radio 

stations. Seventy-five posters announcing the meetings were also placed in local post offices, local 

government buildings, and stores. Thirty citizens attended these four meetings. 
66 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This comprehensive conservation plan will be reviewed annually to determine the need for revision. 

A revision would occur if and when substantial information becomes available, such as a change in 

ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. The final plan would be augmented by detailed 

step-down management plans and annual plans to address the completion of specific strategies in 

support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. Substantial revisions to the comprehensive 

conservation plan and the step-down management plans would be subject to public review and 

comment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land 

that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

inhabitation, and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type 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 Currituck National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the 

criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No lands in the refuge were found 

to meet these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not 

further analyzed in this plan. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

A number of issues and concerns were generated from the input of local citizens and public agencies, 

the team members’ knowledge of the area, and the resource needs identified by the refuge staff and 

biological review team. The Fish and Wildlife Service assembled a planning team (see Table 37 in 

Chapter V, Consultation and Coordination, Section B) to evaluate the resource needs. The team 

then developed a list of goals, objectives and strategies to shape the management of the refuge for 

the next 15 years. 

These issues provided the basis for developing the refuge’s alternative management objectives and 

strategies. These issues played a role in determining the desired future conditions for the refuge and 

the staff considered them in the preparation of the long-term comprehensive conservation plan. The 

issues and concerns are described below. They are of local, regional, and national significance and 

reflect similar issues that were, in part, identified by the public at the public scoping meetings. 
67

GLOBAL WARMING AND SEA LEVEL RISE 

The majority of the refuge is at or near sea level. The marshes that flood with wind tides cover the 

majority of the refuge. Scientists predict that the sea level along the North Carolina coast will rise 

from two to three feet in the next 100 years due to global warming. That rise in water levels will 

change the types of vegetative cover on the refuge. The grass-dominated freshwater marshes that 

occupy the majority of the refuge will expand into areas currently covered by maritime forest and 

shrub. The lower-lying grass stands will become marshes. 

As the habitats change, the wildlife species that inhabit those habitats will also change. Nesting birds 

that currently utilize tall trees along the sound will lose their roost sites as trees die and fall. Species 

that live in marshes will move east into areas that are currently low-lying grasslands.

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

General 

The refuge staff currently performs some surveys to document the populations of certain species 

groups. The public and cooperating agencies have encouraged the refuge to continue performing 

those surveys for the most important wildlife resources as the staff takes on new responsibilities 

outlined in the plan. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important 

responsibility delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Six threatened or endangered 

animals and one plant are thought to use (or could use) Currituck National Wildlife Refuge: the piping 

plover, loggerhead sea turtle, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, West Indian manatee, 

leatherback sea turtle, and seabeach amaranth. 

Piping plovers have historically nested along the beaches and overwash areas behind the dunes on 

the refuge. Unrestricted vehicular traffic on the beach below the high tide elevation discourages the 

plovers from nesting on the beaches. The refuge could create suitable habitat behind the dunes by 

clearing and excavating areas to mimic overwash areas with shallow pools of water. The last citing of 

nesting piping plovers was in 1989, when three birds were found on a refuge beach in association 

with a threatened seabeach amaranth plant. The last citing of foraging piping plover was in 2001. 

Loggerhead turtles have nested along the beaches in the past. The last documented nest was a 

successful one in 1998. Unrestricted vehicular traffic and the tracks the vehicles leave greatly reduce 

the chances for the nests to be successful. There are limited opportunities to mitigate the effects of 

the traffic on turtles. 

Threatened bald eagles nest on Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge across the Currituck Sound 

from Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. They also nest in adjacent counties and travel the river 

corridor and shoreline of the sound. The refuge’s habitat protection and management activities 

provide suitable habitat for nesting eagles. 

Records of the occurrence of endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers in Currituck County are more 

than twenty years old. There is no suitable habitat on the refuge. 
68 

Endangered West Indian manatees are occasionally cited in Currituck County and areas further 

north, but Currituck County is outside the normal range of the manatee. 

The last record of leatherback sea turtles in the county was a stranding in 1981. 

The last citing of seabeach amaranth was in 1989, when a biologist found a single plant on the refuge 

beach in association with an endangered piping plover nesting. 

Waterfowl 

The scoping process identified the management of all refuge marshes, managed wetlands (moist 

soil units), and forests for waterfowl and expanding waterfowl hunting opportunities as issues. In 

order to meet the refuge’s waterfowl purpose, the refuge must maintain the marsh, forest, and 

managed wetlands (moist soil units) to meet waterfowl habitat needs and provide sufficient 

sanctuary areas to provide undisturbed resting and feeding areas for waterfowl. Additional waterfowl 

hunting opportunities can be provided as the refuge acquires additional land, but the core waterfowl 

sanctuary needs to remain intact to meet the undisturbed resting and feeding needs of waterfowl. 

The refuge’s waterfowl purpose guides all operation and management actions on the refuge. The 

refuge manages forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory 

and resident waterfowl. Staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies and 

organizations conducted a biological review of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in 1999 and 2000 

as part of the comprehensive conservation planning process. They identified objectives to meet the 

minimum water, food, sanctuary, and resting/loafing habitat requirements of waterfowl. 

Shorebirds 

The refuge does not own the beach below the high tide elevation, but it does have the potential to 

develop shorebird habitat in the moist soil units (managed wetlands) by water management, and 

areas behind the coastal dunes by clearing and excavating areas to mimic overwash areas. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds are a species group of special management concern. Providing habitat 

(i.e., forest and marshes) for these birds is one of the refuge’s major objectives. Strategic forest 

management compatible with the refuge’s waterfowl habitat objectives would contribute to the forest 

needs of neotropical migratory birds. The biological review identified objectives needed to meet the 

minimum feeding and nesting habitat requirements of neotropical migratory birds. The neotropical 

migratory birds are also a major focus of the refuge’s wildlife observation program, as many birders 

visit the refuge to observe nesting, feeding, and loafing birds. 
69

Colonial Nesting Birds 

There is a heron rookery on Monkey Island that is in danger of being lost to erosion. The rookery is 

recognized as an important resource by federal, state, and local conservationists. The refuge has 

proposed a project that would stabilize Monkey Island to protect the rookery from erosion. 

Feral Horses 

Feral horses of uncertain origin inhabit the refuge. Some residents and others believe that these 

horses have origins that date back to Spanish origins and indicate that these horses may have 

existed here for over 400 years. Other sources indicate that these horses were brought to the island 

to avoid mainland taxes and to provide summer grazing. Genetic work to determine the origin of the 

horses has been inconclusive. Currituck County passed an ordinance to protect the horses. The 

county has also developed a group that advises the county commissioners on matters relating to the 

maintenance of the wild horse herd. The Wild Horse Advisory Board is composed of two citizen 

representatives, the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, a Fish and Wildlife Service representative, the county 

manager, and a representative of the National Estuarine Research Reserve. The approved Currituck 

Banks Wild Horse Management Plan calls for the population numbers to be maintained within the 

plan’s guidance (currently below sixty individuals). As funding becomes available, the Service will 

monitor the impacts of the horses on refuge lands. The results of monitoring would allow better 

population management recommendations that could be incorporated into the Currituck Wild Horse 

Management Plan. 

HABITATS 

Brackish Marsh and Managed Wetlands 

Participants at the public scoping meetings expressed strong support for continued management of 

the marshes and managed wetlands (moist soil units) along the North Landing River, Back Bay, and 

Currituck Sound. They were well aware of the connection between that management and 

opportunities for hunting on adjacent lands (primarily for waterfowl). There is also public recognition 

of the role of the refuge’s small forest area in white-tailed deer and neotropical migratory bird 

populations, and the public uses associated with the deer and the birds. The public also values the 

support the forest provides for other aspects of the refuge’s public use program. 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is situated near several large marshes in the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain Physiographic Zone. Cooperative private–state–federal partnerships under the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, and the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 

recommend maintenance and stabilization of the marsh. With strategic management, the staff can 

provide quality marsh habitat with the proper prescribed burning and aquatic weed control. 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

There is widespread recognition by the Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and the general public that submerged aquatic vegetation is on the decline in the 

areas around Currituck Sound. This decline has resulted in corresponding declines in migrating duck 

populations and fish nursery productivity. There are several possible reasons for the decline, ranging 

from poor water quality to rising salinities due to storms. The agencies, organizations, and the public 

have encouraged the refuge to get involved and stay involved in the monitoring of submerged aquatic 

vegetation and water quality monitoring to assess one potential cause of its decline. 
70 

PUBLIC USE 

The refuge is located in Currituck County, North Carolina (2000 population 18,190) and adjacent to 

Virginia Beach, Virginia (2000 population 425,257) within 27 miles of the Virginia Beach business 

district. It is also the northern extent of North Carolina’s Outer Banks, a destination for tourists from 

the entire East Coast. There are several local initiatives to promote nature-based tourism in 

northeastern North Carolina. A few commercial enterprises have interests in guiding canoeing and 

angling adventures. The refuge is an important link to the other natural areas that together make 

these experiences possible. Carefully selected and managed staff, programs, and facilities will 

provide the wildlife-dependent environmental education, interpretation, and recreation opportunities 

the refuge visitors expect. The refuge will require additional staff support to achieve the its visitor 

service potential. 

Hunting 

Hunting and fishing are integral parts of rural North Carolina culture. It is not surprising that there is a 

considerable interest from the state agencies and local citizens in expanding hunting opportunities. 

The initial refuge strategy must be maintenance of the quality of hunting at existing levels. Any 

additional hunting opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are 

compatible with refuge purposes. The refuge requires additional law enforcement personnel to 

administer any additional hunts. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

There is no staff assigned to the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge and no education and 

interpretation staff at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. The public expressed a strong desire 

to have interpretative facilities and education programming at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, 

especially during the summer vacation season. There are opportunities to develop partnerships with 

the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in developing an environmental education center 

in Corolla; with the National Estuarine Research Reserve that already has an interpretative boardwalk 

on their property in Corolla; and with The Nature Conservancy that owns land adjacent to the refuge. 

Outreach 

The refuge staff is small and focuses its public outreach efforts on local fairs and festivals on Knotts 

Island and Open Roads Days at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. The public expressed 

concern that the public use opportunities that are available on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge are 

not well publicized. They encouraged the refuge to utilize every avenue available (newspapers, 

television, local cable television, newsletters, posters in local schools and businesses) to let the 

community know what opportunities are available. 

Roads and Trails, Exterior and Interior 

There are no established trails on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. Participants at the public 

scoping meetings expressed strong support for keeping the refuge unimproved. They were satisfied 

with the existing access and expressed concern about the negative impacts of providing additional 

access. They were specifically concerned about wildlife disturbance and habitat trampling. 
71

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Cultural Resources 

The clubhouse of the Monkey Island Hunt Club is in poor condition and sits on an eroding island in 

Currituck Sound. The house is beyond repair and the Regional Cultural Resources Specialist of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service has granted permission to dismantle the structure. There is local interest in 

commemorating the club’s and the clubhouse’s existence as one of the original reasons people 

settled Currituck County. The Service will commemorate the club and the clubhouse when it builds a 

visitor contact station at the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. 

Land Acquisition and Habitat Fragmentation 

When the Service established the refuge, its role in providing managed wetlands (moist soil units) 

and brackish marsh was providing additional habitat types for migratory waterfowl. Reevaluation has 

determined that those habitats are as important for marsh birds and neotropical migratory songbirds 

(in support of Partners in Flight) as they are for waterfowl habitat. The refuge’s current acquisition 

boundary reflects the importance of protecting and managing the most valuable brackish marsh. 

Those properties are important links in protecting areas along Currituck Sound. To maintain the 

potential to protect these lands, the Service must have the ability and authority to manage and protect 

(through acquisition of fee title interest or conservation easements) the substantial habitat within the 

current acquisition boundary. Acquisition of fee title interest in new lands would provide expanded 

public use opportunities if they are compatible; acquisition of conservation easements would not. 

Law Enforcement and Refuge Regulation 

The refuge has enforced the applicable laws and regulations through the use of one full-time law 

enforcement officer shared with Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge and one dual function officer, 

currently the refuge manager. The use of dual function officers to perform enforcement functions 

utilizes a great deal of the time they could devote to refuge administration and support of the 

biological, public use, and maintenance programs. This is particularly evident during the hunting 

season when the law enforcement workload is at its highest. They are limited in their enforcement 

authority on the refuge’s easement properties and must rely on state and county law enforcement 

officers to assist them. They are also limited in the amount of time they can devote to permit 

monitoring and enforcement of the conditions on the permits. 

Other Resource Protection 

There are other threats to refuge resources that require closer monitoring and management. Pest 

plants, such a phragmites, and animals, such as nutria, and wildlife disease are all concerns to which 

the refuge, with adequate personnel and funding, should be paying closer attention. 

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 

Funding and Staffing 

Funding has been insufficient to support refuge programs. Inadequate staff, facilities, and equipment 

have prevented the refuge from realizing its purpose and management objectives. Currently, the 

refuge is not meeting its wildlife habitat objectives beyond the moist soil unit. It conducts few wildlife 

inventories beyond waterfowl; has few public use facilities; has outdated habitat/wildlife management 

plans; and provides few nonhunting or nonfishing wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Other 
72 

priority public uses (such as environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and wildlife 

photography) are only addressed as they are requested. The assistant manager performs the 

functions of a wildlife biologist and park ranger (public use) as well his/her management duties. The 

park ranger for law enforcement must divide his time between two refuges and there is no road 

access to or on the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The active land acquisition program at the 

refuge requires more time than the manager at Mackay Island can afford. A staff person on the 

refuge could handle acquisition more efficiently without monopolizing the manager. The refuge 

needs additional staff to meet its objectives. The biological and public use programs are currently the 

greatest needs. 
73

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

This comprehensive conservation plan was derived from Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, of 

the Draft Environmental Assessment (Section B). Under this plan, the Service would protect, 

maintain, restore, and enhance refuge lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory nongame birds, 

and threatened and endangered species. The staff would initiate extensive wildlife and plant census 

and inventory activities to develop the baseline biological information needed to implement 

management programs on the refuge. 

The refuge would direct all management actions towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes: (1) 

preserving nesting and migratory habitat for neotropical migratory songbirds; (2) providing production 

habitat for marsh birds and shorebirds; and (3) helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. In addition, the Service would manage the refuge to 

contribute to other national, regional, and state goals for protecting and restoring populations of 

wildlife. 

The staff would actively manage habitat through marsh and moist soil area management designed to 

provide a historically diverse complex of habitats that meets the foraging, resting, and breeding 

requirements for a variety of species. 

Under this plan, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all willing seller inholdings within the 

present acquisition boundary. The primary purpose for this acquisition is to provide a coastal marsh 

and forest system of sufficient size and carrying capacity to reach regional objectives associated with 

waterfowl, marsh birds, shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, neotropical birds, anadromous fish, 

threatened and endangered species, and wetland landscapes. Lands acquired as part of the refuge 

would become available for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. 

During the 15-year life of this plan, the staff would develop and implement a habitat management 

plan designed to create diverse habitats. 

The Service would provide opportunities for high quality wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography) and environmental education and interpretation 

activities. The refuge would permit hiking use to support wildlife-dependent recreation to the extent 

that these opportunities do not significantly interfere or detract from the achievement of wildlife 

conservation. It would provide interpretive trails, boardwalks, and kiosks at specific sites to allow for 

fully accessible environmental education and interpretation programs (Figure 8). The Service would 

cooperate with the North Carolina Wildlife Commission in developing and conducting environmental 

education programs at their Outer Banks Environmental Education Center just south of the refuge. 

The staff would provide quality hunting programs, consistent with sound biological principles with 

sufficient focus on migratory bird needs for sanctuary, loafing, feeding, and courting requirements. 

The staff would develop and implement an environmental education plan, incorporating an 

aggressive and proactive promotion of both on- and off-site programs. 
74 

Figure 8. Proposed visitor facilities at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge under Alternative 2 
75

VISION 

The vision for the refuge is as follows: 

The Currituck National Wildlife Refuge will provide habitat for migratory birds and endangered 

species as an integral part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge will restore, enhance, 

and maintain the natural processes and diversity of the unique habitats of the mid-Atlantic barrier 

island ecosystem. The refuge will also provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation. The refuge will develop and maintain partnerships with other agencies and organizations 

to accomplish refuge goals and objectives. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

GOALS 

Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Populations: Preserve, protect, and maintain healthy and viable 

populations of migratory birds, wildlife, fish, and plants, including federal and state endangered 

species and trust species. 

Habitat: Restore, enhance, and maintain the natural processes and diversity of the beach, dune, 

interdunal, maritime forest, and marsh habitats to ensure optimum ecological productivity and protect 

the water quality of Currituck Sound. 

Public Use: Provide the public with safe, high quality wildlife-dependent recreational and educational 

opportunities that focus on the wildlife and habitats of the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

Resource Protection: Protect refuge resources by limiting adverse impacts of human activities and 

development. 

Administration: Acquire and manage adequate funding, human resources, facilities, equipment, and 

infrastructure to accomplish the other refuge goals. 

OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES 

The goals with their objectives, and strategies addressed below are the Service's responses to the 

issues, concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff, and the public. These 

goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service's commitment to achieve the mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System; the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; and the purpose and vision for 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. Depending upon the availability of funds and staff, the Service 

intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies during the next 15 years. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Fish 

Objective: Manage refuge resources to protect species of fish and other aquatic organisms in the 

refuge and adjacent waters.
76 

Discussion: This plan provides for surveys of fish and aquatic organisms, and interpretation of the 

results of those surveys. As funds from grants become available or partners express an interest in 

conducting research on the refuge, they would perform more intensive surveys.

There are fish and other aquatic organisms in the managed wetlands (moist soil units) and ditches on 

the refuge. These species provide the prey base for mammals and birds on the refuge, and are the 

basis for recreational fishing opportunities. There is no database documenting the diversity or 

population of the species on the refuge, or the effect of management on the species. 

Strategies:

Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge.

Feral Hogs 

Objective: Monitor and control feral hogs. 

Discussion: This plan provides for monitoring the effects of feral hogs, and developing and 

implementing a control plan. As funds from grants become available or partners express an interest 

in conducting research on the refuge, they would perform more intensive surveys. 

Feral hogs from local farms have escaped from the farms onto local private land and the refuge. The 

hogs damage habitat on the refuge and landscaping and pastures on private land by rooting up 

vegetation on the surface of the ground. 

Strategies:

Monitor the impacts of feral hogs on vegetation and habitat within five years of hiring a 

biologist. 

Evaluate and implement potential control methods within five years of hiring a biologist. 

Develop a hunt program to assist with feral hog control within two years of hiring a biologist. 

Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge.

Feral Horses 

Objective: Manage feral horses to minimize impacts to refuge resources. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the management of feral horses based on the Currituck Banks 

Wild Horse Management Plan and vegetative monitoring to document the effects of the horses. 

A population of feral horses occupies the Outer Banks in Currituck County, including the refuge. The 

horses are an important tourist attraction and have widespread support in the community. A 

Currituck Banks Wild Horse Management Plan has been developed in cooperation with the Currituck 

County Wild Horse Advisory Board and the Corolla Wild Horse Fund. The horse management plan 

currently provides for physical removal of horses when the population exceeds 60 animals. 
77

Strategies: 

Cooperate with the Currituck County Wild Horse Advisory Board and the Corolla Wild Horse 

Fund to implement the Currituck Wild Horse Management Plan. 

Ensure that the Currituck Wild Horse Management Plan does not allow the impacts of horses 

to exceed acceptable levels. 

Monitor the impacts of feral horses on vegetation and habitat within five years of hiring a biologist. 

Invertebrate Species 

Objective: Document diversity and populations of invertebrate species.

Discussion: This plan does not provide for surveys of invertebrate species, but does provide for 

documentation of their presence. As funds from grants become available or partners express an 

interest in conducting research on the refuge, they would perform more intensive surveys.

There are invertebrate species on the refuge that provide the prey base for mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians, fish, and birds on the refuge. There is no database documenting the diversity or 

population of the species on the refuge, or the effect of management on the species. This Alternative 

provides for documentation of invertebrates as the staff identifies them.

Strategies:

Document the presence of invertebrate species as they are identified.

Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge.

Land Birds 

Objective: Provide resting, nesting, and foraging habitat for about 190 species of land birds. 

Discussion: This plan provides for establishment of an inventory protocol and the development and 

implementation of an inventory plan for land birds. As funds from grants become available or partners

express an interest in conducting research on the refuge, they would perform more intensive surveys. 

There are 190 species of avian species on the refuge, some of which breed on the refuge and others that 

rest and feed on the refuge during migration. Many of the species are birds identified as high priority by 

Partners in Flight, a group of scientists from state and federal agencies, universities, and 

nongovernmental organizations who study and manage migratory bird populations. The birds are the 

basis for much of the refuge’s wildlife observation and photography. There is no database documenting 

the diversity or population of the species on the refuge, or the effect of management on the species. 

Strategies:

Note nesting activity of bald eagles. 

Assist with banding activities as directed. 
78 

Establish an inventory protocol for neotropical migratory songbirds within five years of hiring a 

biologist. 

Develop and implement an inventory plan for neotropical migratory songbirds and raptors 

within five years of hiring a biologist. 

Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge.

Mammals 

Objective: Document the diversity and populations of white-tailed deer. 

Discussion: This plan only provides for limited surveys of deer and documentation of the presence of 

other mammals. As funds from grants become available or partners express an interest in 

conducting research on the refuge, they would perform more intensive surveys. 

There are mammals on the refuge that provide the prey base for other mammals and birds of prey on 

the refuge. Some mammals are the basis for hunting and wildlife observation and photography. 

There is no database documenting the diversity or population of the species on the refuge, or the 

effect of habitat management on the species. 

Strategies:

Respond to reports of marine mammal strandings. 

Monitor, collect data from, and manage white-tailed deer populations. 

Conduct abomasal parasite count every six years. 

Document the presence of mammals as they are identified. 

Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge.

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Objective: Document presence of reptiles and amphibians and respond to reports of sea turtle nests 

and strandings.

Discussion: This plan provides for documentation of reptiles and amphibians from incidental 

sightings. It also provides for response to reports of sea turtle nests and strandings. As funds from 

grants become available or partners express an interest in conducting research on the refuge, they 

would perform more intensive surveys. 

There are reptiles and amphibians on the refuge that provide the prey base for other reptiles and amphibians, 

mammals, wading birds, birds of prey, and fish on the refuge. There is no database documenting the diversity 

or population of the species on the refuge, or the effect of management on the species. 
79

The refuge is within the nesting range of both threatened and endangered species of sea turtles. 

There has been little documentation of sea turtle nesting on the beaches between the refuge and the 

Atlantic Ocean. The public has unrestricted vehicular access to the beach for recreation and to their 

residences. There are subdivisions scattered among the refuge tracts. 

Strategies:

Document the presence of reptiles and amphibians as they are identified from incidental 

sightings. 

Respond to reports of sea turtle nests and strandings; collect data and tissue samples and 

send them to the state sea turtle coordinator.

Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge.

Shorebirds 

Objective: Document diversity and populations of shorebirds.

Discussion: This plan only provides for limited surveys of shorebirds. As funds from grants become 

available or partners express an interest in conducting research on the refuge, they would perform 

more intensive surveys.

Strategies: 

Conduct surveys seasonally. 

Submit data to the coordinated shorebird website. 

Assist the State of North Carolina with annual piping plover surveys. 

Conduct productivity surveys of shorebird nests within ten years of hiring a biologist. 

Assist with studies, investigations, and banding as requested. 

Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge.

Wading Birds 

Objective: Document diversity and populations of wading birds. 

Discussion: This plan provides for performing regular surveys of wading birds and monitoring of the 

rookery on Monkey Island. As funds from grants become available or partners express an interest in 

conducting research on the refuge, they would perform more intensive surveys.
80 

Strategies:

Conduct surveys in conjunction with shorebird surveys. 

Monitor rookery on Monkey Island in cooperation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission. 

Note the presence of other rookeries. 

Stabilize the shoreline of Monkey Island as funding allows. 

Assist with studies and investigations as requested. 

Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge.

Waterfowl 

Objective: Document diversity and populations of waterfowl. Monitor wood duck boxes and band 

wood ducks. 

Discussion: This plan provides for surveys of wintering waterfowl and existing wood duck boxes. It 

also provides for the banding of waterfowl and resident Canada geese. As funds from grants become 

available or partners express an interest in conducting research on the refuge, they would perform 

more intensive surveys.

Strategies:

Monitor wintering waterfowl populations by conducting up to 10 biweekly aerial surveys 

throughout the wintering waterfowl season. Coordinate monitoring with other refuges in the 

Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear ecosystem and submit data to the coordinated waterfowl 

website. 

Check up to 30 wood duck boxes for productivity annually. 

Conduct or assist with the banding of wintering waterfowl when requested. 

Assist with studies as requested. 

Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge.

Habitat 

All Habitats 

Objective: Manage habitats to improve conditions for target species using water management 

techniques and prescribed fire. 
81

Discussion: This plan provides for management of natural marshes and forests with fire and 

managed wetlands (moist soil units) by fluctuating water levels to achieve the desired effects. It also 

provides for the development and implementation of an overall habitat management plan. 

Strategies:

Implement water management and fire management plans. 

Develop annual water management plan. 

Review fire management plan annually. 

Revise fire management plan as needed.

Develop and implement an overall habitat management plan within ten years of hiring a 

biologist.

Dune and Beach 

Objective: Protect 202 acres of healthy, functional beach habitat, and 137 acres of maritime 

grasslands to maintain it as a natural community. 

Discussion: This plan provides for surveys of seabeach amaranth and areas with the potential to be 

piping plover habitat. It provides for no management of the habitat. 

Strategies: 

Allow natural processes to shape the beach profile. 

Conduct regular seabeach amaranth surveys within ten years of hiring a biologist. 

Maritime Shrub 

Objective: Protect 778 acres of healthy, functional maritime shrub habitat to maintain it as a natural 

community. 

Discussion: This plan provides only for protection of the habitat. 

Strategies: 

Manage wildfires on the refuge. 

Clear and maintain firebreaks. 

Investigate and consider the use of firebreaks. 

Maritime Forest 

Objective: Protect 637 acres of healthy, functional maritime forest habitat to maintain it as a natural 

community. 
82 

Discussion: This plan provides for only the protection of the habitat. There would be no inventories or 

management of the habitat. 

Strategy: 

Control wildfires on the refuge. 

Brackish Marsh/Wet Meadow 

Objective: Protect 2,202 acres of healthy, functional brackish marsh/wet meadow habitat to maintain 

it as a natural community. Protect adjacent areas by managing wildfires. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the protection of the habitat and management with fire. It also 

provides for assessment of the effects of prescribed fire and adaptation of the fire management plan 

to the results of the monitoring. 

Strategies:

Manage wildfires on the refuge. 

Conduct prescribed burning according to the fire management plan. 

Monitor the vegetation and assess the effects of fire on vegetation within five years of hiring a 

biologist. 

Adapt the fire management plans to the results of monitoring. 

Roads and Administrative Areas 

Objective: Maintain 5 acres of road for public, administrative, and fire access. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the maintenance of roads and administrative areas to Service 

standards. 

Strategies: 

Provide maintenance of roads to Service standards to assure passable condition for all-terrain 

vehicles. 

Maintain administrative areas in a functional, environmentally sound manner. 

Moist Soil Units (Managed Wetlands) 

Objective: Protect and manage 143 acres of impoundments to provide wintering habitat for migratory 

waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and land birds, and breeding habitat for marsh birds and land birds. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the management of the habitat with a modest monitoring frequency 

and modest mudflat goal in the spring. 
83

Strategies:

Manage units according to the water management plan using natural water sources and a 

well and pump. 

Manage the units to achieve a 60% cover of plants rated as good every year. 

Monitor moist soil vegetation every year. 

Manage the units to provide 20% of the acreage in mudflats during the peak of spring 

shorebird migration (May). 

Wood Duck Boxes

Objective: Maintain up to 60 wood duck boxes in the appropriate habitat annually. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the maintenance of 30 wood duck boxes currently erected on the 

refuge, and the construction and maintenance of 30 new wood duck boxes. It also provides for 

adaptive management in response to dump-nesting. 

Strategies: 

Check and repair up to 60 wood duck nest boxes annually. 

Document the nesting success of up to 60 wood duck nest boxes annually. 

Construct 30 new wood duck nest boxes. 

Erect new boxes as nest box use approaches 60%. 

Firebreaks 

Objective: Maintain 10 acres (3.0 miles) of firebreaks to facilitate wildfire suppression and provide 

early successional habitat for wildlife. 

Discussion: This plan provides for the maintenance of firebreaks to Service standards and the 

clearing of new firebreaks to facilitate wildfire suppression or prescribed burning. 

Strategies:

Maintain firebreaks in an effective, environmentally sound manner. 

Clear new firebreaks in an effective environmentally sound manner. 
84 

Public Use 

Hunting 

Objective: Provide 480 annual high quality opportunities for hunting waterfowl and 300 opportunities 

for hunting deer and feral hogs. 

Discussion: The refuge has a waterfowl hunting program administered by the refuge staff. The refuge 

publishes the hunting regulations in a refuge hunting brochure. This plan adds the development and 

implementation of a plan for deer and feral hog hunting. 

Strategies: 

Maintain nine waterfowl hunting blinds.

Revise refuge hunting brochure annually.

Provide an opportunity for a one-day youth waterfowl hunt. 

Review and revise the waterfowl hunt plan as necessary. 

Develop a hunt plan for deer and feral hogs. 

Environmental Education 

Objective: Provide environmental education opportunities for up to 200 people annually. 

Discussion: This plan provides for additional environmental education opportunities by request and 

more planned opportunities. It provides for the coordination, planning, and equipment to carry out 

those opportunities. 

Strategies: 

Provide up to four environmental education programs by request annually. 

Provide two planned environmental education program annually. 

Coordinate activities with the Outer Banks Environmental Education Center. 

Utilize partners and volunteers to conduct education opportunities. 

Utilize the Sound to Sea Trail in programs. 

Develop programs in cooperation with the Currituck County Board of Education, North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of Parks, Audubon Society, 

The Nature Conservancy, The North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve, and the 

Whalehead Trust. 
85

Interpretation 

Objective: Provide interpretation opportunities for 2,000 visitors annually. 

Discussion: This plan provides for a modest interpretation program. The staff would cooperate with 

the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in the development of the Outer Banks Wildlife 

Education Center. The staff would maintain a refuge brochure, bird list, and web site. This plan adds 

the development and maintenance of an information kiosk and the leadership of two tours. 

Strategies: 

Develop and maintain one information kiosk and the exhibits in the kiosk. 

Develop exhibits for the Outer Banks Environmental Education Center. 

Develop a refuge brochure and revise it every five years. 

Develop a refuge bird list and revise it every five years. 

Maintain the refuge web site. 

Cooperate with The Nature Conservancy and the North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve 

to develop a Sound to Sea Trail. 

Develop and maintain a State Marker Trail in cooperation with False Cape State Park within 

ten years. 

Conduct two tours of the refuge. 

Wildlife Observation 

Objective: Provide wildlife observation opportunities for 35,000 people annually. 

Discussion: This plan provides for a modest wildlife observation program. The staff would develop 

and maintain three trails to facilitate observation. The staff would also develop and maintain a refuge 

bird list. 

Strategies: 

Develop a refuge bird list and revise it every five years. 

Cooperate with The Nature Conservancy and the North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve 

to develop a Sound to Sea Trail. 

Establish a Kuralt Trail site in cooperation with the Sound to Sea Trail. 

Develop and maintain a State Marker Trail in cooperation with False Cape State Park within 

ten years. 
86 

Wildlife Photography 

Objective: Provide wildlife photography opportunities for 350 people annually. 

Discussion: This plan provides for a modest wildlife photography program. The staff would develop 

and maintain two trails to facilitate photography. The staff would also develop and maintain a refuge 

bird list. 

Strategies: 

Develop a refuge bird list and revise it every five years. 

Cooperate with The Nature Conservancy and the North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve 

to develop a Sound to Sea Trail. 

Establish a Kuralt Trail site in cooperation with the Sound to Sea Trail. 

Develop and maintain a State Marker Trail in cooperation with False Cape State Park within 

ten years. 

Access 

Objective: Maintain as much public access to the refuge as staffing allows and wildlife tolerates. 

Discussion: This plan would provide limited daylight access to the refuge due to the sensitive nature 

of the ecosystem. Pedestrians and bicyclists have access to the entire refuge; vehicles must park on 

the beach or in designated parking areas. 

Strategies: 

Open the refuge during daylight hours. 

Allow access to pedestrians and bicyclists west of the refuge boundary along the frontal dune. 

Allow access by vehicles in the parking lot at the State Marker Trail on the North CarolinaVirginia state line behind the frontal dune line. 

Provide emergency vehicles access to refuge roads for emergency response situations. 

Outreach 

Objective: Provide outreach designed for 250,000 people annually. 

Discussion: This plan only provides for a modest outreach effort. The refuge maintains a refuge 

website and refuge brochure. The staff appears at local fairs and festivals, develops news releases, 

makes presentations to local groups, and has visibility on local access television stations. 
87

Strategies: 

Participate in the Whalehead Fourth of July Celebration, Wings over Water, Earth Day events, 

Career Days, Green Sea, and Fun Safety and Education Day. 

Maintain the refuge website and the refuge brochure as the refuge program changes. 

Develop three news releases annually. 

Make up to three presentations to local organizations annually on request. 

Publicize refuge events on local public access television stations after a public use specialist 

is hired. 

Refuge Support 

Objective: Work continuously and formally with groups that support the refuge to cultivate their 

support and inform the groups of the refuge’s needs and ways to meet the needs. 

Discussion: The refuge works with several groups in the area to promote the refuge and support the 

refuge’s activities. One group, the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society, is a traditional friends group that 

supports the refuge and assists the refuge in seeking grants, financial contributions, and volunteers. 

The others are groups that assist the refuge in the management of the refuge. 

This plan also provides for the development of a local chapter of the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society 

and a retail outlet in the visitor contact station. 

Strategies: 

Work with the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society, The Nature Conservancy, the Network for 

Endangered Sea Turtles, and Ducks Unlimited. 

Develop a Currituck Chapter of the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society within fifteen years of 

hiring a public use specialist. 

Establish a sales outlet in the visitor contact station within ten years of its construction. 

Special Events 

Objective: Host five events annually to celebrate national events and give the public an opportunity to 

see the refuge and meet the staff. 

Discussion: The refuge would host one special event to provide exposure for the refuge. 

Strategies: 

Host a Beach Cleanup in cooperation with the Corolla and Carova Volunteer Fire 

Departments within ten years of hiring a public use specialist. 
88 

Resource Protection 

Cultural Resources 

Objective: Avoid all impacts to cultural resources continuously. 

Discussion: Native Americans once had villages along the Atlantic Ocean, Currituck Sound, and Back 

Bay. There were also waterfowl hunting clubs along the Currituck Sound and Back Bay. The 

Monkey Island Hunt Club was on an island that is eroding rapidly and in a building that is beyond 

restoration. The refuge staff refers all proposed projects to the Regional Historic Preservation Officer 

for review and a determination for further action. The Regional Historic Preservation Officer consults 

with the state Historic Preservation Office and decides how to proceed in onsite investigations. The 

refuge staff patrols identified sites as part of its routine law enforcement efforts. 

This plan provides for a comprehensive inventory of cultural resources and interpretation of the 

history of the Monkey Island Hunt Club. 

Strategies: 

Evaluate all proposed projects and coordinate with the Regional Historic Preservation Officer 

before beginning a project. 

Protect identified cultural resource sites continuously. 

Conduct a comprehensive cultural resources inventory within ten years. 

Interpret the history of the Monkey Island Hunt Club in the visitor contact station.

Interagency Coordination and Cooperative Agreements 

Objective: Maintain a minimum level of coordination with local, state, and federal public agencies and 

private organizations. 

Discussion: The refuge staff coordinates with a wide variety of agencies and organizations to protect 

the resources on the refuge. The staff conducts much of the coordination through constant 

communication with local and state law enforcement officials who patrol the area around the refuge. 

They also conduct more deliberate coordination in meetings to establish rules and regulations and 

delegate responsibilities. This plan also provides for the development of a memorandum of 

understanding with the Currituck County Game Commission on waterfowl rest areas. 

Strategies: 

Communicate informally and formally in 30 meetings each year. 

Review and revise formal cooperative agreements as time allows. 

Coordinate with the North Carolina Forest Service and other refuges on wildfire suppression 

annually. 

Develop an agreement with state agencies for co-management of navigable waters. 
89

Develop a memorandum of understanding with the Currituck Game Commission for waterfowl 

rest areas within five years. 

Land Protection 

Objective: Continue to purchase land within the approved acquisition boundary. 

Discussion: The refuge currently owns 4,570 acres in fee title ownership and conservation easements 

on 3,931 acres. There are 9,515 acres of inholdings within the approved acquisition boundary. The 

refuge staff is aware of the owners of the tracts and maintains contact with the owners and 

organizations that may assist in securing the land. The staff would post the boundaries of land 

acquired and inventory the habitat on the land. 

Strategies: 

Maintain contact with landowners within the approved acquisition boundary. 

Cooperate with the Realty Division in the Regional Office to process the land of willing sellers. 

Post the boundaries of newly acquired land. 

Inventory the habitat on newly acquired land. 

Law Enforcement 

Objective: Enforce refuge regulations continuously. 

Discussion: The refuge staff enforces regulations with a full-time park ranger (law enforcement) and a 

dual function officer. The park ranger patrols Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge as well as 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The dual function officer patrols the two refuges as his other 

duties allow and as activity on the refuge dictates. The staff coordinates with cooperating local, state, 

and federal agencies to enforce regulations on the refuge. This plan provides for improvement of the 

posting and enforcing of the exclusion from the unexploded ordnance site, and the development of 

written agreements with law enforcement agencies. 

Strategies: 

Enforce refuge regulations as time permits. 

Improve the posting of and enforcement of exclusion of the public from the unexploded 

ordnance site on the Monkey Island Unit. 

Pursue the cleanup of unexploded ordnance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Provide assistance to and coordinate with appropriate local, state, and federal law 

enforcement agencies to facilitate compliance with local, state, and federal laws as time 

permits. 

Develop written agreements with and improve cooperation with law enforcement agencies 

within fifteen years. 
90 

Navigable Waters 

Objective: Consult with the State of North Carolina and the Currituck County Game Commission to 

establish a cooperative management agreement to regulate certain activities within selected waters. 

Discussion: This objective pursues the agreement more proactively than the status quo. There are 

properties that are being impacted by activities on waters that directly affect refuge lands. There are 

incompatible activities that occur on these waters that threaten refuge habitat and fish and wildlife 

populations. The State of North Carolina has limited resources to enforce existing regulations on 

those waters. Under this plan, the Service would actively pursue cooperative management of those 

waters. The refuge will also continue to work cooperatively with the Currituck County Game 

Commission to establish prudent rest areas and designated waterfowl hunting blind locations within 

areas of Currituck County. 

Strategy: 

Coordinate selection of waters with Fish and Wildlife Service coordinating refuge manager. 

Permits 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by evaluating and enforcing special use permits. 

Discussion: The refuge staff allows uses of the refuge by reviewing requests for special use permits 

and permitting some uses subject to conditions. Those uses must be compatible with the mission of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, the purpose of the refuge, and the other priority public uses on the 

refuge. The conditions may restrict the use by limiting the area or season of the activity, the number 

of individuals participating in the activity, and the access to the refuge for the activity. The conditions 

may also limit the activity to a degree of habitat or wildlife disturbance that must be monitored by the 

refuge staff. This plan provides for the development of standardized special use conditions, 

monitoring of compliance with permit conditions, and an assessment of the effects of the use. 

Strategies: 

Evaluate approximately eight use proposals per year on a case-by-case basis. 

Protect refuge resources by developing special conditions for those permitted uses that are 

compatible. 

Develop standardized special conditions where possible. 

Monitor permitted activities to ensure compliance and assess the effect of the use on the 

environment within fifteen years. 

Pest Animals 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources by monitoring, controlling, or eradicating pest animals 

according to a nuisance animal control plan. 
91

Discussion: The refuge staff only controls pest animals when the impacts of pest animals are 

obvious. Animals such as feral horses, feral hogs, and nutria may have an impact on habitat and 

other species, but the Service does not currently staff or fund the refuge to investigate that impact. 

The feral horses are managed according to a Wild Horse Management Plan. This plan provides for 

development of a nuisance animal control plan, and monitoring and control according to the plan. 

Strategies: 

Develop a nuisance animal control plan within five years of hiring a biologist. 

Monitor pest animals and the damage to refuge resources and note the locations so staff can 

seek pest animals. 

Control pest animals when they reach threshold levels identified in the plan. 

Coordinate feral horse issues with the Currituck Banks Wild Horse Advisory Board. 

Pest Plants 

Objective: Improve plant communities and limit impacts to refuge resources from pest plants. 

Discussion: The refuge staff currently monitors pest plants such as common reed (Phragmites

australis). Control of the pest plants currently depends on the availability of staff and funds when the 

pest plant can be controlled by effective means. This plan provides for development of a pest plant 

control plan, and monitoring and control according to the plan. 

Strategies: 

Develop a pest plant control plan within five years of hiring a biologist. 

Observe damage to refuge resources and note the locations so staff can monitor according to 

the plan. 

Control pest plants when they reach threshold levels identified in the plan. 

Significant Natural Heritage Areas 

Objective: Limit impacts to the area to retain the natural character of the area. 

Discussion: Much of the refuge is a registered state natural heritage area in North Carolina. The 

refuge manages the area to retain the natural character of the area to fulfill the purpose of the refuge, 

as well as meet the goals of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. The refuge’s fire 

management plan currently prescribes burning the brackish marsh and maritime shrub communities 

to maintain plant diversity. This plan would implement the same strategies as Alternative 1, but 

provides for the hiring of a prescribed fire specialist to coordinate the implementation. 

Strategies: 

Implement the prescribed burning program to mimic the natural fire cycle. 

Monitor the effects of prescribed burning on the area. 
92 

Review and update a fire management plan to adapt the plan based on the results of 

prescribed burning on the refuge. 

Investigate the registration of areas with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as land 

is acquired and sites are identified. 

Water Quality 

Objective: Monitor water quality to assist the refuge staff in minimizing the impacts to natural 

resources on and off the refuge. 

Discussion: The refuge staff does not currently monitor water quality. This plan provides for 

monitoring on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

Monitor water quality in impoundments, canals, and the Currituck Sound quarterly after a 

biologist is hired. 

Cooperate with other agencies and organizations performing water quality sampling on the 

refuge. 

Wilderness Areas 

Objective: There are no candidate or designated wilderness areas on the refuge. 

Discussion: There are no areas on the refuge of over 5,000 acres or without roads dissecting the 

areas. Mechanized travel through the marshes is required to provide fire protection and track down 

fire lines for prescribed fire. 

Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention 

Objective: Limit impacts to refuge resources from wildlife disease. 

Discussion: The refuge staff casually observes wildlife on the refuge for signs of disease and would 

cooperate with any organized efforts to monitor and control disease. 

Strategies: 

Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies as necessary to monitor and control wildlife 

disease. 

Refuge Administration 

Capital Property 

Objective: Use increased levels of funding and staff to acquire, operate, maintain, and dispose of 

capitalized and noncapitalized property. 
93

Discussion: The refuge staff would perform the minimum level of property management required by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual and acquire the minimum equipment necessary to support 

refuge programs. 

Strategies: 

Conduct one capital property inventory and one noncapitalized property inventory annually. 

Maintain administrative records on capital and noncapitalized property at Currituck National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Acquire the minimum equipment necessary to support refuge programs. 

Evaluate the operating condition of capital property. 

Maintain and upgrade capital and noncapital property to ensure safety of the staff and the 

general public. 

Financial Management 

Objective: Manage budget efficiently and provide accountability for funds. 

Discussion: Financial management affects every aspect of refuge operations. Funding refuge 

operations is dependent on effective budgeting and requests for funds under the Refuge Operation 

Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS). Proper administration of 

financial records is necessary to document proper expenditure of funds. 

Strategies: 

Prepare annual budget. 

Maintain the Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management 

System (MMS). 

Administer payroll, travel, purchasing, and contract documents. 

Field Office/Equipment Storage Facility 

Objective: Operate and maintain the field office, equipment storage facility, and storage barn to ensure 

efficiency of operation, the safety of the staff and the public, and an aesthetically pleasing appearance. 

Discussion: The refuge staff would perform the minimum level of property management required by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Manual and construct a field office, equipment storage facility, and storage barn. 

Strategies: 

Construct a field office/equipment storage facility. 

Construct storage barn. 
94 

Visitor Contact/Research Station 

Objective: Operate and maintain a visitor contact and research station to ensure efficiency of 

operation, the comfort and safety of the staff and the public, and an aesthetically pleasing 

appearance. 

Discussion: The refuge staff would perform the minimum level of property management required by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual and construct a visitor contact station to inform the public and a 

research station to house university researchers, graduate students, and college interns. 

Strategies: 

Construct a visitor contact and research station. 

Operate and maintain the visitor contact and research station in cooperation with the North 

Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve and The Nature Conservancy. 

Personnel 

Objective: Recruit, hire, and manage staff shared with the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge at 

adequate levels (16 employees and 15 full-time equivalent positions). 

Discussion: The refuge staff would perform the minimum level of personnel management required by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 

Strategies: 

Provide staff professional, technical, and leadership development training as allowable under 

current funding levels. 

Encourage staff to utilize up to one detail per year to broaden their experiences as workload 

allows and opportunities arise. 

Evaluate performance continuously; manage performance and conduct in accordance with 

Service policy. 

Recognize employee performance through the employee incentives program. 

Real Property 

Objective: Use increased levels of funding and staff to maintain buildings, grounds, roads, structures, 

and public use facilities in a clean and acceptable condition that protects the health and safety of the 

public and the refuge staff. 

Discussion: The refuge staff would perform the minimum level of real property management required 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual and acquire buildings and structures adequate to meet 

refuge program needs. 
95

Strategies: 

Conduct one real property inventory annually. 

Manage all real property according to Service policy. 

Acquire adequate buildings and structures to meet refuge program needs. 

Pursue resolution of boundary disputes. 

Volunteer Coordination 

Objective: Support the refuge’s biological and maintenance programs with 5,000 hours of service 

from local and college intern volunteers annually. 

Discussion: The refuge uses volunteers from the community and college interns to support its 

programs. The volunteers assist the staff in all phases of refuge operations, from routine 

maintenance to outreach to wildlife and habitat inventories. The staff would expand its recruiting of 

volunteer interns from colleges, and provide housing and a stipend with which to purchase meals. 

The refuge staff manages volunteers as required by the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

Strategies:

Recruit, train, and coordinate volunteers to donate 5,000 hours of service annually. 

Expand the college intern program. 

Designate a new staff member as part-time volunteer coordinator to support designated 

refuge programs. 
96 
97

V. Plan Implementation 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

To implement this proposed comprehensive conservation plan, the Service will utilize existing staff, 

facilities, and equipment and acquire additional staff, facilities, and equipment. Tables 17–21 below 

outline the strategies from Chapter IV and list the existing and new staff, facilities, and equipment 

required to implement the strategies. Appendix VIII contains details of the new staff, facilities, and 

equipment as Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) projects or Maintenance Management 

System (MMS) projects, and includes the priorities of those projects. The refuge staff will implement 

the strategies associated with specific projects as the Service funds those projects. 

Table 17. Projects supporting Wildlife Strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Utilize existing assistant manager and forestry 

technician. 

Recruit, hire, and train new wildlife biologist 

(RONS 97006) and biological technician 

(RONS 00013). 

Encourage universities, other agencies, and 

organizations to conduct surveys, monitoring, 

studies, and investigations. 

Utilize existing manager and assistant 

manager. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011) and wildlife biologist (RONS 

97006). 

Administer public hunts to manage deer and 

feral hog population. 

Utilize existing manager, assistant manager, 

and law enforcement officer. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011). 

Protect wildlife. Utilize existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Utilize existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011) and clerk 

(RONS 99004). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Utilize existing manager and assistant 

manager. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011) and wildlife biologist (RONS 

97006). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment to survey and protect 

wildlife. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 
98 

Table 18. Projects supporting Habitat Strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Conduct surveys, monitoring, studies, and 

investigations. 

Develop annual burn and water management 

plans. 

Utilize existing assistant manager and forestry 

technician. 

Recruit, hire, and train new wildlife biologist 

(RONS 97006) and biological technician 

(RONS 00013). 

Conduct prescribed burning. Utilize existing assistant manager, forestry 

technician, engineering equipment operators, 

and maintenance workers. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011), fire management specialist 

(RONS 00009), and maintenance worker 

(RONS 00019). 

Protect habitat. Utilize existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Manage refuge Operation Needs System 

(RONS), Maintenance Management System 

(MMS), Real Property Inventory (RPI), and 

Service Asset Maintenance management 

System (SAMMS). 

Utilize existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011) and clerk 

(RONS 99004). 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Utilize existing manager and assistant 

manager. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(00011) and wildlife biologist (RONS 97006). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment to manage habitat. Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Replace facilities to manage habitat. Replace water control structures, fences, and 

pumping stations (various MMS projects). 
99

Table 19. Projects supporting Public Use Strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Plan, design and conduct programs and 

outreach. 

Utilize existing assistant manager. 

Recruit, hire, and train new outdoor recreation 

planner (RONS 97013). 

Maintain education, interpretation, wildlife 

observation, and photography facilities. 

Utilize existing engineering equipment 

operator and maintenance worker. 

Recruit, hire, and train new maintenance 

worker (RONS 00019). 

Protect visitors. Utilize existing manager and law enforcement 

officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Utilize existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011) and clerk 

(RONS 99004) 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Utilize existing refuge manager and assistant 

manager. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment to maintain facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Replace facilities as necessary. Replace and rehabilitate trails, kiosks, facilities 

for observation and photography, field office, 

visitor contact station, and storage building 

(various MMS projects). 
100 

Table 20. Projects supporting Resource Protection Strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Maintain cooperation with agencies, 

organizations, and permit holders. 

Review permits and develop conditions for 

uses allowed by permits. 

Maintain contact with owners of property within 

acquisition boundary. 

Utilize existing refuge manager and assistant 

manager. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011). 

Protect cultural resources. Utilize existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and law enforcement officer. 

Recruit, hire, train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011). 

Protect areas from wildfire; implement 

prescribed fire plan to manage fuel. 

Utilize existing forestry technician. 

Recruit, hire, and train a fire management 

specialist (RONS 00009). 

Monitor pest animals and plants and permitted 

uses. 

Utilize existing assistant manager. 

Recruit, hire, and train new wildlife biologist 

(RONS 97006) and biological technician 

(RONS 00013). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Utilize existing engineering equipment 

operator and maintenance worker. 

Recruit, hire, and train new maintenance 

worker (RONS 00019). 

Enforce regulations. Utilize existing law enforcement officer. 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property. 

Utilize existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011) and clerk 

(RONS 99004) 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Utilize existing refuge manager and assistant 

manager. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment as necessary. Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Replace facilities as necessary. Replace and rehabilitate trails, kiosks, water 

control structures, pumps, storage building, 

and field office (various MMS projects). 
101

Table 21. Projects supporting Refuge Administration Strategies 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property; process payroll and travel vouchers; 

maintain RONS AND MMS. 

Utilize existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and office assistant. 

Recruit, hire, and train new assistant manager 

(RONS 00011) and clerk 

(RONS 99004). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Utilize existing engineering equipment 

operator and maintenance worker. 

Recruit, hire, and train, new maintenance 

worker (RONS 00019). 

Budget Projects 

 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment as necessary. Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Replace, rehabilitate, and construct facilities 

as necessary. 

Replace water control structures, pumping 

stations, kiosks, field office, and storage 

building (various MMS projects). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is administered from an office located on Knotts Island along the 

North Landing River. The refuge staff administers 4,570 acres of fee title land and 3,931 acres of 

land with conservation easements on the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in Currituck County, 

North Carolina and 8,047 acres of fee title land on the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge on 

Knotts Island, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. The marshes on the western edge of 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge are located six miles east of the Mackay Island Refuge 

headquarters across the Currituck Sound. The western marshes are one-half mile east of the boat 

ramp on Knotts Island Bay; the upland portion of the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge is two 

miles east of the boat ramp. It is 100 miles and a two-hour drive to the Mackay Island National 

Wildlife Refuge around the sound by roads (Figure 1). 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Currently the Service has no approved staff at the Currituck national Wildlife Refuge. The seven 

permanent positions at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge serve the Currituck National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

To complete the extensive wildlife habitat management and restoration projects and conduct the 

necessary inventorying, monitoring, and mapping activities, more staff is required. The proposed 

staffing plan (Table 22) would enable the refuge to achieve its plan objectives and strategies within a 

reasonable time. The annual cost (including salaries and benefits) would be $431,900. The rate at 

which this refuge realizes its full potential to contribute locally, regionally, and nationally to wildlife 

conservation and appropriate wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education is totally 

dependent upon receiving adequate staffing and funding. 
102 

Table 22. Proposed staffing plan for Mackay Island and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges 

Position Status Percent of Time on 

Currituck 

Administrative Staff 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13* PFT 45 

Assistant Manager, GS-0485-09* PFT 35 

Assistant Manager, GS-0485-09 (Currituck)** PFT 95 

Park Ranger (Enforcement), GS-0026-09* PFT 75 

Park Ranger (Enforcement), GS-0026-07** PFT 95 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-05* PFT 15 

Clerk, GS-0303-04** PFT 45 

Public Use Staff 

Park Ranger (Public Use), GS-0026-09** PFT 60 

Biological Staff 

Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-09** PFT 35 

Biological Technician, GS-07** PFT 90 

Biological Technician, GS-07** PFT 60 

Maintenance Staff 

Maintenance Mechanic, WG-4749-10* PFT 15 

Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-08** PFT 45 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-08* PFT 40 

Fire Management Staff 

Fire Management Specialist, GS-0401-09 (Fire)** PFT 40 

Forestry Technician, GS-0462-05 (Fire)* PFT 40 

* = Existing Staff, ** = Proposed New Staff 

PFT = permanent full time, TFT = temporary full time, Fire = funded by fire budget 

VOLUNTEERS 

The refuge currently has no sustained volunteer program. Because all the staff is headquartered at 

Mackay Island, there is no perennial Service presence to recruit, train, and manage volunteers. The 

volunteer program generated on the refuge 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 

would enhance opportunities to expand the volunteer program. 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this comprehensive conservation plan 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 establish partnerships with sporting clubs, 

elementary and secondary schools, and community organizations. At regional and state levels, the 

refuge will maintain its current partnerships with organizations such as the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina Division of Coastal 

Management, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and National Audubon Society. At the local 

level, the refuge will maintain its existing partnerships with the Corolla Volunteer Fire Company, Currituck 

County, the Outer Banks Wildlife Education Center (managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission), the Currituck County Wild Horse Advisory Board, and the Corolla Wild Horse Fund. The 

refuge will establish new partnerships as needs arise and opportunities present themselves 
103

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. 

Before some of the strategies and projects can be implemented, detailed step-down management 

plans will need to be prepared or updated. To assist in preparing and implementing the step-down 

plans, the refuge staff will develop partnerships with local agencies and organizations. These plans 

(Table 23) will be developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which 

requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and comment prior to their 

implementation. 

Habitat Management Plan (Develop), Draft Completion – 15 years after hiring a wildlife biologist: 

This plan will describe the overall desired future habitat conditions needed to fulfill the refuge’s 

purposes and objectives. The plan will include three sections dealing with moist soil/water 

management units, forest and marsh. The plan will provide detailed procedures, techniques, and 

timetables for achieving the desired future conditions. 

Moist Soil/Water Management Plan (Update), Draft Completion - 2006: 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. 

Forest Management Plan (Develop), Draft Completion – when funded: This plan will describe 

strategies for meeting refuge forest management objectives. It will include direction on reforestation, 

stand improvement, and harvest. Also, scrub/shrub habitat management will be addressed. 

Fire Management Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2005: This plan will describe wild and prescribed 

fire management techniques that will be employed on the refuge. Wildfire control descriptions will 

include initial attack strategies and cooperative agreements with other agencies. 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (Develop and Update), Draft Completion – 5 years after hiring a 

wildlife biologist: 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. 

Nuisance/Exotic Animal Control Plan (Update), Draft Completion – 5 years after hiring a wildlife 

biologist: 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 feral swine and horse control. 

Nuisance/Exotic Plant Control Plan (Develop), Draft Completion – 5 years after hiring a wildlife 

biologist: 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. 

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan (Develop), Draft Completion – 5 years after hiring a wildlife 

biologist: This plan will describe inventory and monitoring techniques and time frames. The plan will 

include the inventory of 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), and key resident species, and 

monitoring of population trends. 
104 

Visitor Services Plan (Develop), Draft Completion – 10 years after hiring a public use specialist: 

This plan will describe the refuge’s wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, and 

interpretation. Specific issues or items that will be addressed include facility requirements, site plans, 

and handicapped accessibility. The environmental education, fishing, hunting, and sign plans will be 

sections of this plan. 

Environmental Education Plan (Develop), Draft Completion – 10 years after hiring a public use 

specialist: This plan will reflect the objectives and strategies of the comprehensive conservation plan 

and address environmental education guidelines following Service standards. 

Fishing Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2007: This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) will 

address specific aspects of the refuge’s fishing program. It will define fishing areas, methods, 

handicapped accessibility, facilities needed, and refuge specific regulations. 

Hunting Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2006: This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) will 

address specific aspects of the refuge’s hunting program. It will define species to be hunted, season 

structures, hunt areas, methods, all-terrain vehicle use, universal accessibility, facilities needed, and 

refuge-specific hunting regulations. 

Trapping Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2009: This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) will 

address specific aspects of the refuge’s hunting program. It will define species to be trapped, season 

structures, hunt areas, methods, all-terrain vehicle use, facilities needed, and refuge-specific trapping 

regulations. 

Sign Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2008: This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) will 

describe the refuge’s strategy for informing visitors via signage. It will incorporate Service guidelines. 

Law Enforcement Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2005: This plan will provide a reference to 

station policies, procedures, priorities, and programs concerning law enforcement. 

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, the staff would adopt inventory, and monitoring protocols 

for the refuge. They would systematically evaluate the habitat management strategies to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. The refuge would use this information to refine approaches 

and determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations would include 

ecosystem team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate 

undesirable effects for target and non-target species and/or communities, the staff would make alterations to 

the management projects. Subsequently, the refuge would revise the comprehensive conservation plan. 

The staff would describe specific monitoring and evaluation activities in the step-down management plans. 
105

Table 23. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans 

Plan Completion Date 

Habitat Management 15 years after hiring a Wildlife Biologist 

 Marsh Management 2006 

 Moist Soil/Water Management 2006 

 Forest Management When funded 

 Fire Management Plan 2005 

Integrated Pest Management 5 years after hiring a Wildlife Biologist 

 Nuisance Animal Control 5 years after hiring a Wildlife Biologist 

 Exotic Plant Control 5 years after hiring a Wildlife Biologist 

Wildlife Inventory 5 years after hiring a Wildlife Biologist 

Visitor Services 10 years after hiring a Public Use Specialist 

 Environmental Education 10 years after hiring a Public Use Specialist 

 Fishing 2007 

 Hunting 2006 

 Trapping 2009 

 Sign 2008 

Law Enforcement 2005 
106 
107

SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

The environmental assessment for the plan presents and evaluates a range of reasonable 

management alternatives for Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The staff developed each alternative 

with the potential to be fully developed into a final comprehensive conservation plan. The 

environmental assessment also predicts and evaluates the biological, physical, and socioeconomic 

effects of implementing each alternative. From this range of alternatives, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service then identifies the proposed management action. 

In accordance with the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Service identified a 

number of issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency managers, and 

professionals. From these issues and concerns the Service’s planning team identified a range of 

three alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected 

Alternative 2 as the proposed management action. In the opinion of the Service and the planning 

team, Alternative 2 is the best approach to guide the refuge’s future management direction. 

There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management 

for the refuge, thus necessitating the need for this environmental assessment. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a 

comprehensive conservation plan in place within 15 years to help fulfill the mission of the System. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on this draft environmental assessment, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative 

to implement the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The 

Service will prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) if the selected alternative will not 

have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The Service will prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if the selected alternative will have a significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment. The refuge staff will base this determination on an evaluation of 

the purposes for which the Service established the refuge, the mission of the Service and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and other legal mandates. Assuming that no significant impacts are 

found, implementation of the plan will begin, and the staff will monitor the impacts of the plan on an 

annual basis and revise it when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is in northeastern North Carolina on a coastal barrier island known 

as the Outer Banks just west of the Atlantic Ocean, east of the Currituck Sound, south of Virginia 

Beach, Virginia, and north of Dare County, North Carolina. The city of Virginia Beach, Virginia, is the 

nearest major city and is immediately north of the refuge’s northern boundary. 
108 

The planning study area for this environmental assessment includes lands outside the existing refuge 

boundary that are being studied for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System and/or 

partnership planning efforts. The Service presently owns 4,570 acres and has conservation 

easements on 3,931 acres of the 18,015 acres identified as lying within the refuge’s approved 

acquisition boundary. The Service seeks to acquire, from willing sellers, the remaining acres. This 

plan and environmental assessment will identify management on existing refuge lands. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service developed this plan in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The refuge staff achieved compliance with this Act 

through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of an environmental assessment in this 

document, 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 

plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. 

The plan’s overriding consideration is 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.” 

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 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. 

PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The Service formed a planning core team composed of representatives from its various divisions to 

prepare the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Initially, the 

team focused on identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to refuge management. The team met 

on several occasions from January 2001 to October 2002. In addition, a biological review team met 

on the refuges in the ecosystem four times between December 1999 and December 2000 to assess 

the habitats on the refuges and the needs of wildlife species in the ecosystem, and make 

recommendations on land management and acquisition needs. The core team also sought the 
109

contributions of experts from various fields. The members of the planning core team, the biological 

review team, and expert contributors are identified in Chapter V, Consultation and Coordination, of 

this section. 

Service and state wildlife agency personnel attended the initial planning meetings. At these initial 

meetings, they discussed strategies for developing the refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan; 

identified the refuge staff’s issues and concerns; and compiled a mailing list of likely interested 

government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and individual citizens. 

The Service invited agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in four public 

scoping meetings on June 19, 21, 26, and 28, 2001, in Currituck, North Carolina; Corolla, North 

Carolina; Virginia Beach, Virginia; and Knotts Island, North Carolina, respectively. A total of 61 

citizens attended these public meetings. At each meeting, the audiences were introduced to the 

refuge and its planning process, and asked to identify their issues and concerns. Prior to the 

meetings, the Service published announcements giving the locations, dates, and times for the public 

meetings in the Federal Register and legal notices in local newspapers. The Service also sent press 

releases to local newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio stations. 

Fifty posters announcing the meetings were placed in local post offices, local government buildings, 

and stores. 

The planning team expanded the issues and concerns to include those generated by other 

government agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. These 

issues and concerns formed the basis for the development and comparison of objectives in the 

different alternatives described in the Draft Environmental Assessment (Section B). 

After the team developed the alternatives, the refuge manager and the planning staff met with the 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in October 2002. 

The objectives were subjects of discussion at a second round of public meetings held on November 

18, 19, 20, and 21, 2002, in Corolla, Currituck, and Knotts Island, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, 

Virginia. Again, the Service published legal notices and press releases giving the locations, dates, 

and times for the public meetings, and sent public service announcements to television and radio 

stations. Seventy-five posters announcing the meetings were also placed in local post offices, local 

government buildings, and stores. Thirty citizens attended these four meetings. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This comprehensive conservation plan will be reviewed annually to determine the need for revision. 

A revision would occur if and when substantial information becomes available, such as a change in 

ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. The final plan would be augmented by detailed 

step-down management plans and annual plans to address the completion of specific strategies in 

support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. Substantial revisions to the comprehensive 

conservation plan and the step-down management plans would be subject to public review and 

comment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

A wide range of issues and concerns were generated from the input of local citizens and public 

agencies, the team members’ knowledge of the area, and the resource needs identified by the refuge 

staff and biological review team. A complete summary of these issues and concerns is provided in 

Chapter III, Plan Development, of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A). 
110 
111

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, please refer to Chapter II, Refuge Overview, in the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A). 
112 
113

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and the goals identified in the comprehensive 

conservation plan; the priorities and goals of the Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear Ecosystem Team; 

the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and the mission on the Fish and Wildlife 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. A major consideration in the formulation of the alternatives is the ability to obtain sufficient 

proprietary interest in lands to facilitate a physical and biological connection of dunes, maritime 

grasslands, maritime shrublands, and marshes; and to restore the functions and values of wetlands. 

The refuge staff assessed the biological conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting 

the refuge. This information contributed to the development of goals and objectives and, in turn, 

helped to formulate the alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents different sets of objectives 

for reaching refuge goals. The staff evaluated each alternative based on how much progress it would 

make and how it would address the identified issues related to fish and wildlife populations, habitats, 

land protection and conservation, education and visitor services, and refuge administration. 

The staff designed all of the management alternatives for the area within the current approved acquisition 

boundary of 18,015 acres. Acquisition of a larger area beyond the existing boundary will require a 

revision of the comprehensive conservation plan to develop programs that consider the larger area. 

ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, goals and sets of objectives were developed by managers to 

achieve the refuge’s purpose and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Objectives are 

desired conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and for this planning effort, consolidated 

into three alternatives. These alternatives, overall, represent a range of different management 

treatments or approaches for managing the refuge over a 15-year time frame. The three alternatives 

are summarized below and in Tables 24 to 34. 

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION 

This alternative represents the status quo, i.e., no change from current management of the refuge. 

Under this alternative, the Service would protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 4,570 acres of refuge 

lands for resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory nongame birds, and threatened and endangered species. 

 The staff would develop and implement refuge management programs with little baseline biological 

information. The refuge would direct all management actions towards achieving the its primary purposes 

(preserving migratory habitat for waterfowl; providing production habitat for marsh birds and shorebirds; 

and helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), 

while contributing to other national, regional, and state goals to protect and restore neotropical breeding 

bird, colonial nesting bird, and anadromous fish populations. 
114 

The staff would respond to sea turtle and marine mammal strandings. The Service would cooperate 

with the Wild Horse Management Plan and note the activity of feral hogs. The staff would implement 

active habitat management through water management in the managed wetlands (moist soil units) to 

provide 50% good vegetation for waterfowl. It would conduct prescribed burning in marshes. 

The refuge would maintain the current level of wildlife-dependent recreation activities (hunting, 

fishing, and wildlife observation and photography, and interpretation and environmental education 

opportunities). It would make no improvements to improve access to the refuge. There would be no 

wildlife observation platforms and the interpretive kiosks. The Service would continue quality 

waterfowl hunting programs for 480 visitors consistent with sound biological principles. The staff 

would conduct environmental education, interpretative and outreach programs as the public 

requested them and staff is available. The refuge would attract 100 visitors for interpretation, 25,000 

for wildlife observation, and 250 for wildlife photography. The staff would not promote the programs. 

The Service would protect sites with identified cultural resources and evaluate proposed projects for 

cultural resources. Law enforcement officers would enforce refuge regulations. The staff would 

control pest animals and plants as they find them. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of suitable willing seller 

properties within the present approved acquisition boundary. The Service would make lands 

acquired as part of the refuge available for compatible public wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education opportunities. Purchases from willing sellers would be an option to expand 

conservation efforts in the acquisition area. Other important options include outreach and 

partnerships with adjacent landowners, hunt clubs, state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, 

and the Natural Resources Conservation Service through conservation easements, cooperative 

agreements, and federal programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program. These land 

conservation options would promote the linkage of protected marshes and contribute to overall 

natural resource conservation within the acquisition area. 

The refuge would not have any permanent buildings or assigned staff and would be managed by the 

staff of seven located at the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. The staff spends 2.65 full-time 

equivalent staff years on the refuge. Employees would receive training as funding permits. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

This is the Service’s preferred alternative. Under this alternative, the refuge would implement a 

program to develop a habitat management plan and inventory neotropical migratory songbirds and 

shorebirds, and increase the public use program to provide all six priority public uses (hunting, 

fishing, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography). This 

alternative would also add the staff, equipment, and facilities to support the programs. It would enable 

the Service to protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 4,570 acres of refuge lands for resident 

wildlife, waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, migratory nongame birds, and threatened and 

endangered species. The staff would initiate limited wildlife and plant censuses and inventory 

activities to obtain the biological information needed to implement management programs on the 

refuge. The refuge would direct all management actions towards achieving the refuge’s primary 

purposes (preserving migratory habitat for waterfowl; providing production habitat for marsh birds and 

shorebirds; and helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan), while contributing to other national, regional, and state goals to protect and 

restore habitat for neotropical breeding bird, colonial nesting bird, and anadromous fish populations. 
115

The staff would monitor waterfowl with aerial surveys. They would assist with abomasal parasite counts 

of deer, monitor the deer population, and document the presence of other mammals. They would also 

assist with piping plover surveys and conduct shorebird surveys every ten days. Biologists would 

respond to sea turtle and marine mammal strandings and document the presence of reptiles and 

amphibians from incidental sightings. The Service would cooperate with the Wild Horse Management 

Plan, monitor the impacts of feral horses, and exclude horses from selected habitats if necessary. The 

refuge would note the activity of feral hogs, monitor their impacts, and evaluate and implement control 

methods. The staff would improve active habitat management of the managed wetlands (moist soil units) 

to provide 60% good vegetation for waterfowl and 20% mudflats in the spring for shorebirds. It would 

conduct prescribed burning in marshes and monitor the vegetative response to the burning. 

The refuge would increase opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation activities (hunting, fishing, and 

wildlife observation and interpretation) and environmental education opportunities. It would provide 

wildlife observation platforms, interpretive kiosks, and trails. The Service would continue quality 

waterfowl hunting programs for 480 visitors and conduct hunts for deer and feral hogs consistent with 

sound biological principles. The staff would conduct environmental education programs for 200 visitors 

and plan interpretative and outreach programs on a regular basis that would be promoted extensively. 

Tours would be scheduled, a visitor contact station and kiosks would be built and maintained, and printed 

interpretative materials developed. The refuge would attract 2,000 visitors for interpretation, 35,000 for 

wildlife observation, and 350 for wildlife photography. The refuge would seek partnership opportunities 

with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission at its wildlife education center and the National 

Estuarine Research Reserve to provide programs available to the visiting public.

The Service would protect sites with identified cultural resources and evaluate proposed projects for 

cultural resources. Law enforcement officers would enforce refuge regulations and practice outreach to 

inform the public of regulations. The staff would develop plans to monitor and control pest animals and 

plants, monitor the pests, and control them when they exceed thresholds established in the plans. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of suitable willing seller properties 

within the present acquisition boundary (Figure 6). Lands acquired as part of the refuge would be made 

available for compatible public wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education opportunities. 

Purchases from willing sellers would be an option to expand conservation efforts in the acquisition area. 

Other important options include outreach and partnerships with adjacent landowners, hunt clubs, state 

agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service through 

conservation easements, cooperative agreements, and federal programs such as the Wetlands Reserve 

Program. These land conservation options would promote the linkage of protected marshes and 

contribute to overall natural resource conservation within the acquisition area.

The refuge would build a field office/equipment storage facility and a visitor contact station/research center. 

It would have a staff of four assigned to the refuge and share the staff and other resources with the Mackay 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. Employees would receive training according to Service policy. 
116 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

This alternative would develop and implement a program to manage the refuge’s habitat in support of 

migratory birds and other wildlife, and increase the public use program to provide all six priority public 

uses (hunting, fishing, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and wildlife 

photography) with more emphasis on education, interpretation, and wildlife observation. This 

alternative would also add the staff, equipment, and facilities to support the programs. Under this 

alternative, the Service would protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 4,570 acres of refuge lands for 

resident wildlife, waterfowl, migratory nongame birds, and threatened and endangered species. 

The staff would initiate extensive wildlife and plant censuses and inventory activities would be 

initiated to obtain the biological information needed to implement management programs on the 

refuge. This alternative would add surveys of invertebrates in moist soil units, waterfowl surveys from 

the ground, and reptile and amphibian inventories. The refuge would direct all management actions 

towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (preserving migratory habitat for waterfowl and 

shorebirds; migratory and breeding habitat for neotropical migratory songbirds; providing production 

habitat for marsh birds and shorebirds; and helping to meet the habitat conservation goals of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other national, regional, and state 

goals to protect and restore shorebird, neotropical breeding bird, colonial nesting bird, and 

anadromous fish populations. 

The staff would monitor waterfowl with aerial and ground surveys and conduct banding. They would 

assist with abomasal parasite counts of deer, monitor and manage the deer population, document the 

presence of mammals, and monitor foxes and raccoons. They would also assist with piping plover 

surveys, conduct shorebird surveys every ten days, and perform productivity surveys. Biologists 

would respond to sea turtle strandings and develop and implement a sea turtle management plan.

They would also respond to marine mammal strandings and document the presence of reptiles and 

amphibians from incidental sightings. The Service would cooperate with the Wild Horse Management 

Plan, monitor the impacts of feral horses, and exclude horses from selected habitats being impacted. 

 The refuge would note the activity of feral hogs, monitor their impacts, and evaluate and implement 

control methods. 

The staff would improve active habitat management of the managed wetlands (moist soil units) to 

provide 70% good vegetation for waterfowl and 20% mudflats in the spring and 10% mudflats in the 

fall for shorebirds. It would conduct prescribed burning in marshes and monitor the vegetative 

response to the burning. The staff would adapt prescribed burning plan to the results of the 

monitoring. They would also inventory vegetation in the maritime forest and develop a habitat 

management plan based on the inventory.

The refuge would increase opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation activities (hunting, fishing, 

and wildlife observation and interpretation) and environmental education opportunities. It would 

provide wildlife observation platforms, interpretive kiosks, and trails. The Service would continue 

quality waterfowl hunting programs for 480 visitors and conduct hunts for deer and feral hogs for 

visitors consistent with sound biological principles. The staff would plan and conduct environmental 

education programs for 800 visitors, and plan more interpretative and outreach programs than in 

Alternative 2 on a regular basis and promote them more extensively than they would be in Alternative 

2. They would schedule more tours than in Alternative 2, build and maintain a visitor contact station 

and kiosks, and develop printed interpretative materials. The refuge would attract 3,000 visitors for 

interpretation, 50,000 for wildlife observation, and 500 for wildlife photography.
117

The Service would protect sites with identified cultural resources, evaluate proposed projects for 

cultural resources, and conduct a comprehensive inventory. Law enforcement officers would enforce 

refuge regulations and practice outreach to inform the public of regulations. The staff would develop 

plans to monitor and control pest animals and plants, monitor the pests, and control them when they 

exceed thresholds established in the plans. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of suitable willing seller 

properties within the present acquisition boundary (Figure 6). Lands acquired as part of the refuge 

would be made available for compatible public wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental 

education opportunities. Purchases from willing sellers would be an option to expand conservation 

efforts in the acquisition area. Other important options include outreach and partnerships with 

adjacent landowners, hunt clubs, state agencies, and nongovernmental organizations, and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service through conservation easements, cooperative agreements, 

and federal programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program. These land conservation options 

would promote the linkage of protected marshes and contribute to overall natural resource 

conservation within the acquisition area.

The refuge would build a field office/equipment storage facility and a visitor contact station/research 

center. It would share a staff of 21 with the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. Employees 

would receive training according to Service policy. 

Tables 24–34 summarize and compare the three management alternatives. 
118 

 Table 24. Summary of Wildlife Objectives and Strategies 

Wildlife Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Fish Manage Refuge for 

Water Quality 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Cooperative Studies Yes Yes Yes 

 Perform Baseline Survey No Yes Yes 

Feral Hogs Cooperative Studies Yes Yes Yes 

 Note Activity Yes Yes Yes 

 Monitor Impacts of Hogs 

on Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

 Investigate Hog Control 

Methods 

No Yes Yes 

 Implement Hog Control 

Methods 

No Yes Yes 

 Evaluate Effectiveness of 

Hog Control Methods 

No Yes Yes 

Feral Horses Cooperate to Implement 

Wild Horse Management 

Plan 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Monitor Impacts of Horses 

on Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

 Exclude Horses from 

Selected Habitats 

No Yes Yes 

Invertebrates Cooperative Studies Yes Yes Yes 

 Document Presence 

or Absence 

No Yes Yes 

 Document Density in 

Moist Soil Unit 

No No Yes 

 Analyze Results of Studies No No Yes 

Land Birds Number of Species 190 190 190 

 Cooperative Studies Yes Yes Yes 

 Assist with Banding No Yes Yes 

 Monitor Bald Eagle 

Nesting 

No Yes Yes 

 Establish Inventory 

Protocol 

No Yes Yes 

 Develop and Implement 

Inventory Plan 

No Yes Yes 

 Identify Priority Species No No Yes 

 Correlate Birds to Habitat No No Yes 
119

Table 24. Summary of Wildlife Objectives and Strategies (continued) 

Wildlife Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Mammals Cooperative Studies Yes Yes Yes 

 Conduct APC Counts Yes Yes Yes 

 Respond to Marine 

Mammal Strandings 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Monitor and Manage 

Deer Population 

No Yes Yes 

 Document Presence or 

Absence 

No Yes Yes 

 Monitor Fox and Raccoon. No No Yes 

Reptiles and 

Amphibians 

Cooperative Studies Yes Yes Yes 

 Respond to Sea Turtle 

Nests and Strandings 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Document Presence or 

Absence 

No From 

Incidental 

Sightings 

From 

Intensive 

Surveys 

 Develop and Implement 

Sea Turtle Management 

Plan 

No No Yes 

 Analyze Results of Studies No No Yes 

Shorebirds Cooperative Studies Yes Yes Yes 

 Assist with Piping Plover 

Surveys 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Assist with Banding, 

Studies, Investigations as 

Requested 

No Yes Yes 

 Conduct Surveys Every 

10 Days 

None Seasonal Regular 

 Conduct Productivity 

Surveys 

No No Yes 

Wading Birds Assist with Surveys as 

Requested 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Cooperative Studies Yes Yes Yes 

 Monitor Rookery on 

Monkey Island 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Stabilize Shoreline of 

Monkey Island 

No Yes Yes 
120 

Table 24. Summary of Wildlife Objectives and Strategies (continued) 

Wildlife Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Wading Birds Observe Productivity 

of Rookeries 

No No Yes 

Waterfowl Cooperative Studies Yes Yes Yes 

 Conduct 10 Bi-Weekly 

Aerial Surveys 

As Funding 

Allows 

Yes Yes 

 Conduct 10 Bi-Weekly 

Ground Surveys 

No No Yes 

 Conduct/Assist with 

Banding 

No Yes Yes 

 Check Wood Duck Boxes 30 60 60 

 Assist with Studies as 

Requested 

No Yes Yes 

Table 25. Summary of Habitat Objectives and Strategies 

Habitat Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

All Habitats Implement Water 

Management Plan 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop Annual Water 

Management Plan 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Revise Fire 

Management Plan 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop Habitat 

Management 

Plan 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Implement Habitat 

Management Plan 

No Yes Yes 

Brackish 

Marsh/Wet 

Meadow 

Acreage 2,202 2,202 2,202 

 Manage Wildfire Yes Yes Yes 

 Prescribed Burning Yes Yes Yes 

 Monitor Vegetation 

for Fire Effects 

No Yes Yes 

 Adapt Habitat 

Management 

Plan to the Results of 

Monitoring 

No Yes Yes 

Maritime Forest Acreage 637 637 637 

 Manage Wildfire Yes Yes Yes 

 Inventory Vegetation No No Yes 

 Develop and Implement 

Habitat Management 

Plan 

Yes Yes Yes 
121

Table 25. Summary of Habitat Objectives and Strategies (continued) 

Habitat Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Dune and Beach Acreage of Beach 202 202 202 

 Acreage of Dune 137 137 137 

 Allow Natural 

Processes 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Seabeach Amaranth 

Surveys 

Sporadic Regular Regular 

 Search for Piping 

Plover Habitat 

No Yes Yes 

 Establish Seabeach 

Amaranth 

No No Yes 

 Create Piping Plover 

Habitat 

No No Yes 

Firebreaks Acreage 1 5 10 

Moist Soil Unit Acreage 143 143 143 

 Good Vegetation Goal 50% 60% 70% 

 Spring Mudflat Goal None 20% 20% 

 Fall Mudflat Goal None None 10% 

 Evaluate Invertebrates No No Yes 

Roads Acreage (Miles) 

Maintained 

5 (3) 5 (3) 5 (3) 

Wood Duck Boxes Number of Boxes 

Maintained 

30 60 60 

 New Boxes Erected 

Beyond 60 

No As Use 

Reaches 60% 

As Use 

Reaches 60% 
122 

Table 26. Summary of Public Use Objectives and Strategies 

Topic Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Hunting Annual Waterfowl 

Hunter Use Days 

480 480 600 

 Waterfowl Blinds 9 9 10 

 Youth Waterfowl Hunt Yes Yes Yes 

 Revise Hunt Brochure Yes Yes Yes 

 Revise Hunt Plan Yes Yes Yes 

 Hunt Plan for Deer and 

Feral Hogs 

No Yes Yes 

 Estimated Annual Deer 

and Feral Hog Hunter Use 

Days 

None 300 500 

Environmental 

Education 

Annual Visitors 100 200 800 

 Annual Programs 2 on Request 2 Planned, 

4 on Request 

4 Planned 

6 on Request 

 Coordinate with Outer 

Banks Education Center 

No Yes Yes 

 Develop Programs for the 

Outer Banks Education 

Center 

No No Yes 

Interpretation Annual Visitors 100 2,000 3,000 

 Develop and Revise 

Refuge Brochure 

No Yes Yes 

 Develop and Revise Bird 

List 

No Yes Yes 

 Develop Exhibits for 

Education Center 

No Yes Yes 

 Develop State Marker Trail Yes Yes Yes 

 Maintain Web Site Yes Yes Yes 

 Kiosk Maintenance 0 1 3 

 New Kiosk Development 0 1 3 

 Develop Kiosk Interpretive 

Panels 

No Yes Yes 

 Annual Tours 0 2 6 

 Swan Island Unit Trail No No Yes 

 Develop Endangered 

Species Brochure 

No No Yes 
123

Table 26. Summary of Public Use Objectives and Strategies (continued) 

Topic Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 

3 

Wildlife 

Observation 

Annual Visitors 25,000 35,000 50,000 

 Develop a Sea to Sound 

Trail 

No No Yes 

 Develop,Revise Bird List No Yes Yes 

 Develop and Maintain 

State Marker Trail 

No Yes Yes 

 Develop and Maintain 

Swan Island Unit Trail 

No No Yes 

Wildlife 

Photography 

Annual Visitors 250 350 500 

 Develop a Sea to Sound 

Trail 

No No Yes 

 Develop and Revise Bird 

List 

No Yes Yes 

 Develop and Maintain 

Swan Island Unit Trail 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop and Maintain 

State Marker Trail 

No Yes Yes 

Access Regular Pedestrian Daylight 

Hours 

Daylight Hours Daylight 

Hours 

 Vehicular Access to State 

Marker Trail 

None Yes Yes 

 Vehicular Access to the 

Rest of the Refuge 

None None None 

Outreach Target Audience 90,000 250,000 500,000 

 Annual Local Events 4 5 8 

 Annual Presentations to 

Local Organizations 

0 3 6 

 Annual News Releases 0 3 5 

 Publish Newsletter None None Annually 

 Publicize on Local Access 

Cable 

No Yes Yes 

 Participate in State Fair No Yes Yes 

Refuge Support Work with Established 

Groups 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop Currituck Chapter 

of CWRS 

No Yes Yes 

 Maintain Retail Outlet at 

Currituck NWR 

No No Yes 

Special Events Number 0 1 2 
124 

Table 27. Summary of Resource Protection Objectives and Strategies 

Topic Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Cultural 

Resources 

Protect Identified Sites Yes Yes Yes 

 Evaluate Proposed 

Projects 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Conduct Comprehensive 

Inventory 

No No Yes 

 Interpret Monkey Island 

Hunt Club at Visitor 

Contact Station 

No Yes Yes 

Interagency 

Coordination 

Annual Formal and 

Informal Coordination 

Meetings 

20 30 40 

 Review and Revise 

Agreements 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Coordinate with 

NC Forest Service 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop Agreement 

on Navigable Waters 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop Agreement on 

Waterfowl Rest Areas 

No Yes Yes 

Land Protection Acreage – Fee and 

Easement 

8,570 8,570 8,570 

 Post Boundary Yes Yes Yes 

 Inventory Habitat No Yes Yes 

 Manage Area No No Yes 

Law 

Enforcement 

Ensure Health and 

Safety by: 

Enforce 

Regulations 

Enforce 

Regulations 

and Outreach 

Enforce 

Regulations 

and Outreach 

 Coordinate with Others Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop Relationships Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop Written 

Agreements 

No Yes Yes 

Permits Evaluation Capacity 4 8 20 

 Develop and monitor 

Special Use Conditions 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop Standardized 

Conditions 

No Yes Yes 

 Assess Effects of Uses No Yes Yes 
125

Table 27. Summary of Resource Protection Objectives and Strategies (continued) 

Topic Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Pest Animals Control Pests Yes Yes Yes 

 Implement Wild Horse 

Management Plan 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Develop Nuisance Animal 

Control Plan 

No Yes Yes 

Pest Plants Monitor, Control, Eradicate Yes Yes Yes 

 Control Phragmites As Funding 

Allows 

Per Plan Per Plan 

 Develop Pest Plant 

Control Plan 

No Yes Yes 

State Natural 

Heritage Areas 

Limit Impacts to Retain 

Character 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Prescribed Fire Yes Yes Yes 

Water Quality Frequency of Monitoring in 

Impoundments, Canals, 

Sound 

None Quarterly Monthly 

 Cooperate with Other 

Agencies 

Yes Yes Yes 

Wilderness 

Areas 

Acres Nominated 0 0 0 

Wildlife 

Disease 

Monitor and Control Yes Yes Yes 

 Coordinate with Others Yes Yes Yes 
126 

Table 28. Summary of Administration Objectives and Strategies 

Topic Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Capital Property Annual Inventories 1 1 1 

 Maintain 

Records 

As Time 

Allows 

Adequately Adequately 

 Evaluate Condition No Yes Yes 

 Maintenance/ 

Replacement 

Goal 

As Breaks 

Down 

Ensure 

Safety 

Ensure Safety 

and Maximize 

Efficiency 

Field Office/ Equipment 

Storage Facility 

Operation and 

Maintenance Goal 

Efficiency, 

Safety, 

Aesthetics 

Efficiency, 

Safety, 

Aesthetics 

Efficiency, 

Safety, 

Aesthetics 

 Field Office/ 

Equipment Storage 

Facility Construction 

No As Funding 

Allows 

As Funding 

Allows 

Visitor Contact Station/ 

Research Center 

Operation and 

Maintenance Goal 

Efficiency, 

Safety, 

Aesthetics 

Efficiency, 

Safety, 

Aesthetics 

Efficiency, 

Safety, 

Aesthetics 

 Visitor Contact 

Station/ Research 

Center Construction 

No As Funding 

Allows 

As Funding 

Allows 

Personnel Staff Located at 

Currituck NWR 

0 4 7 

 Staff at Currituck 

and Mackay Island 

NWR 

7 15 24 

 FTE Levels Serving 

Currituck NWR 

2.65 7.20 12.75 

 Training As Funding 

Allows 

Per Service 

Policy 

Per Service 

Policy 

 Performance 

Evaluation 

Yes Yes Yes 

 Encourage Details 

for Training 

Yes Yes Yes 
127

Table 28. Summary of Administration Objectives and Strategies (continued) 

Topic Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Real Property Maintenance Goals As Funding 

Allows 

Cleanliness 

and Safety 

Cleanliness 

and Safety 

 Building 

Construction 

None To Adequate 

Levels 

To Meet All 

Needs 

 Annual Real 

Property 

Inventory 

1 1 1 

 Real Property 

Management 

Per Manual Per Manual Per Manual 

 Pursue Resolution 

of Boundary 

Disputes 

Yes Yes Yes 

Volunteer 

Coordination 

Annual Target 

Hours 

2,000 5,000 10,000 

 Coordination Collateral 

Duty 

Designated 

Staff Member 

Designated 

Staff Member 

 Intern Program Maintain Expand Expand 
128 

Table 29. Summary of projects proposed in each Alternative 

Project Description Alternatives 

Staff Projects 1 2 3 

Utilize existing GS-12/13 manager (45% Currituck). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-9 assistant manager (35% Currituck). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-9 park ranger (law enforcement)(75% Currituck). X X X 

Utilize existing GS-7 office assistant (15% Currituck). X X X 

Utilize existing WG-10 maintenance mechanic (15% Currituck). X X X 

Utilize existing WG-8 equipment operator (40% Currituck). X X X 

Utilize existing WG-5 forestry technician (40% Currituck). X X X 

Recruit, hire train a new GS-9 biologist (RONS 97006) 

(35% Currituck). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-9 outdoor recreation planner 

(Currituck)(RONS 97013)(60% Currituck). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-4 clerk (RONS 99004) 

(45% Currituck). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-7 biological technician 

(Currituck)(RONS 00001)(90% Currituck). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train a new WG-8 maintenance worker 

(RONS 00019)(45% Currituck). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-9 fire management specialist 

(RONS 00009)(40% Currituck). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-9 assistant manager (Currituck) 

(RONS 00011)(95% Currituck). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train a second new GS-7 biological technician 

(RONS 00013)(60% Currituck). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-7 park ranger (law enforcement) 

(Currituck)(RONS 03000)(95% Currituck). 

 X X 

Recruit, hire, train a new WG-7 tractor operator 

(RONS 97004)(35% Currituck). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-7 outdoor recreation planner 

(Mackay Island) (RONS 00018)(60% Currituck). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-5 forestry technician (temporary) 

(35% Currituck). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-4 clerk (half time) (RONS 02001) 

(45% Currituck). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train a new WG-8 maintenance worker (Currituck) 

(100% Currituck). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-7 outdoor recreation planner (Currituck) 

(volunteer coordinator) (100% Currituck). 

 X 

Recruit, hire, train a new GS-7 wildlife biologist (100% Currituck). X 
129

Table 29. Summary of projects proposed in each Alternative (continued) 

Project Description Alternatives 

Budget Projects 1 2 3 

Process payroll, travel, purchasing, and contract documents. X X X 

Prepare annual budget and revise RONS and MMS. X X X 

Apply for grants. X X X 

Budget Projects (Currituck NWR) 

Conduct fisheries survey (RONS 00012) X X 

Conduct research on the impact of feral horses. (RONS 00016) X X 

Plan and implement big game program (RONS 04002) X X 

Research history of Corolla Navy Gunnery Site (RONS 00017) X 

Equipment Projects 

(in Mackay Island NWR CCP, used on Currituck NWR)

Maintain vehicles and boats. X X X 

Maintain heavy equipment and hand tools. X X X 

Maintain computers and software. X X X 

Replace Chevy Astro van (MMS 97033) X X X 

Replace 1989 Blue Dodge pickup truck (MMS 00003) X X X 

Replace 1998 airboat (MMS 01002) X X X 

Replace D-4 dozer (MMS 01003) X X X 

Replace heavy duty disc (MMS 01004) X X X 

Replace backhoe (MMS 01005) X X X 

Replace tracked marsh vehicle (MMS 01006) X X X 

Replace 14-foot rotary mower (MMS 01007) X X X 

Replace 16-inch high volume lift pump (MMS 01008) X X X 

Replace 1996 4x4 Ford tractor (MMS 01010) X X X 

Replace 1988 Case 585 tractor (MMS 01011) X X X 

Replace 1991 15-ton tilt bed tractor (MMS 01012) X X X 

Replace 1998 tilt-bed trailer (MMS 01013) X X X 

Replace 1996 4X4 Dodge Dakota (MMS 01014) X X X 

Replace 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe (MMS 01016) X X X 

Replace 1999 Ford F-250 4X4 truck (MMS 01017) X X X 

Replace 1998 Ford F-250 4X4 truck (MMS 01018) X X X 

Replace 1995 Ford F-250 4X4 truck (MMS 01019) X X X 

Replace 1995 Ford F-150 4X4 extended cab truck (MMS 01020) X X X 

Replace 18-foot, boat, 60-horsepower outboard motor, and trailer (MMS 

02004) 

X X X 

Replace 2001 John Deere 670CH Motor Grader (MMS 02005) X X X 

Replace 2001 Kubota M8200 tractor (MMS 02006) X X X 

Replace 2001 Alamo side mower (MMS 02007) X X X 

Replace 2001 Ingersoll-Rand RT706H forklift (MMS 02008) X X X 

Replace 1991 Chevrolet fire engine (MMS 02009) X X X 

Replace 20-foot, boat, 70-horsepower outboard motor, and trailer (MMS 

02011) 

X X X 

Replace 2003 Ford F250 extended cab truck (MMS 04001). X X X 
130 

Table 29. Summary of projects proposed in each Alternative (continued) 

Project Description Alternatives 

Equipment Projects (continued) 1 2 3 

Replace 2003 Freightliner 6X4 stake bed dump truck 

(MMS 04002). 

X X X 

Facility Projects

Maintain roads. X X X 

Maintain parking lots and trails. X X X 

Maintain buildings. X X X 

Maintain public use facilities. X X X 

Maintain impoundment water control structure. X X X 

Construct electric fence (MMS 97008 – Old RONS) X X X 

Establish satellite office (MMS 99004 – Old RONS) X X 

Post newly acquired tracts (RONS 00020) X X X 

Survey and post boundaries of disputed tracts (RONS 04001) X X X 

Stabilize Monkey Island rookery (MMS 00004) X X 

Construct visitor contact station/research facility (MMS 02003) X X 

Construct boardwalk, observation platform, and trail (RONS 97002) X 
131

Table 30. Summary of costs of projects proposed in all Alternatives 

Projects Costs 

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Alternative 1 

Staff Projects $0 $158,000 $158,000

Budget Projects $0 $0 $0

Facility Projects $150,000 $0 $150,000

Total for Alternative 1 Projects $150,000 $158,000 $308,000

Alternative 2 

Staff Projects $374,500 $499,350 $873,850

Budget Projects $100,000 $40,000 $140,000

Facility Projects $1,867,000 $0 $1,867,000

Total for Alternative 2 Projects $2,341,500 $539,350 $2,880,850

Alternative 3 

Staff Projects $684,625 $726,750 $1,411,375

Budget Projects $143,000 $40,000 $183,000

Facility Projects $2,007,000 $22,000 $2,029,000

Total for Alternative 3 Projects $2,834,625 $788,750 $3,623,375

All Alternatives 

Land Acquisition Costs 

(9,500 acres @ $2,000 an acre) 

$19,000,000 $0 $19,000,000

All Alternatives (In Mackay Island NWR CCP, but serving Currituck NWR) 

Equipment Projects $1,262,000 $0 $1,262,000
132 

Table 31. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 1 

Project Description Costs 

Staff Projects First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Existing GS-13 manager 

(45% Currituck). 

Existing GS-9 assistant manager 

(35% Currituck). 

Existing GS-9 park ranger 

(75% Currituck). 

Existing GS-5 office assistant 

(15% Currituck). 

ExistingWG-10maintenance mechanic 

(15% Currituck). 

Existing WG-8 equipment operator 

(40% Currituck). 

Existing GS-5 forestry technician 

(40% Currituck). 

$158,000 $158,000

Total for Staff Projects $0 $158,000 $158,000

Budget Projects

(Currituck NWR) 

(Contracts, Research)

None $0 $0 $0

Total for Budget Projects $0 $0 $0

Equipment Projects First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

In Mackay Island NWR CCP 

Facility Projects 

(Currituck NWR)

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Construct electric fence 

(MMS 97008 – Old RONS) 

$70,000 $0 $70,000

Post Newly Acquired Tracts 

(RONS 00020) 

$20,000 $0 $20,000

Survey and Post Disputed Boundaries 

(RONS 04001). 

$60,000 $0 $60,000

Total for Facility Projects $150,000 $0 $150,000

Grand Total $150,000 $158,000 $308,000
133

Table 32. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

Project Description Costs 

Staff Projects First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total Costs 

Existing GS-13 manager 

(45% Currituck). 

Existing GS-9 assistant manager 

(35% Currituck). 

Existing GS-9 park ranger 

(75% Currituck). 

Existing GS-5 office assistant 

(15% Currituck). 

ExistingWG-10maintenance mechanic 

(15% Currituck). 

Existing WG-8 equipment operator 

(40% Currituck). 

Existing GS-5 forestry technician 

(40% Currituck). 

$158,000 $158,000

New GS-9 biologist (RONS 97006) 

(35% Currituck). 

$22,750 $22,050 $44,800

New GS-9 outdoor recreation specialist 

(Currituck) (RONS 97013) 

(60% Currituck). 

$39,000 $31,800 $70,800

New GS-4 clerk 

(RONS 99004)(45% Currituck). 

$33,750 $22,500 $56,250

New GS-7 biological technician (Currituck) 

(RONS 00001) 

(90% Currituck). 

$58,500 $47,700 $106,200

New GS-9 fire management specialist 

(RONS 00009)(40% Currituck). 

$34,000 $27,600 $61,600

New GS-9 assistant manager (Currituck) 

(RONS 00011) 

(95% Currituck). 

$61,750 $65,550 $127,300

New GS-7 biological technician 

(RONS 00013)(45% Currituck). 

$33,750 $33,300 $67,050

New WG-8 maintenance worker (RONS 

00019)(45% Currituck). 

$29,250 $23,400 $52,650

New GS-7 park ranger (law enforcement) 

(RONS 03000) 

(95% Currituck). 

$61,750 $67,450 $129,200

Total for Staff Projects $374,500 $499,350 $873,850
134 

Table 32. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) - (Continued) 

Project Description Costs 

Budget Projects 

(Currituck NWR) 

(Contracts, Research)

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Conduct research on the impacts of feral 

horses (RONS 00016). 

$25,000 $40,000 $65,000

Plan and Implement Big Game Hunting 

Program (RONS 04002). 

$55,000 $0 $55,000

Conduct fisheries survey 

(RONS 000012). 

$20,000 $0 $20,000

Total for Budget Projects $100,000 $40,000 $140,000

Equipment Projects First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

In Mackay Island NWR CCP 

Facility Projects 

(Currituck NWR)

First Year or 

One Time Costs

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Post newly acquired tracts 

(RONS 00020). 

$20,000 $0 $20,000

Survey and post disputed boundaries 

(RONS 04002). 

$60,000 $0 $60,000

Construct electric fence 

(MMS 97008 – Old RONS). 

$70,000 $0 $70,000

Establish satellite office 

(MMS 99004 – Old RONS). 

$204,000 $0 $204,000

Replace Monkey Island bulkhead 

(MMS 00004). 

$1,200,000 $0 $1,200,000

Construct visitor contact station/research 

facility 

(MMS 02003). 

$313,000 $0 $313,000

Total for Facility Projects $1,867,000 $0 $1,867,000

Grand Total $2,341,500 $539,350 $2,880,850
135

Table 33. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 3 

Project Description Costs 

Staff Projects First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total Costs 

Existing GS-13 manager 

(45% Currituck). 

$158,000 $158,000

Existing GS-9 assistant manager 

(35% Currituck). 

Existing GS-9 park ranger 

(75% Currituck). 

Existing GS-5 office assistant 

(15% Currituck). 

ExistingWG-10maintenance mechanic 

(15% Currituck). 

Existing WG-8 equipment operator 

(40% Currituck). 

Existing GS-5 forestry technician 

(40% Currituck). 

New WG-7 tractor operator 

 (RONS 97004) (35% Currituck). 

$45,500 $19,600 $65,100

New GS-9 biologist (RONS 97006) 

(35% Currituck). 

$22,750 $22,050 $44,800

New GS-9 outdoor recreation specialist 

(Currituck) (RONS 97013) 

(60% Currituck). 

$39,000 $31,800 $70,800

New GS-4 clerk 

(RONS 99004)(45% Currituck). 

$33,750 $22,500 $56,250

New GS-7 biological technician (Currituck) 

(RONS 00001) 

(90% Currituck). 

$58,500 $47,700 $116,200

New GS-9 fire management specialist 

(RONS 00009)(40% Currituck). 

$34,000 $27,600 $61,600

New GS-9 assistant manager (Currituck) 

(RONS 00011) 

(95% Currituck). 

$61,750 $65,550 $127,300

New GS-7 biological technician 

(RONS 00013)(45% Currituck). 

$33,750 $33,300 $67,050

New GS-7 outdoor recreation planner 

(RONS 00018)(60% Currituck). 

$39,000 $29,400 $68,400

New WG-8 maintenance worker (RONS 

00019)(45% Currituck). 

$29,250 $23,400 $52,650

New GS-4 clerk (RONS 02001) 

(45% Currituck). 

$7,875 $11,250 $19,125

New GS-7 park ranger (law enforcement) 

(RONS 03000) 

(95% Currituck). 

$61,750 $67,450 $129,200

Table 33. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 3 - (Continued) 
136 

Table 33. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 3 – (Continued) 

Project Description Costs 

Staff Projects (continued) First Year or 

One Time 

Costs 

Recurring 

Costs 

Total Costs 

New GS-5 forestry technician 

(35% Currituck). 

$22,750 $17,150 $39,900

New WG-8 maintenance worker 

(100% Currituck). 

$65,000 $52,000 $117,000

New GS-7 outdoor recreation planner 

(volunteer coordinator) 

(100% Currituck). 

$65,000 $49,000 $114,000

New GS-7 wildlife biologist 

(100% Currituck). 

$65,000 $49,000 $114,000

Total for Staff Projects $684,625 $726,750 $1,411,375

Budget Projects 

(Currituck NWR) 

(Contracts, Research)

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Conduct research on the impacts of feral 

horses (RONS 00016). 

$25,000 $40,000 $65,000

Plan and implement big game hunting 

program (RONS 04002). 

$55,000 $0 $55,000

Conduct fisheries survey 

(RONS 000012). 

$20,000 $0 $20,000

Conduct research on the history of the 

Corolla Navy Gunnery Site 

(RONS 000017). 

$43,000 $0 $43,000

Total for Budget Projects $143,000 $40,000 $183,000

Facility Projects 

(Currituck NWR)

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs 

Total First 

Year Costs 

Build boardwalk, observation platform, and 

trail. (RONS 97002). 

$140,000 $22,000 $162,000

Post newly acquired tracts 

(RONS 00020). 

$20,000 $0 $20,000

Survey and post disputed boundaries 

(RONS 04002). 

$60,000 $0 $60,000

Construct electric fence 

(MMS 97008 – Old RONS). 

$70,000 $0 $70,000

Establish satellite office 

(MMS 99004 – Old RONS). 

$204,000 $0 $204,000

Replace Monkey Island bulkhead 

(MMS 00004). 

$1,200,000 $0 $1,200,000

Construct visitor contact station/research 

facility (MMS 02003). 

$313,000 $0 $313,000

Total for Facility Projects $2,007,000 $22,000 $2,029,000

Grand Total $2,834,625 $788,750 $3,623,375
137

Table 34. Cost of equipment projects benefiting all Alternatives 

All Alternatives 

(Included in Mackay Island NWR CCP, but also Serving Currituck NWR) 

Equipment Projects First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Replace Chevy Astro van 

(MMS 97033). 

$31,000 $0 $31,000

Replace 1989 Blue Dodge pickup truck 

(MMS 00003). 

$28,000 $0 $28,000

Replace 1998 airboat (MMS 01002). $27,000 $0 $27,000

Replace D-4 dozer (MMS 01003). $159,000 $0 $159,000

Replace heavy duty disc 

(MMS 01004). 

$10,000 $0 $10,000

Replace backhoe (MMS 01005). $90,000 $0 $90,000

Replace tracked marsh vehicle 

(MMS 01006). 

$94,000 $0 $94,000

Replace 14-foot rotary mower 

(MMS 01007). 

$14,000 $0 $14,000

Replace 16-inch high volume lift pump 

(MMS 01008). 

$8,000 $0 $8,000

Replace 1996 4X4 Ford tractor 

(MMS 01010). 

$87,000 $0 $87,000

Replace 1988 Case 585 tractor 

(MMS 01011). 

$47,000 $0 $47,000

Replace 1991 15-ton tilt-bed trailer 

(MMS 01012). 

$16,000 $0 $16,000

Replace 1998 tilt-bed trailer 

(MMS 01013). 

$9,000 $0 $9,000

Replace 1996 4X4 Dodge Dakota 

(MMS 01014). 

$33,000 $0 $33,000

Replace 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe 

(MMS 01016). 

$37,000 $0 $37,000

Replace 1999 Ford F-250 4X4 truck 

(MMS 01017). 

$26,000 $0 $26,000

Replace 1998 Ford F-250 4X4 truck 

(MMS 01018). 

$26,000 $0 $26,000

Replace 1995 Ford F-250 4X4 truck 

(MMS 01019). 

$26,000 $0 $26,000

Replace 1995 Ford F-150 4X4 extended 

cab truck (MMS 01020). 

$29,000 $0 $29,000

Replace 18-foot boat, 60-horsepower 

outboard motor, and trailer 

(MMS 02004). 

$13,000 $0 $13,000
138 

Table 34. Cost of equipment projects benefiting all Alternatives - (continued) 

Project Description Costs 

Equipment Projects 

(continued)

First Year or 

One Time 

Costs

Recurring 

Costs

Total First 

Year Costs

Replace 2001 John Deere 670CH Motor 

Grader (MMS 02005). 

$157,000 $0 $157,000

Replace 2001 Kubota M8200 tractor 

(MMS 02006). 

$47,000 $0 $47,000

Replace 2001 Alamo side mower (MMS 

02007). 

$8,000 $0 $8,000

Replace 2001 Ingersoll-Rand RT 706H 

forklift (MMS 02008). 

$42,000 $0 $42,000

Replace 1991 Chevrolet fire engine 

(MMS 02009). 

$84,000 $0 $84,000

Replace 20-foot boat, 70-horsepower 

outboard motor, and trailer 

(MMS 02011). 

$16,000 $0 $16,000

Replace 2003 Ford F250 extended cab 

truck (MMS 04001). 

$28,000 $0 $28,000

Replace 2003 Freightliner 6X4 stake bed 

dump truck (MMS 04002). 

$70,000 $0 $70,000

Total for Equipment Projects $1,262,000 $0 $1,262,000
139

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

LAND ACQUISITION 

The acquisition of land adjacent to Service-owned lands within the refuge’s approved acquisition 

boundary would be given the highest priority. All land acquisitions are subject to contaminant 

surveys. 

Funding for land acquisition would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, or donations from conservation organizations. The Service can sometimes use 

conservation easements and leases to obtain 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. Other public or private conservation organizations may own some tracts 

within the approved refuge acquisition boundary. 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. 

REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING 

Annual refuge revenue-sharing payments to Currituck County would continue at similar rates under 

each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the payments would increase 

accordingly and be paid to the Currituck County. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

As the refuge develops a visitor services program, the staff would continue to assess the program 

and its potential impact on refuge resources. The staff would implement changes in the program as 

needed to address any impacts identified and to respond to anticipated wildlife population increases. 

To ensure a quality wildlife-dependent recreational experience while achieving the wildlife first 

mandate, the Service may limit the number of users and conflicts among users by the following: (1) 

permitting uses; (2) designating roads, trails, and sites for specific kinds of wildlife-dependent 

recreational use; and (3) permitting uses at certain times of the year. 

There are a number of situations where future refuge closures or restrictions on access may be 

warranted. Examples of these situations include, but are not limited to, the following: protection of 

endangered species; protection of nesting birds; restriction of recreation activities to achieve specific 

wildlife population objectives; minimization of conflicts with other refuge management programs; and 

limitations from inadequate funds and/or staff to administer the use. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

The maintenance and operation of the refuge’s administrative facilities would continue, regardless of 

the alternative selected. Periodic updating of facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility and to 

support staff and management needs. The plan identifies funding needs for several projects, 

including providing additional facilities and equipment to support refuge operations and maintenance. 
140 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The refuge staff selected Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the proposed comprehensive 

conservation plan for managing Currituck National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15 years. When the 

Service separates the Environmental Assessment portion of this combined Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan will 

include the goals, objectives, and strategies listed for Alternative 2 that the staff would use to achieve 

the refuge vision. 

The planning team evaluated two other alternatives for managing the refuge. The other alternatives 

evaluated were Alternative 1 - No Action and Alternative 3. Chapter IV, Management Direction, in the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A) describes the goals, objectives, and strategies 

that would be carried out to implement Alternative 2. 

Implementing the proposed alternative would result in better habitat management and increased public 

use opportunities, while meeting the refuge’s primary purpose of protecting habitat for migratory birds. 

Specific results would include increased songbird, marsh bird, and shorebird use and production; 

enhanced habitat and increased protection for other coastal marsh and dune-dependent wildlife; 

enhanced resident wildlife populations; optimum wetland conditions; and greater opportunities for a 

variety of compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and environmental education activities. 

An overriding concern reflected in this plan is that wildlife conservation is the first priority in refuge 

management. The Service allows public uses if they are compatible and appropriate with wildlife and 

habitat conservation. The staff would emphasize wildlife-dependent public uses (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation). 

COMPATIBLE SECONDARY USES 

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 the Service allows activities or uses on a national wildlife refuge, the staff must 

find the uses 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. The Service may 

authorize wildlife-dependent recreational uses on a refuge when they are compatible and not 

inconsistent with public safety. 

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 until the time the Service prepares and 

adopts a formal, long-term management plan for that parcel. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the system, as listed in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As applicants request special use permits 

for other uses, the refuge staff will determine the compatibility of those uses. 
141

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

The Service would conduct all management activities that could affect natural resources, including 

subsurface mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, soil, water and air, and historical and 

archaeological resources to comply with all laws and regulations. The Service has a legal 

responsibility to consider the effects of its actions on cultural resources. Under all three alternatives, 

the Service would manage these resources in accordance with public law and agency policy. 

Individual projects could require additional consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation and the State of North Carolina’s Historic Preservation Office. The Service requires 

additional consultation, surveys, and clearance where it is conducting project development on the 

refuge or when activities would affect properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. 
142 
143

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can 

be reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the three management alternatives 

described in the previous chapter. The planning team selected the following impact topics for 

analysis: effects on fish and wildlife populations; effects on habitats; effects on public use; effects on 

resource protection and conservation; and effects on general administration. These topics were 

chosen based on the important issues and concerns that were identified during the public scoping 

meetings and planning team meetings. Each alternative portrays the expected outcomes for fish and 

wildlife species through 2018, varying as to the intensity of management. Table 36 (at the end of this 

chapter) compares the effects of Alternative 2 and 3 to Alternative 1, the existing condition. 

COMPARISON OF EFFECTS AMONG MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 

The refuge’s current management actions described in Alternative 1, such as its water management, 

prescribed burning, and waterfowl hunting program, and its present efforts to acquire inholdings within 

the approved acquisition boundary, would have minimal positive to no effects on the biological 

environment. Land acquisition of the well-drained areas within the boundary could have negative effects 

on the local socioeconomic environment as land is removed from the tax base that could be developed. 

Most refuge acquisitions are on marshlands that cannot support significant development. The 

refuge’s fee title acquisitions allow for a revenue-sharing payment to offset tax losses to the local 

taxing authority. In addition, refuge lands do not require the maintenance of infrastructure such as 

roads and water and sewer systems that would be required if the area was fully developed. In 

addition, the majority of the economy is based on tourism. As the area becomes more developed, 

the refuge will preserve the area’s natural aspects of the area that have been a primary reason for 

tourist interest. Overall, the economic contribution of the users of refuge lands will provide a benefit 

to the overall economy of the area. 

The proposed management actions described in Alternative 2, such as monitoring a wider range of 

habitats; developing programs for interpretation, environmental education, wildlife observation, and 

photography; and acquiring private property from willing sellers would have positive effects on the 

biological environment and society. 

The proposed management actions described in Alternative 3, such as surveying wildlife species, 

implementing a forest management plan, and developing enhanced environmental education and 

wildlife observation programs, would have positive effects on the biological environment and society. 

Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would produce new economic opportunities from the salaries 

of the new staff, refuge expenditures in the local economy, and refuge visitors participating in outdoor 

recreation and environmental education opportunities. 
144 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Each alternative would protect existing habitat important to migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. Alternative 2 would provide data on some species and a 

balanced effort to increase habitat management for neotropical migratory songbirds and forestdependent waterfowl on the refuge. Alternative 3 would provide data on all species on the refuge and 

a balanced effort to increase habitat management for neotropical migratory songbirds and forest 

dependent waterfowl on and off the refuge. 

The increased public use provided in Alternatives 2 and 3 may affect the refuge’s wildlife populations 

due to disturbance and habitat trampling. However, nesting, resting, and foraging habitat for 

waterfowl and songbirds would improve under Alternatives 2 and 3 because of the improved 

management of forests and moist soil management areas. Breeding populations of wood ducks and 

songbirds would increase under Alternatives 2 and 3. Habitat for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and wading birds would increase under Alternative 2 and 3. 

The white-eyed vireo, a management indicator species, nests in mature forests such as the maritime forests 

on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The Service has not managed them in the past. High levels of crown 

closure interspersed with large, emergent trees provide the best nest site locations and opportunities for 

breeding success for these birds. The forest management activities outlined in Alternative 3 would cause 

long-term benefits in improving the nesting habitat for this species. The refuge is also home to other high 

priority birds such as the prothonotary warbler, American woodcock, wood thrush, and hooded warbler. The 

management in Alternative 3 would also improve the habitat for those species. 

Each alternative would protect sites important to forest interior-breeding birds and wood ducks. Alternative 

3 has the potential to provide greater management capabilities and larger areas of habitat protection. 

Although there are no known nesting areas on the refuge, bald eagles have been sighted. The 

nearest bald eagle nest in 2005 was in the False Cape State Park. Bald eagles are vulnerable to 

human activity around nesting areas and do not tolerate human disturbances during the breeding 

season. Recreational activities including hiking, hunting, and fishing off shore can be a major 

disturbance to bald eagles. The level of recreational use is least disturbing to wildlife under 

Alternative 1, and most disturbing under Alternatives 2 and 3. The level of recreational use expected 

under Alternatives 2 and 3 include disturbances related to hiking, hunting, and fishing and could 

preclude the possibility of eagles establishing a nest where most of the proposed recreational 

activities would occur. The expansion of forest management activities described in Alternatives 2 and 

3 may also negatively affect bald eagles locating on the refuge over the short term. Hunting is 

primarily a winter season activity and could adversely affect bald eagle nesting. Over the long term, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would produce a number of suitable nesting and roosting trees for bald eagles. 

The deer population on the refuge is unknown. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, forest management actions 

could increase the deer population. The refuge’s forests and adjacent shrub and marsh communities 

provide rich sources of forage for deer. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, deer populations would be monitored 

and hunting would be used where allowable by state and local laws to manage their populations in order 

to provide a compatible recreational activity and prevent habitat damage. Hunting would also ensure the 

health of the deer herd and minimize the effects to other wildlife species and habitat. 

An integrated pest management plan would be developed under all alternatives. Alternative 1 would 

provide the least management, while Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide the most management. 

Whenever possible, all alternatives would use multiple pest control techniques to control these 

species. However, some quantity of pesticides would be used on an as-needed basis. 
145

All alternatives would provide additional protection to wetlands beyond the protection afforded by 

existing wetland regulations. They would also protect landscape characteristics such as habitat 

connectivity and would provide sufficient proprietary interest in properties to restore habitats for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and forest interior-breeding birds. 

Under all public use alternatives, the level of recreational use and ground-based disturbance from 

pedestrians would be largely concentrated to boardwalks, trails, and the refuge’s office and 

maintenance areas. Despite this and dispersed activities including hunting, public use could still have 

a negative effect on nesting bird populations. It is unlikely that species such as bald eagles would 

establish nests near developed facilities. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

The most critical physical environment issue on the refuge is the traffic on the beaches and the effects of the 

traffic on sea turtles, piping plovers, and other shorebirds. The refuge only owns the land down to the 

normal high water level; the public has unlimited vehicular and pedestrian access to the beach. Only 

Alternative 3 provides for the development of habitat behind the dunes to meet the needs of shorebirds. 

All alternatives would positively affect soil formation processes on lands the refuge acquires. Some 

disturbances to surface soils and topography would occur at those locations selected for 

administrative and public use facilities, maintenance operations, and forest management. 

All alternatives would positively affect the water quality in individual streams and wetlands due to a 

relatively low level of soil disturbance and fertilizer and pesticide application. Other positive effects 

would result from the protection of groundwater recharge areas, runoff prevention, sediment 

retention, and minimizing non-point source pollution. 

Each alternative would protect the aesthetic characteristics associated with dunes, marshes, shrublands, 

and forests. The staff would carry out management activities designed to improve habitat composition 

and structure in such a way to minimize any short-term negative impacts to aesthetics. 

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 

Alternative 1 concentrates on providing opportunities for waterfowl hunting. The refuge staff coordinates 

the hunts with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The Commission advertises the hunts 

in their annual proclamations. Community volunteers help to prepare and administer the hunts and 

provide essential support to the refuge staff. The refuge staff provides law enforcement. The refuge 

allows the other priority public uses (environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation and 

photography), but does not provide programs to support them. The staff conducts environmental 

education as requested and participates in major local outreach events. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation opportunities would increase. Under each alternative, the staff would 

consider most of the currently owned and newly acquired lands opened for public hunting of deer and 

feral hogs, resulting in a net gain of public hunting opportunities in the area. Fruitville Township, in 

which the Currituck Marsh, Station Landing Marsh, and South Marsh are located, is closed to deer 

hunting. Poplar Branch Township is open to hunting with shotgun only; regulations prohibit the use of 

bows, pistols, and rifles. The Poplar Branch Township line runs through the Monkey Island Unit. 

Current state law opens only the Monkey Island and Swan Island units to hunting. The refuge cannot 

open these units to deer hunting unless the township changes its regulation. 
146 

Increases in waterfowl hunting opportunities for those units would depend on the location of newly 

acquired land, whether the land was suitable for blinds with access to Currituck Sound, and 

regulatory constraints. Alternatives 2 and 3 would also stimulate ecotourism and potentially increase 

tourism expenditures in the surrounding local communities. Alternative 3 provides substantially more 

education and interpretation opportunities that would add to the recreational opportunities available to 

summer residents of the Outer Banks. 

All alternatives would limit public access to passage by foot or boat and minimize wildlife disturbance 

and habitat degradation, while allowing compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Some areas, such 

as waterfowl sanctuaries, would be closed seasonally to all public entry to minimize disturbance to 

wintering waterfowl. Visitor access would increase in Alternatives 2 and 3, where the refuge would 

develop foot trails, kiosks, boardwalks, and partner in the North Carolina Wildlife Resource 

Commission’s Outer Banks Environmental Education Center. Alternative 3 provides slightly more 

facilities than Alternative 2. 

Visitor use management on refuges concentrates on the experience, not the number of people 

coming into a refuge. The types and intensity of visitor activities would vary from tract to tract 

depending on its size, habitat type(s), and wildlife uses. Because much of the land in Currituck 

County is currently in private ownership, the general public realizes only minimal access privileges on 

that land. As the Service acquires more land and places it in the public trust, more opportunities for 

public access would become available. 

The wildlife-dependent recreational activities described under Alternatives 2 and 3 (i.e., 

expanded opportunities for hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) would increase visitation to the refuge and 

generate more opportunities for visitors to be educated and enjoy an experience of the 

refuge. The refuge reported an estimated 27,000 refuge visits in 2000. 

Refuge visitation to support priority public uses would generally build over time as the Service hires a 

public use specialist, develops visitor service programs and facilities, provides operational funds, and 

acquires more land. Initially, much of the public use on the refuge is expected to come from local, 

county, and state residents and summer residents, although an increase in the number of tourists is 

predicted for hiking, wildlife photography, and wildlife observation. The number of visitors would 

depend on the season and would grow as the refuge land base increases and more public use 

programs are provided. 
147

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Many of the wildlife-dependent recreational activities offered have yet to be discovered by local 

citizens. As a generator of economic benefits, each alternative identifies hunting and wildlife 

observation as important tourist attractions. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, development of wildlifedependent recreation programs and facilities and improved publicity would lead to the greatest 

economic benefit from increased tourism. The staff estimates that visitation to the refuge for activities 

besides hunting would increase from 25,000 to 35,000 to 50,000 from Alternative 1 to 2 to 3. At an 

estimated $100 per day (Vogelsang 2001), the visitation represents an increase from $2.5 million to 

$3.5 million to $5 million. Alternative 2 represents a slight increase in contributions to the local 

economy; Alternative 3 represents a moderately beneficial effect. 

The proposed levels of funding would vary greatly from Alternative 1 to 2 to 3. Alternative 1 would 

have a recurring annual funding of $158,000; there would be $150,000 in first-year or one-time 

funding as the Service hires employees, constructs buildings, or repairs facilities. Alternative 2 would 

have a recurring annual funding of $499,350; there would be $1,867,000 in first-year or one-time 

funding as the Service hires employees, constructs buildings, or repairs facilities. Alternative 3 would 

have a recurring annual funding of $726,750; there would be $2,029,000 in first-year or one-time 

funding as the Service hires employees, constructs buildings, or repairs facilities. The added 

expenditures of Alternative 2 would have a slightly positive effect on the local economy; Alternative 3 

would have a moderately positive effect. 

Land acquisition within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary would decrease the gross property 

tax revenues of Currituck County. However, there would be an increase in refuge revenue-sharing 

payments. Because the Service is a federal agency, it is not subject to state and local taxes. Under the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service makes annual payments to the counties to 

offset the loss of property tax revenues. These annual refuge revenue-sharing payments for owned and 

acquired lands are computed on whichever of the following formulas is greatest: (1) three-fourths of 1 

percent of the fair market value of the lands acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts 

collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the counties. The Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act also requires that Service lands be appraised every five years to ensure that 

payments to local governments remain equitable. In 2004, Currituck County received a revenue-sharing 

payment of $35,301 for 4,099 acres ($8.62 per acre) with an appraised value of $10,100,848 at Currituck 

National Wildlife Refuge. This was only 47% of the amount due to the county under the Revenue 

Sharing Act. Congress did not appropriate sufficient funding to pay the full amount. If fully funded, 

revenue sharing would have paid $75,756 to the county. 

Currituck County has assessed the value of refuge land for its development potential at $31,464,658. At the 

county tax rate of $.62 per $100 of assessed value, the tax for its development value would be $195,081. 

The State of North Carolina recommends that counties tax undeveloped land based on the present 

use of the land. The state publishes a use-value manual based on the area of the state (Major Land 

Resource Area or MLRA) and the soil series of the land. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is in the 

Tidewater area (MLRA 153B) and has 3,749 acres of soils rated as unproductive, 190 acres of Osier 

soil (Class I) in forest, and 160 acres of Ousley soil (Class V) in forest (Table 35). The county tax 

rate is $.62 per $100 of assessed value. The county would have taxed $243,160 of assessed value 

$1,507.59 if the 4,099 acres ($.36 per acre) of land were privately owned. 
148 

Table 35. North Carolina present use value calculation 

Soil Acreage Class Value/Acre Total Value 

Beaches 

Corolla 

Currituck 

Duckston 

Newhan 

3,749 VI 

(Unproductive) 

$40 $149,960 

Osier 190 I (Forest) $440 $83,600 

Ousley 160 V (Forest) $60 $9,600 

Total 4,099 $243,160 

The Revenue-Sharing Act payment of $35,301 is less than one-sixth of the county tax of $195,081 

based on its development value, and is more than twenty three times the state-recommended tax of 

$1,507.59 based on the current land use. The Service would contribute revenue-sharing payments to 

all new acquisitions. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 

REGULATORY EFFECTS 

As indicated in Chapter I, Background, of the comprehensive conservation plan (Section A), the 

Service must comply with a number of federal laws, administrative orders, and policies in the 

development and implementation of its management actions and programs. Among these mandates 

are the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and compliance with 

Executive Orders 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and 11988 (Floodplain Management). The 

implementation of any of the three alternatives described in this environmental assessment would not 

lead to a violation of these or other mandates. 

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 and construction of new trails with the soil disturbance required. In most cases, these 

management actions would require review by the Service’s Regional Cultural Resource Officer in 

consultation with the State of North Carolina’s 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 ongoing 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 proposed 

federal action that may affect archaeological or historical resources be reviewed by the State Historic 

Preservation Office, and that the proposed action must avoid or mitigate the identified effects. The 

Service’s policy is to preserve cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust, and 

avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. 
149

Land acquisition 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. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the Service would conduct a comprehensive cultural resources survey of 

the refuge and interpret the history of the Monkey Island Hunt Club at the visitor contact station. The 

building that housed the club is not restorable and is on an eroding island in Currituck Sound. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The decision-making process used in developing this plan and environmental assessment followed the 

procedures in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Service conducted eight public 

meetings throughout the area served by the refuge, and advertised the planning process and the 

meetings in the print media and with posters in government offices and business establishments. 

Management of the refuge is not intensive and does not involve the use of hazardous substances. The 

management practice with the most potential for environmental harm is prescribed burning. The Service 

uses prescriptions developed by the state of North Carolina to minimize the effects of smoke on human 

health. The hazards presented by the smoke are distributed equally among all residents of the area. 

WATER QUALITY, WETLANDS, AND FLOODPLAINS 

The water quality in the waters surrounding the refuge is good (Table 5). None of the proposed 

actions in this plan should reduce that water quality. The majority of the refuge is classified as 

wetlands (Table 4). The Service will apply for the appropriate permits from the federal and state 

agencies that regulate wetlands before starting any development on the refuge. The Service will 

avoid or minimize any disturbance to wetlands in its development process. The majority of the refuge 

also floods on a regular basis with wind tides. The major activity in the areas subject to flooding will 

be prescribed burning, waterfowl hunting, and wildlife surveys in the marsh. None of these activities 

have impacts on the frequency or extent of flooding. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS 

None of the three alternatives would have a significantly negative effect on public health and safety. The 

only potential safety problems involve the possibility of hiking accidents occurring on the refuge’s trails, 

and accidents occurring during the hunting season. As indicated below in the Mitigation Measures 

section, time and space zoning has been used successfully on national wildlife refuges to minimize the 

possibility of potential accidents and conflicts between hunters and other refuge user groups. 
150 

REFUGE REVENUE SHARING 

Under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service makes annual payments to the 

counties to offset the loss of property tax revenues. These annual refuge revenue-sharing payments 

for owned and acquired lands are computed on whichever of the following formulas is greatest: (1) 

three-fourths of 1 percent of the fair market value of the lands acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of 

the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the 

counties. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act also requires that Service lands be appraised every five 

years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. In 2004, Currituck County 

received a revenue-sharing payment of $35,301 for 4,099 acres ($8.62 per acre) with an appraised 

value of $10,100,848 at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. This was only 47% of the amount due to 

the county under the Revenue Sharing Act. Congress did not appropriate sufficient funding to pay 

the full amount. If fully funded, revenue sharing would have paid $75,756 to the county.

UNCERTAINTY OF FUTURE ACTION EFFECTS 

In general, one of the components of each alternative is the inventory and monitoring of fish and 

wildlife populations on the refuge. Once this information is known, the Service would develop 

detailed step-down management plans to manage the fish and wildlife populations on the refuge, 

based on the application of sound fish and wildlife management principles and concepts. The 

specific content of the step-down management plans would provide the basis for further analysis of 

environmental effects. The alternatives in this plan do present sufficient information to assess the full 

potential environmental effects of plans to be developed in the future. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects on the environment result from incremental effects of a proposed action when 

these combine with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. While cumulative 

effects may result from individually minor actions, they may, when viewed as a whole, become 

significant over time. 

The implementation of any of the three alternatives described in this document includes actions 

relating to site development, fish and wildlife habitat and population management, land acquisition, 

and recreational use programs. These actions would have both direct and indirect affects (e.g., site 

development would result in increased public use, thus increasing littering, noise, and vehicular 

traffic); however, the cumulative effects of these actions over the 15-year planning period are not 

expected to be significant. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

Described below are the measures used to mitigate and minimize the potential adverse effects. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCES 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. All of the proposed alternative public use activities contained in this document 

have been carefully planned to avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 
151

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated level of disturbance of the proposed alternative 

(Alternative 2) is not considered significant and is well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species 

and populations present in the area. Implementation of the proposed public use program would take place 

through carefully controlled time and space zoning, including the management of waterfowl sanctuary 

areas, establishment of protection zones around key sites such as rookeries and eagle nests (if necessary), 

and the routing of roads and trails to avoid contact with sensitive areas such as rookery habitats, etc. In 

addition, the refuge would conduct all public hunting activities (season lengths, bag limits, number of 

hunters) within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific regulations established to 

restrict illegal or nonconforming activities. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission sets the 

hunting seasons and bag limits enforced on the refuge. 

General wildlife observation and photography activities may result in minimal disturbances to wildlife. If visitors 

venture too close to foraging songbirds, waterfowl, wading birds, or other wildlife, disruption of foraging or 

resting activities could result in more severe disturbances. To mitigate these potential disturbances, the 

Service would design and construct all visitor trails and observation points with a buffer around key wildlife 

foraging and resting areas. The staff would educate visitors through signs and brochures to avoid disturbing 

wildlife. The refuge staff would fence areas of nesting shorebirds to exclude pedestrian traffic. Also, they 

would close any area on the refuge to the public if disturbance becomes excessive. 

Temporary initial disturbances to wildlife and habitat would occur during the construction of new facilities 

such as trails, wildlife observation platforms, photo blinds, and interpretive sites. However, once the 

construction of such facilities is completed, the experience gained by the public would offset these 

disturbances. Allowing these nonconsumptive recreational opportunities on the refuge would help to 

maintain and build public support for the refuge and the Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear ecosystem. 

The Service would monitor the impacts of its activities through wildlife inventories and assessments 

of public use levels and activities. The staff would adjust public use programs as needed to limit 

disturbance to acceptable levels. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use levels expand across time, unanticipated conflicts between user groups may occur. 

The staff would adjust the refuge’s public use programs as needed to eliminate or minimize each 

problem and provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Experience 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. The current 

practice of discouraging all public uses except hunting during the hunting season would continue. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed action would not impact adjacent or inholding landowners. The plan 

allows essential access to private property through the issuance of special use permits. Future land 

acquisitions would occur on a willing seller basis only and at fair market values. In addition, under the 

preferred alternative of the proposed comprehensive conservation plan, the staff would conduct water 

quality sampling and monitoring activities to document current conditions and seek to improve the 

water quality, if necessary. The state’s existing water quality criteria and use classifications are 

adequate to achieve desired on-refuge conditions. Thus, implementation of the proposed alternative 

would not impact adjacent landowners or users beyond the constraints already implemented under 

existing state standards and laws. Prescribed burning would minimize the threat of wildfire to 

adjacent landowners from the refuge’s marshes or forests. 
152 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 

Land acquisition within the approved acquisition boundary would result in changes in land and 

recreational use patterns, since all uses on National Wildlife Refuges must meet compatibility 

standards. Land ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the 

private sector on these lands. The land within the approved acquisition boundary is subject to 

regulation under the Clean Water Act that would limit development of the land for residential, 

commercial, industrial, or agricultural use. 

Potential development of access roads, buildings, trails, water control structures, visitor parking areas 

and other improvements could lead to minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soils, and some 

wildlife species. When the refuge proposes site development activities, each activity would receive the 

appropriate National Environmental Policy Act consideration during pre-construction planning. At that 

time, the refuge staff would incorporate any required mitigation activities into the specific project to reduce 

the level of impacts to the human environment and to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to increased littering, noise and vehicle traffic. While the Service would 

allocate funding and personnel to minimize, these indirect effects, such allocations would make the 

resources unavailable for other programs. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Table 36 compares the environmental effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1, the existing condition. 
153

Table 36. Comparison of the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1 

Area of Concern Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Effect on Wildlife 

Feral Horse Population No Change No Change 

Fish Population No Change No Change 

Invertebrate Population No Change No Change 

Land Bird Population No Change Moderate Increase 

Mammal Population No Change No Change 

Reptile and Amphibian Population No Change No Change 

Shorebird Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Wading Bird Population Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Waterfowl Population No Change No Change 

Pest Animal Populations Moderate Decrease Moderate Decrease 

Area of Concern Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Effect on Wildlife Habitat 

Conditions of All Habitats Moderate Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Dune Grass and Maritime Dry 

Grassland Conditions 

No Change Slight Improvement 

Maritime Forest Conditions No Change Moderate Improvement 

Maritime Shrub Conditions No Change Moderate Improvement 

Brackish Marsh Condition No Change Slight Improvement 

Moist Soil Unit Conditions Slight Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Wood Duck Box Condition No Change No Change 

Pest Plant Populations Moderate Improvement Moderate Improvement 

Natural Heritage Area Condition No Change No Change 

Effect on Physical Environment 

Soil Condition No Change No Change 

Air Quality No Change No Change 

Water Quality Slight Improvement Slight Improvement 

Effect on Social Environment 

Hunting Slightly Positive Moderately Positive 

Environmental Education Slightly Positive Moderately Positive 

Interpretation Slightly Positive Moderately Positive 

Wildlife Observation Slightly Positive Moderately Positive 

Wildlife Photography Slightly Positive Moderately Positive 

Outreach Slightly Positive Moderately Positive 

Outreach Quality Slightly Positive Moderately Positive 

Refuge Support Slightly Positive Moderately Positive 

Cultural Resource Protection No Change No Change 

Effect on Economic Environment 

Local Expenditures Slight Increase Moderate Increase 

Local Property Taxes No Change No Change 
154 
155

V. Consultation and Coordination 

The Service formed a planning core team composed of representatives from its various divisions to 

prepare the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. The members 

of this planning core team are identified in Table 37. Initially, the team focused on identifying the 

issues and concerns pertinent to refuge management. The team met on several occasions from 

January 2001 to October 2002. 

In addition, a biological review team met on the refuges in the ecosystem four times between 

December 1999 and December 2000 to assess the habitats on the refuges and the needs of wildlife 

species in the ecosystem, and make recommendations on land management and acquisition needs. 

Table 38 lists the members of this biological review team. 

Throughout the planning process, the core team also sought the contributions of experts from various 

fields (Table 39). 

The core planning team began its work in January 2001. On June 19, 21, 26, and 28, 2001, the 

planning team held a series of public scoping meetings to gain the insights of local citizens and their 

perceptions on the issues and concerns facing the refuge. The issues and alternatives generated 

from these meetings, coupled with the input of the planning team, are summarized in Chapters I and 

III of this environmental assessment. 

The planning team formulated the three alternatives based on expert opinion and local concerns. 

After the team developed the alternatives, the refuge manager and the planning staff met with the 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in October 2002. The refuge staff presented the 

three alternatives during a second round of public meetings held on November 18, 19, 20, and 21, 

2002, to solicit public reaction to the alternatives. 

Table 37: Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Core Planning Team members 

Member Affiliation 

Tim Cooper, Project Leader 

Suzanne Baird, Former Project Leader 

Kendall Smith, Assistant Manager 

Mike Panz, Park Ranger 

Peggy Vanzant, Office Assistant 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Knott’s Island, North Carolina 

Robert Glennon, Natural Resource Planner 

David Brown, Former Habitat Protection 

Biologist 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 
156 

Table 38. Biological Review Team members, Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

Member Affiliation 

Bob Noffsinger, Former Supervisory Wildlife 

Management Biologist 

Migratory Bird Field Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Frank Bowers, Former Migratory Bird 

Coordinator 

Southeast Regional Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Chuck Hunter, Former Nongame Migratory Bird 

Coordinator 

Southeast Regional Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Ronnie Smith, Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Assistance Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

John Stanton, Wildlife Biologist Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Swan Quarter, North Carolina 

Wendy Stanton, Wildlife Biologist Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Columbia, North Carolina 

Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Biologist Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Ralph Keel, Wildlife Biologist Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Suffolk, Virginia 

John Gallegos, Wildlife Biologist Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

David Allen, Nongame Wildlife Biologist North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission 

Trenton, North Carolina 

Jeff Horton, Site Manager The Nature Conservancy 

Windsor, North Carolina 
157

Table 39. Expert contributors to the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and their area(s) of expertise 

Name Field of Expertise 

Bill Grabill, Former Refuge Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Refuge Management 

Dwane Hinson, District Conservationist 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Currituck, North Carolina 

Soil and Water Conservation 

Federal Land Conservation Programs 

John Gagnon, Soil Scientist 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

Soil Science 

Kevin Moody, Former NEPA Specialist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

National Environmental Policy Act 

John Ann Shearer, Private Lands Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

Wetland Management, 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

Richard Kanaski, Regional Archeologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Savannah, Georgia 

Cultural Resources 
158 
159

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

Appendix I. Glossary 

Adaptive Management A process in which projects are implemented within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions outlined within the comprehensive conservation 

plan. The analysis of the outcome of project implementation 

helps managers determine whether current management should 

continue as is or whether it should be modified to achieve 

desired conditions. 

Alternative Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge 

purposes, goals, and objectives and contributing to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. A reasonable way to fix the identified 

problem or satisfy the stated need. 

Approved Acquisition Boundary A project boundary that the Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service approves upon completion of the detailed planning and 

environmental compliance process. This boundary provides a 

“working area” for acquisition. The refuge may purchase land 

from willing sellers within the boundary. It does not mean all 

lands within the boundary are targeted for acquisition.

Biological Diversity The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of

living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the 

communities and ecosystems in which they occur. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes.

Biological Integrity The biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, 

organism, and community levels comparable with historic 

conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape 

genomes, organisms, and communities. 

Canopy A layer of foliage; generally the uppermost layer in a forest 

stand. It can be used to refer to mid- or understory vegetation in 

multilayered stands. Canopy closure is an estimate of the 

amount of overhead tree cover (also canopy cover). 

Categorical Exclusion A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human environment and have 

been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a 

federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 
160 

Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge 

manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the 

fulfillment of the mission or the purposes of the refuge. A 

compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible 

uses and identifies stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan A document that describes the desired future conditions of the 

refuge; provides long-range guidance and management 

direction for the refuge manager to accomplish the purposes, 

goals, and objectives of the refuge; and contributes to the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and meet 

relevant mandates. 

Conservation Easement A legal document that provides specific land use rights to a 

secondary party. A perpetual conservation easement usually 

grants conservation and management rights to a party in 

perpetuity. 

Cooperative Agreement A simple habitat protection action in which no property rights are 

acquired. An agreement is usually long-term and can be 

modified by either party. Lands under a cooperative agreement 

do not necessarily become part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

Corridor A route that allows movement of wildlife from one region or 

place to another. 

Cover Type The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resources The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people of 

the past. 

Cypress and Tupelo Swamp Found in low-lying areas, swales and open ponds that hold 

water several months, if not all of the year. Large hollow trees 

are used as bear den sites. 

Deciduous Pertaining to perennial plants that are leafless for sometime 

during the year. 

Ecological Succession The orderly progression of an area through time in the absence 

of disturbance from one vegetative community to another. 

Ecosystem A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal 

communities and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem Management Management of natural resources using systemwide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained 

at viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem 

processes are perpetuated indefinitely. 
161

Environmental Health The composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, 

and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, 

including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment. 

Even-aged Forests Forests that are composed of trees with a time span of less than 

20 years between oldest and youngest individuals. 

Endangered Species A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Endemic Species Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and 

whose distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environmental Assessment A concise document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and 

need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether 

to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no 

significant impact. 

Fauna All the vertebrate or invertebrate animals of an area. 

Federal Trust Species All species where the federal government has primary 

jurisdiction, including federally threatened or endangered 

species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine 

mammals. 

Fee Title The acquisition of most or all of the rights to a tract of land. 

There is a total transfer of property rights with the formal 

conveyance of a title. While a fee title acquisition involves most 

rights to a property, certain rights may be reserved or not 

purchased, including water rights, mineral rights, or use 

reservation (the ability to continue using the land for a specified 

time period, or the reminder of the owner’s life). 

Finding of No Significant Impact 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. 
162 

Floodplain Woods Bottomland hardwood forests. Consists of hardwoods (oldgrowth and midsuccessional-aged timber), cypress tupelo 

stands found on low ridges that drain slowly and subject to 

flooding, overcup, willow, water oaks, sweetgum, green ash. 

Old growth typically exceeds 120 years of age. Red oaks were 

removed in the 1940s. Mid-succession is logged timber that 

may need restoration to improve wildlife habitat. Some areas 

are missing several key oak species. 

Fragmentation The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat 

patches. The disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and 

small patches. 

Goal Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired 

future conditions that convey a purpose but does not define 

measurable units. 

Geographic Information System A computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

mapping data. 

Ground Story (Flora) Vascular plants less than one meter in height, excluding tree 

seedlings. 

Herbaceous Wetland Annually or seasonally inundated with vegetation consisting 

primarily of grasses, sedges, rushes, and cattail. 

Historic Conditions The composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems 

resulting from natural processes that we believe, based on 

sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial 

human related changes to the landscape. 

Habitat The place where an organism lives. The existing environmental 

conditions required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. 

Indicator Species A species of plant or animals that is assumed to be sensitive to 

habitat changes and represents the needs of a larger group of 

species. 

Inholding Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national wildlife 

refuge. 

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. 

Migratory The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Monitoring The process of collecting information to track changes of 

selected parameters over time. 
163

National Environmental Policy Requires all agencies, including the Service, to 

Act examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the 

planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate this Act with other planning requirements, and 

prepare appropriate policy documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision-making. 

National Wildlife Refuge A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

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, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl 

production areas. 

Native Species Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird A bird species that breeds north of the United States/Mexican 

border and winters primarily south of that border. 

Objective A concise quantitative (where possible) target statement of what 

will be achieved. Objectives are derived from goals and provide 

the basis for determining management strategies. Objectives 

should be attainable and time-specific. 

Planning Area A planning area may include lands outside existing 

planning unit boundaries that are being studied for inclusion in 

the unit and/or partnership planning efforts. It may also include 

watersheds or ecosystems that affect the planning area. 

Planning Team A team that prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and 

function. A team generally consists of the planning team leader; 

refuge manager and staff biologists; staff specialists or other 

representatives of Service programs, ecosystems or regional 

offices; and state-partnering wildlife agencies as appropriate. 

Preferred Alternative The alternative determined by the decision-maker to best 

achieve the refuge’s purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to 

the refuge system mission; addresses the significant issues; and 

is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. 

Purpose(s) of the Refuge The purpose(s) specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, 

donation document, or administrative memorandum 

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or 

refuge subunit. 
164 

Refuge Operating Needs System A national database that contains the unfunded operational 

needs of each refuge. Projects included are those required to 

implement approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal 

mandates. 

Seral Forest A forest in the mature stage of development, usually dominated 

by large, old trees. 

Sink A habitat in which local mortality exceeds local reproductive 

success for a given species. 

Sink Population A population in a low-quality habitat in which the birth rate is 

generally less than the death rate and the population density is 

maintained by immigrants from source populations. 

Source A habitat in which local reproductive success exceeds local 

mortality for a given species. 

Source Population A population in a high-quality habitat in which the birth rate 

greatly exceeds the death rate and the excess individuals leave 

as migrants. 

Step-down Management Plans Specific plans that provide the details necessary to implement 

management strategies and projects identified in the 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Strategy A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, 

tools, and techniques used to meet unit objectives. 

Threatened Species Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely 

to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of their range. 

Trust Species Species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has primary 

responsibility, including most federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, anadromous fish once they enter the 

inland coastal waterways, and migratory birds. 

Understory Any vegetation with a canopy below or closer to the ground than 

the canopies of other plants. 

Wildlife Corridor A landscape feature that facilitates the biologically effective 

transport of animals between larger patches of habitat dedicated 

to conservation functions. Such corridors may facilitate several 

kinds of traffic, including frequent foraging movement, seasonal 

migration, or the once-in-a-lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. 

These are transition habitats and need not contain all the habitat 

elements required by migrants for long-term survival or 

reproduction. 
165

Wildlife-dependent Recreation A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography and environmental education and 

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are the six priority 

general public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
166 
167

Appendix II. References and Literature Cited 

Beal, E.O. 1977. A Manual of Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Plants of North Carolina with Habitat 

Data. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 247. 277 pp. 

Bellis, V. and E. Proffitt. 1976. Maritime Forest in Ecological Determinants of Coastal Area 

Management. Volume II – Appendices. Sea Grant Program, North Carolina State University, 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Stackhole Books, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. 544 pp. 

Bookhout, T.A. 1994. Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats. Fifth 

edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 740 pp. 

Borawa, J.C., J.H. Kerby, M.T. Hiush and A.W. Mullis. 1979. Currituck Sound fish populations 

before and after infestation by Eurasian water-milfoil. Proceedings of the Annual Conference 

of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 32: 520–28. 

Brower, D., F. Parker, D. Frankenburg, B.J. Copeland and R. Alden. 1976. Ecological Determinants 

of Coastal Area Management. Sea Grant Program, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 

North Carolina. 

Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenhelder. 1964. A Field Guide to the Mammals. Houghton Mifflin 

Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 266 pp. 

Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. 1974. Biophysical description and assessment of North 

Whalehead Beach Project Area, Currituck County, North Carolina. Prepared for Urban 

Developers, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia. 68 pp. 

Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson and J.B. Funderburg (eds). 1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants 

and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, 

North Carolina. 

Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Office of Biological Services FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. 

Dolan, R., B. Hayden, C. Rea and J. Heywood. 1979. Shoreline erosion rates along the middle 

Atlantic Coast of the United States. Geology 7: 602-606. 

Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating shorebirds in the Midwest. In 

M.K. Laubhan and D. Hamilton, eds., Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Eubanks, Ted, Paul Kerlinger and R.H. Payne. 1993. High Island, Texas: A case study in 

avitourism. Birding 25(6): 415-420). 
168 

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. 

Fenneman, N.M. 1938. Physiography of the Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York. 714 

pp. 

Fisher, J.J. 1962. Geomorphic Expression of Former Inlets among the Outer Banks of North 

Carolina. M.A. Thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 120 pp. 

Florshutz, O., Jr. 1972. The importance of Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) as a 

waterfowl food. Proceedings of the Annual Conference, Southeastern Association of Game 

and Fish Commissions 26:189-194. 

Florshutz, O., Jr. 1979. Personal communication. 

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: 1950s to 1970s. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 32 pp. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1988. Waterfowl use of forested wetlands of the southern 

United States: an overview. Pages 307-323 in M.W. Weller, ed., Waterfowl in Winter. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and F. A. Reid. 1988. Nutritional value of waterfowl foods. In M.K. Laubhan and 

D. Hamilton, eds., Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Strategies for water level manipulation in moist soil systems. In M.K. 

Laubhan and D. Hamilton, eds., Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Frost, C. 1995. Presettlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. 

Pages 39-60 in Susan I. Cerulean and R. Todd Engstrom, eds., Fire in Wetlands: A 

Management Perspective. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 19. 

 Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Frost, C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes in the United States: a first approximation. 

Pages 70-81 in Teresa L. Pruden and Leonard A. Brennan, eds., Fire in Ecosystem 

Management: Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription. Proceedings of the 

Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, 

Florida. 

Godfrey, P.J. and M.M. Godfrey. 1976. Barrier Island Ecology of Cape Lookout National Seashore 

and Vicinity, North Carolina. National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series No. 9. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC. 159 pp. 

Godfrey, P.J., S. Leatherman and P. Buckley. 1978. Impact of off-road vehicles on coastal 

ecosystems. Pages 581-600 in Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomic, 

and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Planning and Management. San Francisco, 

California, March 14-16, 1978. 
169

Goldsmith, V., A. Gutman, H. Hennigar, Y.E. Goldsmith, P.S. Rosen, M. Boule and E. Barnett. 1977. 

Coastal dune geomorphology and classification. Abstract. Proceedings of the American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. 

Gutman, A.L. 1978. The Interaction of Eolian Sand Transport, Vegetation and Dune 

Geomorphology, Currituck Spit, Virginia-North Carolina. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 

SRAMSOE No. 143. 

Haag, W.G. 1958. The Archeology of Coastal North Carolina. Louisiana State University, Coastal 

Study Series 2. 

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Hefner, J.H. and J.D. Brown. 1984. Wetland trends in the southeastern United States. Wetlands

4:1-11. 

Hennigar, H.F., Jr. 1979. Historical Evolution of Coastal Sand Dunes of Currituck Spit, Virginia-North 

Carolina. M.S. Thesis. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 120 pp. 

Hosier, P.E. and W.J. Cleary. 1979. An Analysis of Selected Sites on Currituck Spit, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North 

Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Hoyt, J.S. 1967. Barrier island formation. Geological Society of America Bulletin 78: 1125-1136. 

Hunter, W.C., D.N. Pashley and R.E.F. Escano. 1992. Neotropical migratory landbird species and 

their habitats of special concern within the southeast region. Pages 159-169 in D.M. Finch 

and P.W. Stangel, eds., Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest 

Service, General Technical Report RM-229, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Hunter, W.C., L.H. Peoples and J.A. Collazo. 2001. South Atlantic Coastal Plain Partners in Flight 

Bird Conservation Plan. Partners in Flight, www.partnersinflight.org. 

Jackson, R.F., Jr. 1978. Back Bay complex – ambient water quality monitoring data review. State 

Water Control Board, Norfolk, Virginia. 

Johnson, D.W. 1919. Shore Processes and Shoreline Development. New York: John Wiley and 

Sons. 

Kerlinger, P. 1994. The Economic Impact of Birding Ecotourism on Communities Surrounding Eight 

National Wildlife Refuges. Washington, DC: National Fish and Wildlife Association. 

Kerlinger, P. 1999. Birding Tourism and Dauphin Island. 

Leggett, A.T., Jr. and G.L. Butler. 1975. Preliminary report on a population and behavior of the ghost 

crab (Ocypode quadrata) at the Back Bay National Wildllife Refuge. Unpublished report. 

Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia. 
170 

Lee, B.B. and D.S. Lee. 1978. Observations of the autumn hawk migration along North Carolina’s 

Outer Banks. The ASB Bulletin 25 (2). 

Levy, G.F. 1976. Vegetative Study of the Duck Field Research Facility, Duck, North Carolina.

Miscellaneous Report 76-6, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coastal Engineering Research 

Station, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow, eds. 2000. The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological 

Symposium. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Division of Archives and History. 

Matta, J.F. 1977. Beach Fauna Study of Coastal Engineering Research Facility, Duck, North 

Carolina. Miscellaneous Report No. 77-6, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coastal 

Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second edition. New York: Van Nostrand 

Reinhold. 722 pp. 

Munse, C.M. 1975. Study of macroscopic flora and fauna of the intertidal zone on the open beach at 

Back Bay. Unpublished report. Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, 

Norfolk, Virginia. 

National Audubon Society. 1998. Campaign on HR 3267. National Audubon Society, New York, 

New York. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Wildlife-associated Recreation on the 

New Jersey-Delaware Bayshore. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, New 

Jersey. 

Nichols, T.R. 1979. Peregrine banding project – Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia to Duck, 

North Carolina, 9/26/79 to 10/24/79. Unpublished report. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2002. Largest employers by county. 

www.ncesc.com. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2004. Unemployment rates by county. 

www.ncesc.com. 

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 2001. North Carolina Coastal Plain Paddle Trails 

Guide. North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Seven Springs, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1979. Data on natural heritage areas of Dare and 

Currituck counties, North Carolina. Unpublished report. North Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Oaks, R.Q., Jr. and N.K. Coch. 1973. Post-Miocene Stratigraphy and Morphology, Southeastern 

Virginia. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, Technical Bulletin 82. 135 pp. 

Odum, H.T., B.J. Copeland and E.A. McMahan, eds. 1974. Coastal Ecological Systems of the 

United States. Four volumes. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation. 
171

Osborne, R.G. and T.W. Custer. 1978. Herons and their Allies: Atlas of Atlantic Coast Colonies, 

1975-1976. Biological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-7-108. 

211 pp. 

Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce. 2003. History of Dare County. 5 pp. Outer Banks Chamber of 

Commerce, Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. 

Perry, J.E. 1979. Preliminary ecological observations of Currituck and Dare County marshes. North 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North Carolina 

Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Riggs, S.R. and D.K. Belknap. 1988. Upper Cenozoic processes and environments of continental 

margin sedimentation: eastern United States. Pages 131-176 in R.E. Sheridan and J.A. 

Graw, eds., The Geology of North America, Volumes 1-2, the Atlantic Continental Margin. 

U.S. Geological Society of America. 

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakely. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North 

Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North 

Carolina. 325 pp. 

Schmidt, P.R. 1993. Memorandum - Information request regarding impacts of hunting on national 

wildlife refuges. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory 

Bird Management, Washington, DC. 7 pp. 

Schwartz, M.L. 1971. The multiple causality of barrier islands. Journal of Geology 79: 91-94. 

Segar, W.S. 1979. Habitat use patterns of the peregrine falcon during autumn migration on 

Maryland and Virginia barrier islands. Unpublished report. 17 pp. 

Seneca, E.D., W.W. Woodhouse and S.W. Brome. 1977. Dune Stabilization with Panicum amarum 

along the North Carolina Coast. Center for Marine and Coastal Studies, Report No. 77-1, 

UNC-56-77-03. 

Shepard, P.P. 1973. Submarine Geology. New York: Harper and Row. 517 pp. 

Sincock, J.L., K.E. Johnston, J.L. Coggin, R.E. Wollitz, J.A. Kerwin and J. Grandy. 1965. Back Bay – 

Currituck sound data report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission, and Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries. 1,600 pp. 

Snowden, A. 1979. Personal communication. 

Stick, D. 1958. The Outer Banks of North Carolina: 1584-1958. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The 

University of North Carolina Press. 352 pp. 

Stiven, A. and R. Plotecia. 1976. Salt Marsh Primary Productivity Estimates for North Carolina 

Coastal Counties: Projections from a Regression Model. Sea Grant Program, University of 

North Carolina, Raleigh. UNC-56-76-06. 

Sutton, C.H. and V. Goldsmith. 1976. Regional trends in historical shoreline changes: New Jersey to 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Paper presented at G.S.A. NE-SE Conference, March, 1976. 

Washington, DC. 
172 

Tyndall, R.W. 1977. Plant Distribution and Succession within Interdunal Depressions on a Virginia 

Barrier Dune System. M.S. Thesis, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 1997. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 2002. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Forest Statistics for North Carolina Counties - 

1991. Resource Bulletin SE-120. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Forest Statistics for Virginia Counties - 1991.

 Resource Bulletin SE-131. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982a. Soil Survey of Currituck County, 

North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982b. Soil Survey of Virginia Beach, 

Virginia. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric Soils of the State of North 

Carolina, 1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with 

the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington, DC. Unpaginated. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Economic Census, Currituck County, 

North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000a. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General 

Profiles: Currituck County, North Carolina; Dare County, North Carolina; and Virginia Beach, 

Virginia. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000b. County Business Patterns: Currituck 

County, North Carolina; Dare County, North Carolina; and Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000c. Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program. 2000: Model-based Income and Poverty Estimates for Currituck County 

and Dare County, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1981. Report on Fisheries of the South Atlantic States. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Volume 11, 285 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Nature-based Tourism. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1975. Waterfowl harvest and hunter activity in the United States 

during the 1974 hunting season. Administrative report. Office of Migratory Bird Management. 

Laurel, Maryland. 
173

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Black Duck Coastal Wintering Habitat Concept Plan, Category 

5. Region 5 Office, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated 

Recreation - North Carolina. Washington, DC.

Virginia Employment Commission. 2004. Labor Market Analysis: Virginia Beach. 

http://www.velma.virtuallmi.com. 

Vogelsang, Hans. 2001. Assessing the Economic Impact of Ecotourism Developments on the 

Albemarle/Pamlico Region. Greenville, North Carolina: East Carolina University, Department 

of Recreation and Leisure Studies.

Ward, L. 1976. The Status of Barrier Islands of the Southeastern Coast. Open Space Institute, New 

York, New York. 300 pp. 

Ward, L.W., R.H. Bailey and J.G. Carter. 1991. Pliocene and early Pleistocene stratigraphy, 

depositional history, and molluscan paleobiography of the Coastal Plain. Chapter 16 (pages 

79-92) in J.W. Horton, Jr. and V. Zullo, eds., The Geology of the Carolinas. Carolina 

Geological Society, 50th Anniversary Volume. Knoxville, Tennessee: The University of 

Tennessee Press. 

Winner, M.D., Jr. 1975. Ground Water Resources of Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North 

Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas – 540. 
174 
175

Appendix III. Relevant Legal Mandates 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM AUTHORITIES 

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation’s fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the 

primary federal agency responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain 

marine mammals, and anadromous fish. This responsibility to conserve our Nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources is shared with other federal agencies and state and tribal governments. 

As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the national wildlife refuge system. This system is 

the only nationwide system of federal land managed and protected for wildlife and their habitats. The 

mission of the national wildlife refuge system is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

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

of Americans. 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge is managed as part of this system in accordance with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Executive Order 12996 

(Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and other relevant 

legislation, executive orders, regulations, and policies. 

KEY LEGISLATION AND POLICIES FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

The Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes and 

illustrates management area projects with standards and guidelines for future decision-making and 

may be adjusted through monitoring and evaluation, as well as amendment and revision. The plan 

approval establishes conservation and land protection goals, objectives, and specific strategies for 

the refuge and its expansion. Compatible recreation uses specific to the refuge have been identified 

and approved by the refuge manager. This plan provides for systematic stepping down from the 

overall direction as outlined when making project or activity level decisions. This level involves 

site-specific analysis (e.g., Forest Habitat Management Plan) to meet National Environmental Policy 

Act requirements for decision-making. 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, federal or non-federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, 

rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting. 
176 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are 

compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the 

uses. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal 

land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several 

authorities. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge 

Administration Act): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to permit any use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for 

which the Service established the refuge. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying 

mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority 

public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; establishes the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires 

a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of 

the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and 

facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of 

any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires that programmatic and physical accessibility be made available 

in any facility funded by the federal government, ensuring that anyone can participate in any program. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major 

wetland modifications. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by the floodplain. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl 

and offset or prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential 

habitat, and for other purposes. 
177

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control 

or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other 

federal and state agencies. 

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and 

services. 

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the national wildlife refuge 

system. It also presents four principles to guide management of the system. 

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986: This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from 

Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. The 

Act also requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation 

Plan, requires the states to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund an amount equal to import duties on arms and 

ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended: Public Law 

93-205, approved December 28,1973, repealed the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

December 5,1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 act amended the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act of October 15,1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). The 1973 Endangered Species Act 

provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, 

wildlife, and plants depend, both through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of 

state programs. The Act authorizes the determination and listing of species as threatened and 

endangered; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; 

provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for threatened and endangered wildlife 

and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or 

regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest 

and conviction of anyone violating the Act and any regulation issued there under. 

 

Environmental Education Act of 1990(20 USC 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law 101-619, 

signed November 16,1990, established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a federal environmental education 

program. Responsibilities of the Office include developing and supporting programs to improve 

understanding of the natural and developed environment, and the relationships between humans and 

their environment; supporting the dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education seminars; managing a federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. The Office is required to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
178 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management: The purpose of this executive order, signed on 

May 24, 1977, is to prevent federal agencies from contributing to the adverse impacts associated with 

occupancy and modification of floodplains and the direct or indirect support of 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. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978: Congress passed this act to improve the 

administration of fish and wildlife programs and amend several earlier laws, including the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal 

property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects 

and appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

Antiquities Act (16 USC 431 - 433)--The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225): This act authorizes 

the President of the United States to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interests on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act required that a permit 

be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering of objects 

of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and 

provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 47011)-- Public Law 96-95, 

approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721): This act largely supplanted the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological items. It established detailed requirements for 

issuance of permits for any excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from Federal and 

Indian lands. It also established civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, 

or damage of any such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal and 

Indian lands in violation of any provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in 

such resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold value of 

artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act from $5,000 to $500, made attempting to commit 

an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the land managing agencies to establish 

public awareness programs regarding the value of archaeological resources to the nation. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c)--Public Law 86-523, 

approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220), and amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 24, 

1974, (88 Stat. 174): This act directed federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior 

whenever a federal, federally assisted, or licensed or permitted project may cause loss or destruction 

of significant scientific, prehistoric or archeological data. The Act authorized use of appropriated, 

donated, and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection and preservation of such data. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467)--The Act of August 

21,1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 

89-249, approved October 9,1965, (79 Stat. 971): This act declared it a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection of such sites. Among other 

things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of this Act. As of 

January 1989, thirty-one national wildlife refuges contained such sites. 
179

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n)--Public Law 89-665, 

approved October 15,1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended: This act provided for 

preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid 

program to the states. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of 

matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which Congress made a 

permanent independent agency in Public Law 94-422, approved September 28,1976 (90 Stat. 1319). 

 That Act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. The Act directs Federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places. As of January 1989, ninety-one such sites on national wildlife refuges are 

listed in this Register. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1948: This act provides funding through receipts from 

the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer continental 

shelf, and other sources of land acquisition under several authorities. 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. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), as 

amended: The Duck Stamp Act, of March 16,1934, requires each waterfowl hunter, 16 years of age 

or older, to possess a valid federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited 

in a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to 

appropriations. 

National and Community Service Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 12401:104 Stat. 3127), Public Law 101-

610, signed November 16,1990: This act authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the 

United States in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job 

skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. Several provisions are of particular 

interest to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps: A federal grant program established under 

Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults between the ages of 16-25, or 

in the case of summer programs, 15-21, to engage in approved human and natural resources 

projects which benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. To be eligible for 

assistance, natural resource programs must focus on improvement of wildlife habitat and recreational 

areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands protection, pollution control and similar 

projects. A stipend of not more than 100 percent of the poverty level will be paid to participants. A 

Commission established to administer the Youth Service Corps makes grants to States, the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 
180 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 

83 Stat. 852) as amended by Public Law 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and Public Law 94-83, 

August 9,1975, 89 Stat. 424): Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act requires that all 

federal agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for every recommendation or 

report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of 

the human environment. The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in environmental 

impact statements, and required that federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related 

decision-making and develop means to ensure that unquantified environmental values are given 

appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical considerations. Title II of this statute 

requires annual reports on environmental quality from the President to the Congress, and established 

a Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President with specific duties and 

functions. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Public Law 105-57, amended the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), and provided guidance for 

management and public use of the refuge system. The Act mandates that the refuge system be 

consistently directed and managed as a national system of lands and waters devoted to wildlife 

conservation and management. The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses of the refuge 

system. Six wildlife-dependent uses are specifically named in the Act: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These activities 

are to be promoted on the refuge system, while all nonwildlife-dependent uses are subject to 

compatibility determinations. A compatible use is one that, in the sound professional judgment of the 

refuge manger, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, fulfillment of the national wildlife 

refuge system mission or refuge purpose(s). As stated in the Act, The mission of the system is to 

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

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

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. The Act also requires 

development of a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge and that management is 

consistent with the plan. When writing a plan for expanded or new refuges, and when making 

management decisions, the Act requires effective coordination with other federal agencies, state fish 

and wildlife or conservation agencies, and refuge neighbors. A refuge must also provide 

opportunities for public involvement when making a compatibility determination. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 44O1~4412) Public Law 

101-233, enacted December 13, 1989: This act provides funding and administrative direction for 

implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on 

Wetlands between Canada, the United States and Mexico. The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson 

account into a trust fund, with the interest available without appropriation through the year 2006, to 

carry out the programs authorized by the Act, along with an authorization for annual appropriation of 

$15 million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States’ share of the cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of 

projects on federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds received are 

to go to Canada and Mexico each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1952: This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not 

interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development 

or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 
181

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s): Section 401 of the Act of June 15,1935, (49 Stat. 

383) provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. Public Law 88-523, approved August 30,1964, (78 Stat. 701) made major 

revisions by requiring that all revenues received from refuge products, such as animals, timber and 

minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be deposited in a special Treasury account and net 

receipts distributed to counties for public schools and roads. Public Law 93-509, approved December 

3,1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys remaining in the fund after payments be transferred to 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition under provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the 

revenue sharing system to include National Fish Hatcheries and Service research stations. It also 

included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. 

Payments to counties were established as follows: on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated 

on the basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent 

of the net receipts produced from the land; and on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent 

of net receipts and basic payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662). 

This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference between the amount in 

the fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any year. Congress removed the stipulation that 

payments be used for schools and roads, but did require counties to pass payments along to other 

units of local government within the county that suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of 

Service areas. 

Wilderness Act of 1954: Public Law 88-577, approved September 3,1964, directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. 
182 
183

Appendix IV. Public Involvement 

The Service invited agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in four public 

scoping meetings on June 19, 21, 26, and 28, 2001, in Currituck, North Carolina; Corolla, North 

Carolina; Virginia Beach, Virginia; and Knotts Island, North Carolina, respectively. The Service 

introduced the audience of sixty-one citizens to the refuge and its planning process and asked them 

to identify their issues and concerns. The Service published announcements giving the locations, 

dates, and times for the public meetings in the Federal Register and legal notices in local 

newspapers. Press releases were also sent to local newspapers and public service announcements 

to television and radio stations. Service personnel placed fifty posters announcing the meetings in 

local post offices, local government buildings, and stores. 

The planning team expanded the issues and concerns to include those generated by the agencies, 

organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community. These issues and concerns 

formed the basis for the development and comparison of the objectives in the different alternatives 

described in the environmental assessment. 

The objectives were subjects of discussion at a second round of public meetings held on November 

18, 19, 20, and 21, 2002, in Corolla, Currituck, and Knotts Island, North Carolina and Virginia Beach, 

Virginia. The Service published announcements giving the locations, dates, and times for the public 

meetings as legal notices in local newspapers. The Service also sent press releases to local 

newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio stations. Service personnel 

placed seventy-five posters announcing the meeting in local post offices, local government buildings, 

and stores. Thirty citizens attended these four meetings. 

The issues raised at the public meetings are recorded on the following pages. Worksheets 

completed by the workshop participants are also provided. 
184 

Mackay and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Scoping Meetings 

June 19, 21, 26, 28, 2001 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Issues 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Continue surveys. In plan. 

Secure funding. In plan. 

Continue to make survey data 

public. 

In plan. 

Maintain water quality. In plan. 

Hire a biologist. In plan. 

Wildlife-General 

Coordinate wildlife surveys 

with other agencies. 

In plan. 

Wildlife-Feral Hogs Establish population of feral 

hogs. 

Against Service policy (exotic 

animals). 

Wildlife-Feral Horses Include feral horses in plan. In plan. 

Include Wild Horse Fund in 

management of feral horses. 

In plan. 

Wildlife-Fish Investigate the impact of 

salinity from the Lynnhaven 

River Canal #2 connection to 

Currituck Sound on bass.. 

In plan. 

Wildlife-Waterfowl Establish waterfowl rest areas. Plan to pursue agreement. 

Maintain flexibility in 

management. 

In plan. 

Maintain prescribed burning 

program. 

In plan. 

Expand NCWRC joint venture 

activity. 

In plan. 

Habitat-General 

Hire a biologist. In plan. 

HabitatAquatic Habitat Consider SAV restoration in 

cooperation with other 

agencies. 

Beyond refuge jurisdiction. 

HabitatMoist Soil Units Maintain management. In plan. 
185

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Hire staff to execute programs. In plan. 

Limit use to prevent habitat 

damage. 

In plan. 

Consider boat tours. Tours in plan, mode of 

transportation will be 

discussed in Visitor Services 

step-down plan. 

Do not build a road through 

the refuge. 

No vehicle access proposed. 

Do not build a bridge on the 

refuge. 

No vehicle access proposed. 

Consider the effects of the 

refuge on False Cape State 

Park. 

Considered in planning. 

Public Use-General 

Consider the effects of 

restrooms on the use of the 

refuge and parking lots. 

Considered in planning. 

Establish deer hunt. Hunting step-down plan. 

Hunt feral hogs. Hunting step-down plan. 

Maintain waterfowl hunting 

program and expand as much 

as possible. 

In plan. 

Public Use-Hunting 

Continue cooperation with 

NCWRC. 

In plan. 

Increase opportunities. In plan. 

Provide walking tours. In plan. 

Establish Kuralt Trail kiosk. In plan. 

Public Use-Wildlife 

Observation 

Organize tours by refuge staff. In plan. 

Increase environmental 

education. 

In plan. 

Use refuge for education 

programs for children in 

cooperation with other 

agencies. 

In plan. 

Use Monkey Island as an 

environmental education 

facility. 

Will be interpreted off the 

refuge, island eroding. 

Public UseEnvironmental 

Education 

Cooperate with NCWRC in the 

education center. 

In plan. 

Establish Friends group for 

Currituck Refuge 

Public Use-Volunteers In plan. 

Utilize groups such as 

N.E.S.T. to monitor sea turtles.

In plan. 

Advertise refuge programs 

more. 

Public Use-Outreach In plan. 

Publish refuge newsletter. In plan. 
186 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Resource ProtectionCultural Resources Cooperate with other agencies 

in cultural resource protection. 

In plan. 

Hire staff for land acquisition. In plan. 

Buy more land. Acquisition boundary 

established, land approved for 

purchase from willing sellers. 

Resource ProtectionLand Acquisition 

Do not buy more land. Acquisition boundary 

established, land approved for 

purchase from willing sellers. 

Resource ProtectionLand Acquisition Use cooperative management 

agreements to manage land 

without buying it. 

Acquisition boundary 

established, land approved for 

purchase from willing sellers. 

 Expand NCWRC joint venture 

activity. 

In plan. 

Resource ProtectionLaw Enforcement Hire separate law enforcement 

staff for Currituck. 

In plan. 

Resource 

ManagementPest Plants 

Use herbicides as necessary, 

especially on phragmites. 

In plan. 

 Track the invasion of pest 

plans and develop a pest plant 

management plan 

In plan. 

Resource 

ManagementWater Quality 

Increase water quality 

monitoring in the ocean and 

sound. 

Monitoring in Sound in plan. 

 Monitor to investigate the 

impact of Lynnhaven River 

Canal #2 connection to 

Currituck Sound. 

In plan. 

Resource 

ManagementWilderness 

Incorporate wilderness into 

plan. 

Do not have 5,000 contiguous 

acres. 

 Allow staff to decide. Do not have 5,000 contiguous 

acres. 
187

CURRITUCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

PLANNING ISSUES WORKSHEET (4 respondents)

ACTIVITY WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

Keep the Same Increase 

WILDLIFE SURVEYS AND MANAGEMENT 

Waterfowl Survey and Management 75% 25% 

Shorebird Survey and Management 50% 50% 

Land Bird Survey and Management 75% 25% 

Reptile/Amphibian Survey and Management 50% 50% 

Fish Survey and Management 50% 50% 

Endangered Species Survey and Management 50% 50% 

White-tailed Deer Management 50% 50% 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Vegetation Survey 50% 50% 

Water Quality Monitoring 50% 50% 

Water Management (Farming, Moist Soil) 100% 0% 

Prescribed Burning 100% 0% 

Mechanical Vegetation Management 100% 0% 

Chemical Vegetation Management 50% 50% 

Shoreline Maintenance 100% 0% 

Planting, Seeding, Clearing for Habitat 

Improvement 

100% 0% 

Habitat Restoration (Hydrology, Reforestation) 50% 50% 

Wildlife Management 50% 50% 

Plant Pest Insect and Disease Management 100% 0% 

Exotic and Invasive Species Eradication 25% 75% 

Special Protection Status (National Wilderness) 50% 50% 

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES 

Hunting 50% 50% 

Environmental Education (School Students) 0% 100% 

Environmental Education (School Teachers) 0% 100% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Formal Programs) 0% 100% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Printed Material) 0% 100% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Walking Trails) 0% 100% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Buildings, Kiosks) 0% 100% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Interpretative Signs) 0% 100% 

Wildlife Photography Opportunities 50% 50% 

Wildlife Observation Opportunities 50% 50% 

Vehicle Parking Lots 100% 0% 

Access for Fishing, Boating, Canoeing 50% 50% 
188 

ACTIVITY WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

Keep the Same Increase 

RESOURCE PROTECTION ACTIVITIES 

Visitor Protection 50% 50% 

Wildlife Protection 0% 100% 

Trespass Violations 0% 100% 

Littering/Dumping Violations 0% 100% 

Hunting and Fishing Compliance Checks 0% 100% 

Other Regulations 50% 50% 

Special Protection Status (National Wilderness) 50% 50% 

Land Acquisition 50% 50% 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 

Canal Maintenance 100% 0% 

Road and Firebreak Maintenance 100% 0% 

Facilities Maintenance (Signs, Buildings) 50% 50% 

Dike and Trail Maintenance 50% 50% 

Water Control Structures, Pump Stations 50% 50% 

Boundary Posting 100% 0% 

Dump Cleanup 50% 50% 
189

CURRITUCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

PLANNING ALTERNATIVES WORKSHEET (9 respondents)

WHICH ALTERNATIVE WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO? 

(CAN MIX AND MATCH DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES 

FOR DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES) 

ACTIVITY 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Wildlife 

Management 

Feral Horses 11% 78% 11% 

Feral Hogs 22% 33% 45% 

Fish 33% 56% 11% 

Invertebrates 0% 67% 33% 

Mammals 0% 67% 33% 

Land Birds 12% 44% 44% 

Reptiles and 

Amphibians 

11% 22% 67% 

Shorebirds 11% 11% 78% 

Wading Birds 11% 22% 67% 

Waterfowl 22% 33% 45% 

Habitat Management 

All Habitats 22 45 33 

Maritime Forest 33 11 56 

Maritime Shrub 22 22 56 

Brackish Marsh 11 22 67 

Dune and Beach 11 33 56 

Roads 56 22 22 

Firebreaks 45 22 33 

Utility Rights of Way 67 11 22 

Wood Duck Boxes 33 22 45 

Moist Soil Units 11 33 56 

Public Use 

Hunting 22 56 22 

Environmental 

Education 

11 78 11 

Interpretation 11 56 33 

Wildlife Observation 11 33 56 

Wildlife Photography 0 44 56 

Access 67 11 22 

Outreach 33 33 33 

Refuge Support 22 45 33 

Special Events 11 78 11 
190 

WHICH ALTERNATIVE WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO? 

(CAN MIX AND MATCH DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES 

FOR DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES) 

ACTIVITY 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Resource Protection 

Land Protection 11% 22% 67% 

Cultural Resources 22% 22% 56% 

Interagency 

Coordination 

0% 67% 33% 

Law Enforcement 11% 56% 33% 

Permits 11% 78% 11% 

Pest Animals 11% 67% 22% 

Pest Plants 11% 67% 22% 

Significant Natural 

Heritage Areas 

22% 67% 11% 

Water Quality 0% 44% 56% 

Wilderness Areas 33% 22% 45% 

Wildlife Disease 33% 33% 33% 
191

Appendix V. Decisions and Approvals 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

Originating Person: Tim Cooper

Telephone Number: 252-429-3100

E-Mail: tim_cooper@fws.gov

Date: August 1, 2005

Project Name: Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

_x_ Refuges/Wildlife 

II. State/Agency: North Carolina/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): Implementation of 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Currituck National Wildlife Refuge by adopting the 

preferred alternative that will provide guidance, management direction and operation plans for 

the next 15 years.

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map:

Bald eagles are occasionally seen during winter months on the Refuge. There is an 

active nest on the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge across the Currituck Sound, 

but there are no nests on the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. 
192 

2. Complete the following table. 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Bald Eagle Threatened 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Threatened 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Endangered 

Piping Plover Endangered 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered 

West Indian Manatee Endangered 

Seabeach Amaranth Threatened 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, 

CH=critical habitat, PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species 

VI. Location (attach map):

A. Ecosystem Number and Name: Roanoke - Tar - Neuse - Cape Fear No. 34 

B. County and State: Currituck, North Carolina 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Adjacent to and immediately south 

of Virginia Beach, Virginia 

E. Species/habitat occurrence:

Bald Eagle - occasionally observed during winter. No active nests. 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

Piping Plover – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker - Record of occurrence more than 20 years old. 

West Indian Manatee - Incidental record of occurrence outside of its 

normal range. 

Seabeach Amaranth – Record of occurrence within 20 years. 
193

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B 

(attach additional pages as needed). 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

Bald Eagle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Loggerhead Sea turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Piping Plover Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Disturbance by staff and visitors during nesting season. 

Lack of understory management. 

West Indian Manatee Disturbance by boaters and anglers. Water quality 

degradation and lack of submerged aquatic vegetation. 

Seabeach Amaranth Trampling of plants by staff and visitors before seed 

maturation. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects. 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

Bald Eagle Restrict access to nesting area. 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Restrict access to nesting area. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Restrict access to nesting area. 

Piping Plover Restrict access to nesting area. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Restrict access to nesting area. Allow pines to grow old 

enough to develop cavities. Manage understory to 

maintain height below cavities. 

West Indian Manatee Restrict access when manatees are in the area. 

Cooperate with state agencies to monitor and improve 

water quality. 

Seabeach Amaranth Restrict access to areas with plants until after seed 

maturation. 
194 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested:

DETERMINATION1 SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT NE NA AA 

RESPONSE1

Bald Eagle X 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle X 

Leatherback Sea Turtle X 

Piping Plover X 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker X 

West Indian Manatee X 

Seabeach Amaranth X 

 1DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not impact 

directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, 

candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional 

but a Concurrence is recommended for a complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed 

action is not likely to adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be beneficial effects to these resources. 

Response Requested is a Concurrence. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is 

likely to adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed 

critical habitat. Response Requested for listed species is Formal Consultation. Response 

Requested for proposed or candidate species is Conference. 

____________________________ ________ 

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 
195

CURRITUCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, interpretation, and trapping of selected 

furbearers for nuisance animal management. A description and anticipated biological impacts for 

each use are addressed separately in this Compatibility Determination. 

Refuge Name: Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: August 2, 1983. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

of 1929). 

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, as reflected in the refuge’s 

authorizing legislation, is to protect and conserve migratory birds, and other wildlife resources through 

the protection of wetlands, in accordance with the following laws: 

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

birds... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929); 

...for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of 

natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species and threatened species... 16 

U.S.C. Sec 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962) 

The refuge’s purpose and importance to migratory birds, particularly waterfowl, is: To preserve 

wintering habitat for waterfowl and wintering and production habitat for wood ducks to meet the 

habitat goals presented in the Ten-Year Waterfowl Habitat Acquisition Plan and the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

1997, is: 

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

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

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

future generations of Americans.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 
196 

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 are 

only written once within the plan, they are part of each descriptive use and become part of that 

compatibility determination if considered outside of the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Description of Use: Hunting

The refuge is a mixture of marshes, managed wetlands (moist soil areas), and maritime forests and 

scrub, dunes, and interconnected streams, ditches, and backswamps. The forests have a great 

variety of species that includes live oak, loblolly pine, eastern red cedar, flowering dogwood, 

American holly, yaupon holly, waxmyrtle, beautyberry, greenbrier, muscadine grape, and Virginia 

creeper. This forest provides good habitat for a number of game species including white-tailed deer, 

squirrel, and raccoon. 

Many of the local residents enjoy an informal, rural lifestyle that includes frequent recreational use of 

the area’s natural resources. Hunting and fishing have been, and continue to be, popular uses of 

refuge lands. Waterfowl hunting has been permitted since November 1999, when the Service first 

approved waterfowl hunting on the refuge. The administration of, as well as special regulations for 

hunting, has changed over time but the majority of the program has remained unchanged. 

The comprehensive conservation plan calls for the continued hunting of waterfowl, and new hunting 

of deer and hogs. All hunts fall within the framework of the State’s open seasons and follow state 

regulations. Fruitville Township, in which the Currituck Marsh, Station Landing marsh, and South 

Marsh are located, is closed to deer hunting. Poplar Branch Township is open to hunting with 

shotgun only; regulations prohibit the use of bows, pistols, and rifles. The Poplar Branch Township 

line runs through the Monkey Island Unit. Current state law opens only the Monkey Island and Swan 

Island Units to hunting. The refuge cannot open these units to deer hunting unless the township 
197

changes its regulation. There are additional refuge specific regulations to supplement State 

regulations. The Service reviews these refuge-specific regulations annually and incorporated into the 

refuge hunting brochure. The draft comprehensive conservation plan would increase law 

enforcement presence during hunting seasons; would evaluate the hunt program annually; and 

modify seasons, hunt areas or regulations if necessary. The refuge could add hunting areas could be 

added as the refuge expands through an active land acquisition program. Implementation of the 

proposed alternative, as described in the comprehensive conservation plan, would ensure that 

opportunities for various types of wildlife-dependent recreation would continue for future generations. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is not adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer this use at its current level. 

Additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use as proposed. A permanent, full time law 

enforcement officer and public use specialist are needed to assist with hunting program 

administration and visitor service.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The deer herd has expanded and increased substantially since the 

Service established the refuge. Prior to refuge establishment this portion of Currituck County was subject to 

excessive deer poaching that maintained the deer herd at low levels. Following refuge establishment and 

initiation of effective wildlife law enforcement program the deer herd has increased in and around the refuge. 

 The refuge’s marsh and forest habitat provides ideal habitat conditions for whitetail deer. 

Harvest management of big game (white-tailed deer) is the art of combining wildlife science and landowner 

objectives for the attainment of a specific management goal. Refuge hunt plan objectives should determine 

harvest management strategies. A complete analysis of biological data should determine the objectives. 

Specific harvest objectives allow the setting of hunting regulations. The refuge staff will thoroughly evaluate 

the results of each hunting season to ensure that the harvest management program meets refuge 

objectives and provides a quality hunting experience for the public. 

Current literature suggests that user take (<50% of total mortality) of most upland game is 

compensatory; that factors such as immigration from adjacent areas and density-dependent 

production operate in most upland game populations; and that hunting does not substantially impact 

populations. Hunting is substituted for natural mortality. Production of large, annual surpluses of 

young allows for lengthy seasons and generous bag limits with little concern for over-harvest and 

minimal chance of population impacts in most areas (Bookhout 1994). 

The refuge’s great variety and abundance of high quality wetland areas provide outstanding habitat 

for a variety of waterfowl and wading birds. Primary species include American black duck, gadwall, 

mallard, green-wing teal, snowy egret, and great egret. The area’s habitat for neotropical migratory 

birds is also outstanding. Neotropical migrants use the marsh and forested areas and edges. 

Disturbance to all migratory birds would be minimal and temporary, as the staff would alter habitat 

slightly for the betterment of these species. 

Threatened and endangered loggerhead sea turtles, piping plovers, and seabeach amaranth have all 

been found on the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in the past twenty years. None have been found on 

the refuge in the last ten years as use of the beach has increased dramatically. It is anticipated that the 

current levels and expected future levels of hunting or other wildlife-dependent recreation activities would 

not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact any listed, proposed, or candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Data gathered from future biological surveys regarding the 

importance or potential importance of the refuge to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat 

(or proposed threatened, endangered, or critical habitat), could result in changes to public use activities 

across time; however, these changes will have no effect on listed species. 
198 

Incidental take of other wildlife species, either illegally or unintentionally, may occur with any consumptive 

use program. At current and anticipated public use levels, incidental take will be very small and would 

not directly or cumulatively impact current or future populations of wildlife either on this refuge or in the 

surrounding areas. Implementation of an effective law enforcement program and development of sitespecific refuge regulations and special conditions will eliminate most incidental take problems. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The refuge permits hunting in accordance with 

State of North Carolina’s regulations and licensing requirements. An Environmental Assessment is 

on file at the refuge headquarters as part of the Hunting Plan. Following completion of the 

comprehensive conservation plan, the staff will revise the Hunting Plan. 

The following stipulations will help ensure the refuge hunting program is compatible with refuge 

purposes. 

Access is only by vehicles parked on the beach or boat only. Travel on the refuge is limited to 

foot travel only. 

Firearms, bows, and other weapons are prohibited except during designated hunting seasons. 

Hunting deer with dogs is not allowed on the refuge. 

All hunts are designed to provide quality user opportunities based upon sustainable wildlife 

population levels and biological parameters. Hunt season dates and bag limits will be 

adjusted as needed to achieve balanced wildlife population levels within carrying capacities, 

regardless of impacts to user opportunities. 

As additional data is collected and a long-range hunt plan developed, additional refugespecific regulations could be implemented. These regulations could include, but may not be 

limited to, season dates that are more restrictive than those in surrounding state zones, refuge 

permit requirements, and closed areas. The objectives of the regulations may be to reduce 

disturbance to specific wildlife species or habitats, such as bird rookeries, wintering waterfowl 

or threatened and endangered species, to allow hunting when staff is available to administer 

it, or to provide for public safety). 

Justification: Hunting is compatible with the purposes for which the Service established the refuge 

and the mission of the national wildlife refuge system. It is one of the public use recreational activities 

that are specifically identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act to be 

allowed where possible on refuges. The refuge uses deer hunts as management tools to protect the 

diverse ecosystem. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 
199

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Nonconsumptive wildlife observation uses such as birdwatching, hiking, and nature photography are 

popular due to the area’s proximity to Virginia Beach and vacation destinations on the Outer Banks. 

It is estimated that 25,000 visitors per year for wildlife observation and related activities. 

The refuge staff anticipates that an increase in nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent uses will occur over 

the next few years as the refuge improves facilities and especially as the public and conservation groups 

become more aware of the excellent birding and wildlife viewing opportunities on the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is not adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. The 

refuge needs additional fiscal resources to provide this use as proposed. To provide safe, high 

quality wildlife observation and photography opportunities, the Service will develop wildlife 

observation points and provide directional and interpretive signage.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography activities might result in some 

disturbance to wildlife, especially if visitors venture too close to bald eagle nests, colonial nesting bird 

rookeries, or resting waterfowl in migration. The refuge will prohibit visitors from traveling in areas around 

nest, rookeries, and managed wetlands. The staff will locate foot trails, boardwalks and wildlife 

observation platforms opened to pedestrian use by the public to minimize disturbance that could occur in 

these sensitive areas. If the staff identifies unacceptable levels of disturbance at any time, they will close 

sensitive sites to public entry. Some minimal trampling of vegetation also may occur. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and upgrading refuge roads will alter 

small portions of the natural environment. Proper planning prior to construction, sediment retention 

and grade stabilization features will reduce negative impacts to wetlands, threatened and endangered 

species and species of special concern. Impacts such as trampling vegetation and wildlife 

disturbance by refuge visitors do occur, but is presently not significant. Visitors cause other potential 

negative impacts violating refuge regulations such as littering or illegally taking plants or wildlife. Use 

of refuge roads by the public does incur added maintenance costs. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Prior to construction, the refuge staff will obtain 

permits from local, state and federal regulatory agencies to reduce the possibility of negatively impacting 

wetlands, cultural resources or protected species. Law enforcement patrol of public use areas will 

continue to minimize violations of refuge regulations. The staff will monitor public use for wildlife 

observation and photography to document any negative impacts. If any negative impacts become 

noticeable, the Service will take corrective action to reduce or eliminate the effects on wildlife. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are an important and preferred public uses on 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge and the national wildlife refuge system. The 1997 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act identified wildlife observation as a priority pubic recreational use to 

be facilitated on refuges. It is through permitted, compatible public uses such as this, that the public 

becomes aware of and provides support for our national wildlife refuges. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date:______________________________
200 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Environmental education and interpretation are those activities that seek to increase the public’s 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife, national wildlife refuges, ecology and land management, as 

well as contribute to the conservation of natural resources. If the comprehensive conservation plan is 

enacted, the refuge will develop interpretation and environmental education programs. 

Environmental education and interpretation activities have been largely nonexistent in prior years. 

The refuge staff plans to develop this program with structured activities conducted by refuge staff or 

trained volunteers. refuge staff will develop and provide curriculum and support materials to area 

teachers for use both on and off the refuge. Informational kiosks and interpretive panels will be 

developed at key refuge entrance points, and wildlife observation platforms constructed as part of the 

environmental education and interpretation program. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for these activities, 

funding is inadequate to ensure compatibility and to administer these uses at current levels. The 

refuge needs additional fiscal resources to conduct these uses at the proposed levels. Current 

staffing is extremely limited with no public use staff. The management of a volunteer program will be 

essential to successfully implement the education and visitor use program. The refuge staff will 

recruit and train volunteers to assist in developing and implementing environmental education and 

interpretive programs. The refuge needs a permanent public use specialist and additional facilities 

including access roads, boardwalks, signs, parking and trailhead development, kiosks, and 

environmental education materials to provide and conduct wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation activities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Construction of facilities such as boardwalks, kiosks and 

observation platforms will alter small portions of the natural environment on the refuge. Proper 

planning and placement of facilities will ensure that wetlands, threatened or endangered species, or 

species of special concern are not negatively impacted. The refuge staff will obtain proper permits 

through the county, state and federal regulatory agencies prior to construction to ensure resource 

protection. The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities to accomplish environmental 

education and interpretive tours may impose a low-level impact on the sites used for these activities. 

These low-level impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife 

species in the immediate area. Educational activities held off-refuge would not create any biological 

impacts on the resource. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Zoning of visitor activities by time and space, 

clustering public use facilities, proper monitoring, educating visitors, and enforcement will ensure 

compatibility with the purposes of the refuge and mission of the national wildlife refuge system. 

Through periodic evaluation of trails and visitor contact points, the visitor services program will 

assess resource impacts. If the refuge staff determines that human impacts are detrimental to 

important natural resources, the staff will take actions to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Major 

portions of the refuge will remain undeveloped, without public interpretive facilities. 
201

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified interpretation 

and environmental education as activities that should be provided and expanded on refuges. 

Educating and informing the public through structured environmental education courses, interpretive 

materials, and guided tours about migratory birds, endangered species, wildlife management, and 

ecosystems will lead to improved support of the Service’s mission to protect our natural resources. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date:______________________________ 
202 

Description of Use: Trapping of Selected Furbearers for Management 

The staff may direct management through trapping raccoon and nutria. The species are at a 

sufficiently high level on the refuge to adversely affect ecosystem functions. Excessive numbers of 

raccoons can have negative effects on the reproduction of sea turtles, forest breeding birds, and 

wood ducks. Nutria are exotic animals that consume great quantities of marsh grass and burrow into 

dikes of managed wetlands (moist soil units). Protection and management of habitat and 

improvements in game and nongame populations are central components of the plan. To this end, 

trapping and/or hunting remain the only viable methods to reduce population levels of raccoon and 

nutria. The Service would issue Special Use Permits to administer a trapping program consistent 

with sound biology, refuge purposes, and conservation of ecosystem functions. 

Availability of Resources: Additional resources are needed to conduct this use. The existing staff 

cannot administer permits and monitor this use as part of routine management duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Targeted removal of raccoon and nutria from portions of the 

refuge will reduce the negative impacts these species are having on ecosystem functions. Regulated 

trapping of raccoon populations will reduce the nest predation this species causes to sea turtles, 

neotropical birds, and wood ducks. Nutria management will protect marsh grass and dikes of 

managed wetlands (moist soil units). However, no trapping program, regardless of how well it is 

designed, can prevent the possible take of other species. The refuge staff will require trappers to 

report the incidental take of other species. There will be a negligible impact on other wildlife species 

in both the short and long term. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: As the refuge staff implements a trapping 

program on the refuge, it will monitor the program closely to assess the potential adverse effects on 

other wildlife as well as the benefits to game and nongame species and their habitats. The staff will 

modify the program as needed to maintain compatibility. Trappers will carry out all trapping activities 

under a refuge special use permit. The staff will limit trappers by number, area, and season in order 

to target problem areas and minimize any negative impacts. The staff will require each trapper to 

report the number and location of all traps and all wildlife taken. The implementation of a trapping 

program, under controlled conditions, provides an essential population control management tool and 

is compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 

Justification: The purposes of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge emphasize conservation of wetlands and 

migratory birds. Trapping is a wildlife population management tool used to regulate the population of certain 

wildlife species when those species are disrupting ecosystem functions. There is documentation that 

raccoons cause negative impacts to forested wetlands and nesting birds. Nutria are exotic animals that 

cause negative impacts on marsh grass and the dikes of managed wetlands (moist soil units). When these 

negative impacts become significant on the refuge, wildlife managers need trapping as a management tool 

to control the level on damage. Certainly, the native and raccoons are important components of the 

ecosystem, but when their populations and negative impacts become significant, wildlife managers need a 

regulated trapping program to reduce their populations to acceptable levels. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date:____________________________ 
203

Description of Use: Jogging, Walking, and Hiking

Continue to allow recreational jogging, walking, and hiking on the refuge. 

Jogging for recreational purposes is allowed only on refuge roads and beaches. Walking and hiking 

can occur on roads, beaches, trails, and other refuge lands open to public use. Pets may also 

accompany users as they participate in this activity. All pets must be kept on a ten-foot or shorter 

leash and be under control of the owner at all times. This use is prohibited in all closed areas 

including an unexploded ordinance site. 

This use primarily occurs on the beach due to limited parking areas, roads, and trails elsewhere on 

the refuge. The refuge boundary extends down to mean high tide on the Swan Island and Monkey 

Island Units. The other four units do not extend to the beach. Below the mean high tide line, the state 

of North Carolina regulates and allows this activity as well as parking and driving on the beach. 

This use occurs most frequently during spring, summer, and fall. During the peak summer vacation 

period, an average of ten people per day participate in this activity. However, it is more prevalent on 

the state-owned beaches adjacent to refuge property. 

Availability of Resources: One-quarter mile of roads and three miles of beach support this use. 

Annual maintenance is minimal. An Equipment Operator is able to fulfill any maintenance 

requirements. Other staff members provide law enforcement and administrative support. Current 

levels of funding and staff are adequate to support this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term disturbance to wildlife may occur during these activities. 

 Disturbance would occur primarily in those areas adjacent to the roads or the beach. Nesting 

shorebirds may be disturbed at times. Though some nesting occurs, primarily by least terns, no 

sizeable nesting colonies currently exist in these areas. No piping plover nests have been located 

here in the past ten years. 

Participation in these activities will likely increase in the future as the beach communities adjacent to 

the refuge continue to be developed. 

Public Review and Comment: Comments from the public were solicited by posting a notice in two 

local newspapers, at the refuge office, refuge kiosks, the Knotts Island Market, and the Knotts Island 

Post Office. The posting and comment period lasted for fourteen days (DATES). 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. These activities will only be allowed during daylight hours. 

2. Pets must be kept on a ten-foot or shorter leash and be under control of the owner at all times. 

3. These activities will be monitored and regulated if needed to prevent significant disturbances. 
204 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

_X_ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

___ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (1995) 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Justification: Jogging, walking, and hiking have been determined to be compatible provided the 

above stipulations are adhered to. This use will not materially interfere with the refuge’s purpose of 

providing a sanctuary for migratory birds. Participation in this use is minimal and should not cause 

any significant disturbances. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date:______________________________ 
205

Description of Use: Horseback Riding

Allow horseback riding on the refuge. 

This use would involve people traveling across refuge lands on horseback. It would occur in all 

refuge habitats but would be excluded in the Swan Island flats and the unexploded ordinance site. If 

allowed, this use is expected to occur on an infrequent basis under current conditions. Steady 

development adjacent to the refuge will likely increase the frequency of this use in the future. 

Availability of Resources: No parking areas are available to support this use. Only two sand roads 

exist on refuge property. Both are one-half mile long and closed to public vehicular traffic. Annual 

maintenance is required to maintain these roads. An Equipment Operator is able to fulfill these 

maintenance requirements. Other staff members provide law enforcement and administrative 

support. Current levels of funding and staff are adequate to support this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Free-roaming feral horses currently exist in the vicinity of the 

refuge and cause detrimental impacts at their current levels. These impacts include trampling and 

consuming vegetation, increasing erosion, and disbursing exotic seeds. Horses used for horseback 

riding would have similar impacts on the habitats and therefore only add to the detriment. In the 

absence of roads or designated trails, impacts from this use would be disbursed across the 

landscape. It would also be more likely to impact wildlife-dependant, priority public uses since the 

activity would not be concentrated or limited to certain locations. 

Public Review and Comment: Comments from the public were solicited by posting a notice in two 

local newspapers, at the refuge office, refuge kiosks, the Knotts Island Market, and the Knotts Island 

Post Office. The posting and comment period lasted for fourteen days (DATES). 

Determination (check one below): 

__X___ Use is Not Compatible 

_____ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

_X_ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

___ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (1995) 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Justification: Horseback riding has been determined to be an incompatible use. This use would 

interfere with the refuge’s purpose of providing a sanctuary for migratory birds. Impacts such as 

trampling and consuming vegetation, increasing erosion, and disbursing exotic seeds would 

negatively impact habitat for migratory birds. Although low participation in this use would be 

expected, the impacts would be additive in relation to the impacts already caused by the existing feral 

horses. The cumulative impact of these two factors exceeds acceptable levels of disturbance. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:__________________________________ 
206 

Literature Cited 

Bookhout, T.A. 1994. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth edition. 

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD 740pp. 

Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating shorebirds in the Midwest. In 

Laubhan, M.K., and D. Hamilton. Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Fort Collins, CO 

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. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and F. A. Reid. 1988. Nutritional value of waterfowl foods. In Laubhan, M.K., and D. 

Hamilton. Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Strategies for water level manipulation in moist soil systems. In Laubhan, 

M.K., and D. Hamilton. Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Fort Collins, CO 

Frost, C. 1995. Presettlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. Pages 

39-60 in Susan I. Cerulean and R. Todd Engstrom, eds. Fire in wetlands, a management 

perspective. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 19. Tall Timbers 

Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Frost, C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes in the United States: a first approximation. 

Pages 70-81 in Teresa L. Pruden and Leonard A. Brennan, eds. Fire in ecosystem 

management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Proceedings of the Tall 

Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Hunter, W.C., L.H. Peoples, and J.A. Collazo. 2001. South Atlantic Coastal Plain Partners in Flight 

Bird Conservation Plan. 

Schmidt, P.R. 1993. Memorandum - Information request regarding impacts of hunting on national 

wildlife refuges. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory 

Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 7pp. 
207

Approval of Compatibility Determination 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the comprehensive 

conservation plan. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the 

comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature becomes part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 
208 
209

Appendix VI. Refuge Biota 

BIRDS 

Total Species - 191 

A = Abundant, C = Common, U = Uncommon, O = Occasional, R = Rare 

BIRD SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER

Avocet, American C C C C 

Bittern, American U R U U 

Bittern, Least O O O 

Blackbird, Red-winged C C C C 

Blackbird, Rusty O R 

Blackbird, Yellow-headed R R 

Bluebird, Eastern C C C C 

Bobolink U C 

Bobwhite, Northern U U U U 

Booby, Masked O O R 

Brant C 

Bufflehead C C 

Bunting, Snow O O 

Canvasback C C 

Catbird, Gray C C C C 

Cardinal, Northern C C C C 

Chat, Yellow-breasted C O R R 

Chickadee, Carolina C C C C 

Chuck-will’s Widow C U 

Cormorant, Double-crested C O C C 

Cormorant, Great O O U 

Coot, American C O C C 

Cowbird, Brown-headed C C U U 

Cowbird, Shiny R 

Creeper, Brown U U U 

Crow, American C C C C 

Crow, Fish C C C C 

Cuckoo, Black-billed O R 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed C C U 

Curlew, Long-billed R R R 

Dickcissel R 

Dove, Eurasian Collared R R 

Dove, Mourning C C C C 

Dove, Rock U U U U 

Dove, White-winged R R R R 

Dowitcher, Long-billed U O C U 

Dowitcher, Short-billed C C C U 

Duck, American Black C C C C 

Duck, Fulvous Whistling R R R R 

Duck, Red-necked C 

Duck, Ruddy O C 

Duck, Wood U U U U 
210 

BIRD SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER

Dunlin C O C C 

Eagle, Bald (Threatened) O O O O 

Elder, Common R R R O 

Elder, King O 

Egret, Cattle C C C R 

Egret, Great C C C C 

Egret, Snowy C C C U 

Falcon, Peregrine U C U 

Finch, House C C C C 

Finch, Purple C C C C 

Flicker, Northern U U C C 

Flycatcher, Acadian O 

Flycatcher, Great Crested C C O 

Flycatcher, Least R 

Flycatcher, Scissor-tailed R R 

Flycatcher, Yellow-bellied R 

Flycatcher, Willow R R 

Frigate Bird, Magnificent R 

Fulmar, Northern C R 

Gadwall C C C C 

Gannet, Northern C R O C 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray C C O R 

Godwit, Hudsonian U 

Godwit, Marbled U U C U 

Goldeneye, Common U 

Goldfinch, American O U U 

Goose, Blue O U 

Goose, Canada O O C C 

Goose, Greater White-fronted R 

Goose, Ross R R 

Goose, Snow O O C C 

Grackle, Boat-tailed C C C C 

Grackle, Common C C U U 

Grebe, Eared R 

Grebe, Horned R R C 

Grebe, Pied-billed C U C C 

Grebe, Red-necked R 

Grosbeak, Blue U U U 

Grosbeak, Evening R U R R 

Grosbeak, Rose-breasted U U 

Gull, Black-headed R R 

Gull, Bonaparte’s C R O C 

Gull, California R 

Gull, Glaucous R O 

Gull, Great Black-backed C C C C 

Gull, Herring C C C C 

Gull, Iceland O 

Gull, Laughing C C C O 
211

BIRD SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER

Gull, Lesser Black-backed Gulf O O U C 

Gull, Little R R 

Gull, Ring-billed C C C C 

Gull, Thayer’s R 

Gull, Herring O O O 

Gull, Ring-billed U U U 

Harrier, Northern O U C C 

Hawk, Broad-winged R 

Hawk, Cooper’s O U U 

Hawk, Red’-shouldered U U U U 

Hawk, Red-tailed R R U U 

Hawk, Rough-legged R 

Hawk, Sharp-shinned U C C 

Heron, Black-crowned Night C C C C 

Heron, Great Blue C U C C 

Heron, Green-backed O C C R 

Heron, Little Blue C C C O 

Heron, Tricolored C C C U 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night U U R 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated R R 

Hummingbird, Rufous C C U O 

Ibis, Glossy C C C O 

Ibis, White C C C C 

Jaeger, Long-legged R 

Jaeger, Parasitic O R U R 

Jaeger, Pomarine O R U R 

Jay, Blue C C C C 

Junco, Dark-eyed O C O 

Kestrel, American O C C 

Killdeer U U U C 

Kingbird, Eastern C C C 

Kingbird, Grey R R 

Kingbird, Western O 

Kingfisher, Belted C O C C 

Kinglet, Golden-crowned O C C 

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned U C C 

Kite, Mississippi R 

Kite, Swallow-tailed R 

Kittiwake, Black-legged R O 

Knot, Red U C C C 

Lark, Horned R 

Loon, Common C R R C 

Loon, Red-throated C R C 

Mallard C O C C 

Martin, Purple C C R 

Meadowlark, Eastern C C C C 

Merganser, Common R R 

Merganser, Hooded C C 
212 

BIRD SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER

Merganser, Red-breasted C R C C 

Merlin O C U 

Mockingbird, Northern C C C C 

Moorhen, Common O O O O 

Nighthawk, Common U U O 

Nuthatch, Brown-headed C C C C 

Nuthatch, Red-breasted O R U 

Oldsquaw U 

Oriole, Baltimore U C R 

Oriole, Orchard U U 

Osprey C C C R 

Ovenbird C U U O 

Owl, Barn R R R R 

Owl, Eastern Screech C C C C 

Owl, Great Horned C C C C 

Owl, Short-eared O O 

Oystercatcher, American C C C U 

Pelican, American White O R R O 

Pelican, Brown C C C C 

Petrel, Black Capped C C C C 

Phalarope, Red R R R 

Phalarope, Red-necked R R R 

Phalarope, Wilson’s R U R 

Pheasant, Ring-necked R R R R 

Phoebe, Eastern C C C 

Pintail, Northern O C C 

Pipit, American Water R U O 

Plover, American Golden R R R C 

Plover, Black-bellied C U C C 

Plover, Piping U U U U 

Plover, Semipalmated C O C U 

Plover, Wilson’s U U U 

Rail, Black U U O O 

Rail, Clapper C C C C 

Rail, King C C C U 

Rail, Virginia C U C C 

Rail, Yellow R R R 

Redhead R C C 

Redstart, American O O C 

Robin, American U U C C 

Ruff R R 

Sanderling C C C C 

Sandpiper, Baird’s O 

Sandpiper, Buff-breasted O 

Sandpiper, Curlew O R 

Sandpiper, Least C C C U 

Sandpiper, Pectoral U C C 

Sandpiper, Purple U U U 
213

BIRD SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER

Sandpiper, Semipalmated C C C 

Sandpiper, Solitary U U 

Sandpiper, Spotted C C O 

Sandpiper, Upland R O 

Sandpiper, Western C U C C 

Sandpiper, White-rumped C U U 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied U C C 

Scaup, Greater U U 

Scaup, Lesser C C 

Scoter, Black C R C C 

Scoter, Surf C R C C 

Scoter, White-winged O U U 

Shearwater, Audubon O C C O 

Shearwater, Cory’s O C C 

Shearwater, Greater O C U R 

Shearwater, Manx O O 

Shearwater, Sooty R R 

Shoveler, Northern C C C 

Shrike, Loggerhead R R R R 

Siskin, Pine R R R 

Skimmer, Black C C C O 

Skua, South Polar R 

Snipe, Wilson’s C R C C 

Sora C C U 

Sparrow, Chipping C O 

Sparrow, Clay-colored O 

Sparrow, Field C C C C 

Sparrow, Fox O U 

Sparrow, Grasshopper R 

Sparrow, House C C C C 

Sparrow, Ipswich O O 

Sparrow, Lapland O R 

Sparrow, Lark O 

Sparrow, Lincoln’s R 

Sparrow, Nelson’s Sharp-tailed C C C 

Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed C C C 

Sparrow, Savannah C C C 

Sparrow, Seaside C C C U 

Sparrow, Song C C C C 

Sparrow, Swamp C C C 

Sparrow, Vesper R 

Sparrow, White-crowned R U O 

Sparrow, White-throated C C C 

Starling, European C C C C 

Stilt, Black-necked C C 

Storm-Petrel, Band-rumped U 

Storm-Petrel, Leach’s O U O R 

Storm-Petrel, White-faced R R 
214 

BIRD SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER

Storm-Petrel, Wilson’s C C C R 

Swift, Chimney C C U 

Swallow, Bank O O 

Swallow, Barn C C C 

Swallow, Cliff R R R 

Swallow, Northern Rough-winged U U 

Swallow, Tree U U C U 

Swan, Tundra O O O C 

Tanager, Scarlet R U 

Tanager, Summer U O O 

Teal, American Green-winged C C C 

Teal, Blue-winged C O C O 

Teal, Eurasian O 

Tern, Black O C R 

Tern, Caspian U U C 

Tern, Common C C O 

Tern, Forster’s C C C C 

Tern, Least C C R 

Tern, Roseate R R 

Tern, Royal C C C U 

Tern, Sandwich C C C 

Tern, Sooty O O R 

Tern, Common O 

Tern, Forster’s R 

Thrasher, Brown C C C C 

Thrush, Gray-cheeked U U 

Thrush, Hermit C C C 

Thrush, Swainson’s U U 

Thrush, Wood U U 

Titmouse, Tufted R R 

Towhee, Eastern C C C C 

Tropicbird, White-tailed O O 

Turnstone, Ruddy C C C U 

Veery U U 

Vireo, Blue-headed O O C 

Vireo, Philadelphia O 

Vireo, Red-eyed C C C 

Vireo, Warbling R 

Vireo, Warbling R 

Vireo, White-eyed O C C O 

Vireo, Yellow-throated R O 

Vulture, Turkey U U C C 

Warbler, Bay-breasted O 

Warbler, Black-and-white U C R 

Warbler, Black-throated Blue O C 

Warbler, Black-throated Green U U 

Warbler, Blackburnian O O 

Warbler, Blackpoll C C 
215

BIRD SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER

Warbler, Blue-winged O 

Warbler, Canada R R 

Warbler, Cape May R C 

Warbler, Chestnut-sided O O 

Warbler, Connecticut R 

Warbler, Golden-winged O 

Warbler, Hooded U O 

Warbler, Kentucky R R 

Warbler, Magnolia U C 

Warbler, Mourning R 

Warbler, Nashville U 

Warbler, Northern Parula U R U 

Warbler, Orange-crowned O O C 

Warbler, Palm U C U 

Warbler, Pine C C C C 

Warbler, Prairie C C O R 

Warbler, Prothonotary C C U 

Warbler, Tennessee R 

Warbler, Wilson’s U 

Warbler, Worm-eating U O 

Warbler, Yellow U R C 

Warbler, Yellow-rumped C C C 

Warbler, Yellow-throated C U O 

Waterthrush, Northern O U 

Waxwing, Cedar C O C C 

Whimbrel C C U R 

Whip-poor-will R 

Wigeon, American C C C 

Wigeon, Eurasian R O O 

Willet C C C C 

Woodcock, American O R O U 

Woodpecker, Downy C C C C 

Woodpecker, Hairy R R 

Woodpecker, Pileated C C C C 

Woodpecker, Red-bellied C C C C 

Woodpecker, Red-headed O O 

Wood-pewee, Eastern U O U 

Wren, Carolina C C C C 

Wren, House U C C 

Wren, Marsh U U C C 

Wren, Sedge C C C 

Wren, Winter O U U 

Yellow-throat, Common C C C U 

Yellowlegs, Greater C C C C 

Yellowlegs, Lesser C C C U 
216 

MAMMALS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Cottontail, Eastern Sylvilagus floridanus 

Deer, White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus 

Fox, Grey Urocyon cinereogrenteus 

Hog, Feral (Exotic) Sus scrofa 

Horse, Feral (Exotic) Equus caballus 

Mink Mustela vison 

Mole, Eastern Scalopus aquaticus 

Mouse, Cotton Peromyscusgossypinus 

Mouse, Eastern Harvest Reithrodontomys humilis 

Mouse, House Mus musculus 

Mouse, White-footed Peromyscus leocopus 

Muskrat Ondathra zibethicus 

Nutria (Exotic) Myocastor coypus 

Opossum Didelphiidae virginiana 

Otter, River Lutra canadensis 

Rabbit, Marsh Sylvilagus palustris 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Rat, Marsh Rice Oryzomys palustris 

Rat, Norway (Exotic) Rattus norvegicus 

Shrew, Least Crytotis parva 

Shrew, Shorttail Blarina brevicauda 

Shrew, Southeastern Sorex longerosytris 

Squirrel, Eastern Grey Sciurus carolinensis 

Vole, Meadow Microtus pennsylvanicus 
217

TURTLES 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Cooter, Florida Chrysemys floridana floridana 

Loggerhead, Atlantic Caretta caretta caretta 

Mudturtle, Eastern Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum 

Stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus 

Terrapin, Northern diamond back malaclemys terrapin terrapin 

Turtle, Chicken Deirochelys reticularia 

Turtle, Eastern box Terrapeme carolina carolina 

Turtle, Eastern Painted Chrysemys picta picta 

Turtle, Red-bellied Chrysemys rubiventris 

Turtle, Snapping Chelydra serpentina 

Turtle, Spotted Clemmys guttata 

Turtle, Yellow-bellied Chrysemys scripta scripta 

SNAKES 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Copperhead, Southern Agkistrodon contortrix 

Cottonmouth, Eastern Agkistrodon piscivorus 

Racer, Northern Black Coluber constrictor constrictor 

Rattlesnake, Canebrake Crotalus horridus atricaudatus 

Snake, Black Rat Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta 

Snake, Brown Water Natrix taxispilota 

Snake, Coastal Plain Milk Lampropeltis triangulum 

Snake, Corn Elaphe guttata guttata 

Snake, Eastern Garter Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis 

Snake, Eastern hognose Heterdon platyrhinos 

Snake, Eastern King Lampropeltis getulus getulus 

Snake, Eastern Mud Farancia abacura abacura 

Snake, Eastern Ribbon Thamnophis sauritus sauritus 

Snake, Eastern Smooth earth Virginia valeriae 

Snake, Eastern Woods Carphophis amoenus amoenus 

Snake, Northern Brown Storeria dekayi dekayi 

Snake, Northern Scarlet Cemophora coccinea copei 

Snake, Northern Water Natrix sipedon sipedon 

Snake, Pine Woods Rhadinae flavilata 

Snake, Rainbow Farancia erythrogram 

Snake, Red-Bellied Storeria occipitomaculata 

Snake, Red-Bellied Water Natrix erythrogaster erythrogaster 

Snake, Rough Earth Virginia striatulla 

Snake, Rough Green Opheodrys aestivus 

Snake, Southern Ringneck Diadophis punctatus punctatus 
218 

SALAMANDERS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Amphiuma, Two-toed Amphiuma means 

Newt, Red-Spotted Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens 

Salamander, Eastern Mud Pseudotriton montanus montanus 

Salamander, Eastern Tiger Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum 

Salamander, Many-Lined Stereochilus marginatus 

Salamander, Marbled Ambystoma opacum 

Salamander, Red-Backed Plethodone Cinereus Cenereus 

Salamander, Slimy Plethodone glutinosus glutinous 

Salamander, Souther Dusky Desmognathus auriculatus 

Salamander, Spotted Ambystoma muculatum 

Siren, Greater Siren lacertina 

Waterdog, Dwarf Necturus punctatus 

LIZARDS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Anole, Green (Carolina Anole) Anolis carolinensis 

Lizard, Fence Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus 

Racerunner, Six-Lines Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

Skink, Ground Leiolopisma laterale 

Skink, Five-Lined Eumeces fasciatus 

Skink, Broad-Headed Eumeces laticeps 

Skink, Southeastern Five-Lined Eumeces inexpectatus 

Lizard, Slender Glass Ophisaures attenuatus 
219

FROGS AND TOADS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Frog, Brimley's Chorus Pseudarcris brimleyi 

Frog, Carpenter Rana virgatipes 

Frog, Gray Tree Hyla chrysoscelis (diploid form) 

Frog, Gray Tree Hyla versicolor (polyploid form) 

Frog, Green Rana clamitans melanota 

Frog, Green tree Hyla gratiosa 

Frog, Northern Cricket Acris crepitans crepitans 

Frog, Northern Cricket Hyla crucifer crucifer 

Frog, Pickerel Rana palustris 

Frog, Pine Woods Tree Hyla femoralis 

Frog, Southern Cricket Acris gryllus gyrllus 

Frog, Southern Leopard Rana utricularia 

Frog, Squirell Tree Hyla squirella 

Frog, Upland Chorus Pseudarcris trisertiata feriarum 

Grog, Little Grass Limnaoedus ocularis 

Peeper, Northern Spring Hyla cinera cinera 

Spadefoot, Eastern Scaphiopus holbrooki holbrooki 

Toad, Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Toad, Fowlers Bufo woodhousei fowleri 

Toad, Oak Bufo quercicus 

Toad, Southern Bufo terrestris 
220 

FISH 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Alewife Alosa pseudorharengus 

Anchovy, Bay Anchoa mitchilli 

Bass, Largemouth Micropterus Salmoides 

Bass, Spotted Micropterus punctulatus 

Bass, Striped Morone saxatilis 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Bowfin Amia Calva 

Bullhead, Black Ictalurus Melas 

Bullhead, Brown Ictalurus Nebulosis 

Bullhead, Yellow Ictalurus Natalis 

Carp Cyprinus Carpio 

Catfish, Channel Ictalurus Punctatus 

Catfish, White Ictalurus catus 

Chubsucker, Lake Erimzon sucetta 

Crappie, Black Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogon undulatus 

Drum, Red Sciaenps ocellata 

Drum, Star Stellifer lanceolatus 

Eel, American Anguilla Rostrata 

Fish, Lady Elops saurus 

Flier Centrarchus marcopterus 

Flounder, Southern Paralichthys lethostigma 

Flounder, Summer Paralichthys dentatus 

Gar, Longnose Lepisosteus osseus 

Goby, Darter Gobionellus boleosoma 

Goby, Naked Bogiosoma bosci 

Herring, Blueback Alosa aestivalis 

Killifish, Banded Fundulus diaphanus 

Killifish, Marsh Fundulus confluentus 

Madtom, Tadpole Noturus gyrinus 

Menhaden, Atlantic Brevoortia tyrannus 

Mullet, Striped Mugil cephalus 

Mullet, White Mugil curema 

Perch, Silver Bairdiella chrysura 

Perch, White Morone americana 

Perch, Yellow Perca flavescens 

Pickerel, Chain Esox niger 

Pickerel, Redfin Esox Americans 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 

Pipefish, Gulf Syngnathus scovelli 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Seatrout, Spotted Cynoscion nebulosus 

Shad, American Alosa sapidissima 

Shad, Gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum 

Shiner, Golden Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Silverside, Tidewater Menidia beryllina 
221

FISH 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Snapper, Gray Lutjanus griseus 

Spot Leiotomus xanthurus 

Sunfish, Bluespotted Enneacarthus gloriosus 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 
222 

INSECTS 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Beatles, Whirligig Gyrinus sp. 

Beetle, Burrowing Water Suphisellus sp. 

Beetle, Water Scavenger Berosus sp. 

Beetle, Water Scavenger Derallus altus 

Bluets Enallagma durum 

Boatman, Water Corixa sp. 

Caddisflies Lepotoceridae 

Casemakers, Longhorned Oecetis sp. 

Damselfly, Common Blu Enallagma sp. 

Fork-Tail, Common Ischnura verticalis 

Mayfly Baetidae 

Midge Polypedium sp. 

Midge Tanytarsus sp. 

Pirate, Blue Pachydiplax longipennis 

Punkies, No-see-ums Palpomyia sp. 

Scorpion, Water Ranatra so. 

Waterscorpions Anax junius 

 Arthripsodes sp. 

 Coelotanypus concinnus 

 Collotanaypus sp. 

 Corethra sp. 

 Cryptochironomus sp. 

 Paracymus nanus 

 Prodladius sp. 

 Tendipes riparius 

 Tendipes sp. 

 Triaenodes sp. 

 Uvarus sp. 
223

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

TREES 

Bay, Sweet Magnolia virginiana 

Cedar, Eastern Red Juniperus virginiana 

Cherry, Black Prunus serotina 

Dogwood, Flowering Cornus florida 

Holly, American Ilex opaca 

Locust, Black Robinia pseudo-acacia 

Oak, Laurel Quercus laurifolia 

Oak, Live Quercusvirginiana 

Oak, Water Quercus nigra 

Persimmon, Common Diospyros virginiana 

Pine, Loblolly Pinus taeda 

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 

Tree, Toothache Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 

Tupelo, Swamp Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora 

Willow, Black Salix nigra 

Wilow, Coastal Plain, Ward’s, Swamp Salix caroliniana 

SHRUBS 

Bay, Red Persea borbonia 

Bayberry, Northern Myrica pensylvanica 

Blackberry, Serrate’Leaf Rubus argutus 

Blackberry, Sand Rubus cuneifolius 

Blueberry, Black Highbush Vaccinium atrococcum 

Blueberry, Elliott's Vaccinium elliotti 

Elder, Marsh Iva imbricata 

Elderberry, American Sambucus canadensis 

Fetterbush, Swamp Leucothoe racemosa 

Groundsel Tree, High Tide Bush Baccharis halimifolia 

Holly, Yaupon Ilex vomitoria 

Huckleberry, Squaw Vaccinium stamineum 

Rose, Swamp Rosa palustris 

Shadbush, Serviceberry Amelanchier candensis 

Sumac, Winged Rhus copallina 

Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera 
224 

FLORA (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

WOODY VINES 

Creeper, Virginia Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Grape, Mascadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Grape, Pigeon Vitis cinerea var. floridana 

Greenbrier, Cat Smilax gluca 

Greenbrier, Common Smilax rotundifolia 

Greenbrier, Ear-leaf Smilax auriculata 

Greenbrier, Laurel-Leaf Smilax laurifolia 

Greenbrier, Saw Smilax bona-nox 

Honeysuckle, Coral Lonicera sempervirens 

Ivy, Poison Rhus radicans 

Vine, Pepper Ampelopsis arborea 
225

FLORA (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Arrowhead, Awl-leaf Sagittaria subulata 

Arrowhead, Bulltongue Sagittaria falcata 

Aster, Slender Aster tenuifolius 

Beach Heath Hudsonia tomentosa 

Bean, Wild Strophostyles helvola 

Bedstraw, Catchweed Galium aparine 

Beggarticks, Smooth Bidens laevis 

Buttercup, Celery-Leaf Ranunculus sceleratus 

Cactus Opuntia compressa 

Camphor Weed Pluchea purpurascens 

Cherry, Ground Physalis visocosa ssp. maritima 

Chickweed, Mouse-Ear Cerastium vicosum 

Cocklebur, Rough Xanthium strumarium 

Cranesbill, Carolina Geranium carolinianum 

Cress, Bitter Cardamine hairsuta 

Cucumber, Creeping Melothria pendula 

Cudweed, Narrow-Leaf Gnaphalium purpureum var. falcatum 

Daisy Fleabane Erigeron canadensis 

Daisy, False Eclipta alba 

Dandelion, Dwarf Krigia virginica 

Dock, Water Rumex verticillatus 

Dog Fennel, Small Eupatorium capillifolium 

Dropwort, Water Oxypolis rigidior 

Duckweed, Minute Lemna perpusilla 

Duckweed, Greater Spirodela polythiza 

Elephant's Foot Elephantopus nudatus 

Feather, Parrot Myriophyllum brasiliense 

Fimbry, Forked Fimbristylis dichotoma 

Goldenrod, Anisescented Solidago odora 

Goldenrod, Seaside Solidago sempervirens 

Goldentop, Slender Euthamia tenuifolia 

Grasswort, Carolina Lilaeopsis carolinensis 

Grasswort, Eastern Lilaeopsis chinensis 

Grounsel, Wooly Senecio tomentosus 

Hemlock, Poison Cicuta maculata 

Hempweed, Climbing Mikania scandens 

Horehound, Water Lycopus virginicus 

Hyssop, Water Bacopa monnieri 

Jessamine, Yellow Gelsemium sempervirens 

Lobelia, Downy Lobelia puberula 

Loosestrife, False Ludwigia alternifolia 

Mallow, Seashore Kosteletzkya virginica 

Milfoil, Water Myriophyllum exalbescens 

Monarda, Dotted Monarda punctata 

Morningglory, Saltmarsh Ipomoea sagittata 
226 

FLORA (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Mudeflower, Shade Micranthemum umbrosum 

Mudwort, Awl-leaf Limosella subulata 

Pearlwort, Trailing Sagina decumbens 

Pennywort, Many-Flower Hydrocotyle umbellata 

Pennywort, Floating Hydrocotyle ranunculoides 

Pennywort, False Centella asiatica 

Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata 

Pimpernel, Water Samolus parviflorus 

Pink, Sea Sabatia stellaris 

Pinweed, Hairy Lechea mucrontha 

Pinweed, Leggett’s Lechea pulchella 

Plantain, Pale Seed Plantago virginica 

Pondweed, Leafy Potamogeton foliosus 

Pondweed, Sago Potamogeton pectinatus 

Pondweed, Clasping-Leaf Potamogeton perfoliatus 

Pondweed, Bushy Najas flexilis 

Pondweed, Horned Zannichellia palustris 

Pondweeds Najas spp. 

Primrose, Evening Oenothera humifusa 

Primrose, Evening Oenothera laciniata 

Purslane, Water Ludwigia palustris 

Rabbit Tobacco Gnaphalium obtusifolium 

Ragweed, Annual Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Redstem, Pink Ammania teres 

Rocket, American Sea Cakile edentula 

Rocket, Harper’s Sea Cakile harperi 

Salad, Corn Valerianella radiata 

Sandmat, Seaside Chamaesyce polygonifolia 

Smartweed, Dotted Polygonum punctatum 

Sorrel, Sheep Rumex hastatulus 

St. Andrews Cross Hypericum stragalum 

Starwort, Water Callitriche heterophylla 

Tea, Mexican Chenopodium ambrosioides 

Thistle, Russian Salsola kali 

Thistle, Yellow Cirsium horridulum 

Thoroughwort Eupatorium pilosum 

Toadflax Linaria canadensis 

Tresses, Ladies Spiranthes vernalis 

Violet, Bog White Viola lanceolata 

Watercress Nasturtium officinale 

Weed, Mermaid Proserpinaca palustris 

Wild Sensitive Plant Cassia nictitans 

Wintergreen, Spotted Chimaphila maculata 

Wort, St. Johns Hypericum hypericoides 

Yarrow, Common Achillea millefolium 
227

FLORA (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

GRASSES 

Beachgrass, American Ammophila breviligulata 

Bluegrass, Annual Poa annua 

Bluestem, Little Schizachyrium scoparium 

Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus 

Cordgrass, Big Spartina cynosuroides 

Cordgrass, Saltmeadow Spartina patens 

Cutgrass, Rice Leersia oryzoides 

Deertongue Dichanthelium clandestinum 

Eelgrass Vallisneria americana 

Grass, American Cupscale Sacciolepis striata 

Grass, Blue-eyed Sisyrinchium mucronatum 

Grass, Widgeon Ruppia maritima 

Grass, Yellow-eyed Xyris difformis 

Grass, Yellow-eyed Xyris jupicai 

Maidencane Panicum hemitomom 

Orangegrass Hypericum gentianoides 

Panicum, Bitter Panicum amarum 

Panicum, Fall Panicum dichotomiflorum 

Plumegrass, Sugarcane Saccharum giganteum 

Reed, Common Phragmites australis 

Saltgrass, Seashore Distichlis spicata 

Sandspur Cenchrus tribuloides 

Sawgrass, Jamaica Cladium jamaicense 

Seaots Uniola paniculata 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 
228 

FLORA (CONTINUED) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

GRASSLIKE PLANTS 

Beakrush, Clustered Rhynchospora glomerata 

Beakrush, Loosehead Rhynchospora chalorocephala 

Bulrush, Softstem Scirpus validus 

Cattail, Common Typha latifolia 

Cattail, Narrow-leaf Typha angustifolia 

Cattail, Southern Typha domingensis 

Flatsedge, Slender Cyperus fillicinus 

Rush, Turnflower Juncus biflorus 

Rush, Black Needle Juncus roemerianus 

Rush, Leathery Juncus coriaceus 

Rush, Soft Juncus effusus 

Sedge, Japanese Carex kobomugi 

Spikerush, Blunt Eleocharis obtusa 

Spikerush, Dwarf Eleocharis parvula 

Spikerush, Small-Fruit Elocharis microcarpa 

Spikerush, Yellow Eleocharis flavescens 

Threesquare, Common Scirpus americanus 

Threesquare, Olney Scirpus olneyi 

MOSS 

Moss, Spanish Tillandsia usneoides 
229

Appendix VII. Priority Bird Species and their 

Habitats 

Species Status Habitat 

Brackish 

Marsh 

Maritime 

Shrub and 

Swamp 

Forest 

Dune 

Grass and 

Dry 

Grassland 

Managed 

Wetlands 

(Moist Soil 

Units) 

(FL=Federally-listed, FSC=Federal Species of Concern, 

SC=Species of Management Concern) 

Bald Eagle FL X 

Black Rail FSC X 

Sharp-tailed Sparrow SC X 

Seaside Sparrow SC X 

Yellow Rail SC X 

King Rail SC X 

Sedge Wren SC X 

Prairie Warbler SC X 

Eastern Painted Bunting SC X 

Yellow-throated Warbler SC X 

Northern Parula SC X 

Wood Duck SC X 

Piping Plover FL X 

Red Knot SC X 

Wilson’s Plover SC X 

Roseate Tern SC X 

Least Tern SC X 

Black Skimmer Sc X 

American Oystercatcher SC X 

Reddish Egret SC X 

Canada Goose SC X 

Snow Goose SC X 

Tundra Swan SC X 

American Black Duck SC X 

Mallard SC X 

American Widgeon SC X 

Blue-winged Teal SC X 

Green-winged Teal SC X 

Ruddy Duck SC X 

Ringneck Duck SC X 

Northern Pintail SC X 

Greater Scaup SC X 

Lesser Scaup SC X 
230 
231

Appendix VIII. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATION NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) PROJECTS 

Projects are ordered by the project number the first two digits of which stand for fiscal year 

the project was developed. The numbers are listed in the management alternatives. 

Projects are listed as tier 1 projects that support approved critical mission or approved 

minimum staff or tier 2 projects that do not. 

Stations ranks are listed for both Mackay Island and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges 

(NWR). Since both refuges are managed as one administrative unit, many projects listed as 

Currituck NWR projects will benefit Mackay Island NWR equally. 

Project 97004 Habitat Improvement for Waterfowl and Shorebirds 

First Time Request $130,000, Recurring Request $56,000 

Station Rank - 6 (Currituck NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to improve management on a 150-acre natural impoundment 

(flats) on the Currituck NWR and initiate and force account farming program on 250 acres of cropland 

on the Mackay Island NWR. The refuge will install a pumping system to provide a dependable water 

supply to flood the impoundment and increase monitoring to manage the area for optimum migratory 

waterfowl and shorebird habitat. Currently the impoundment does not have an adequate supply and 

is not monitored sufficiently due to access. The flooded impoundment will provide important feeding 

and resting habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other species. Ducks Unlimited’s 

MARSH project funding of $30,000 is available to cost share this project. This project will also provide 

a maintenance worker to convert the cooperative farming program at Mackay Island NWR to a force 

account program. There is currently only one farmer available to enroll in the cooperative agreement 

and it is possible that he will discontinue his participation. At that time the refuge will initiate a force 

account program. The primary purpose of this program will be to provide winter feeding habitat for 

migratory Canada geese and other waterfowl. 

Project 97006 Refuge Complex Biological Program Enhancement 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $63,000 

Station Rank – 2 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 1) 

This project will provide the funding to employ a wildlife biologist to conduct annual studies of wildlife 

and their habitats essential to the management of the natural resources of the Mackay Island NWR 

and Currituck NWR. The biologist will also gather, analyze, and summarize data needed for planning 

purposes, including information to be used in the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process. 

Examples of work include, but are not limited to, monitoring waterfowl, water bird and songbird 

populations; surveying and protecting endangered species and their habitats; surveying and 

monitoring invasive species; water quality monitoring; and monitoring and mapping submerged 

aquatic vegetation in refuge impoundments. Much of this biological data is currently gathered 

sporadically or not at all. This project will help provide biological data that is currently not available for 

making compatibility determinations and other management and legal decisions. 

Project 97009 Cultural Resource Surveys 

One Time Request $80,000 

Station Rank - 9 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 
232 

This project will provide the funding for a contract to conduct comprehensive archeological resource 

surveys on Mackay Island NWR and Currituck NWR. The surveys will document historical use by 

Native Americans, European colonists, and other groups. The area of the refuge and the area 

surrounding the refuge have a rich history, primarily due to its location near water and abundant 

natural resources. The survey will focus on Native American, early colonial, Revolutionary War, and 

Civil War cultural resources. The refuge needs this survey to develop resource and public use plans 

and the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Project 97011 Fire Management Program Improvements 

First Year Request $81,000, Recurring Request $2,000 

Station Rank - 4 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding for a contract a multi-year (3-5 year) study on Mackay Island 

NWR to evaluate the effects of the current prescribed fire program on marsh habitat. The refuge 

burns 1,500 to 2,000 acres of marsh habitat by prescription annually using a three-year rotation. The 

staff needs additional information to determine if the prescribed fire program is meeting planned 

objectives, and if needed, to modify the scope and/or intensity of annual burns to better meet habitat 

management objectives. 

Project 97013 Interpretation, Education, and Outreach Program Development 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $53,000 

Station Rank - 1 (Currituck NWR Tier 1) 

This project will provide the funding to employ a public use specialist (outdoor recreation planner) to 

develop and implement interpretation, education, and outreach programs to include development of 

interpretative materials, programs, and displays at the Mackay Island NWR and Currituck NWR. The 

position will also develop and implement environmental education materials for local schools and 

civic organizations. Currently the refuge is not adequately addressing outreach opportunities due to 

inadequate materials and staffing. Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges are on the edge of a large 

metropolitan with over one million residents. Requests for environmental education and interpretative 

programs are more than the current facilities and staff can accommodate. 

Project 99001 Phragmites Control 

First Year Request $43,000, Recurring Request $3,000 

Station Rank - 1 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 1) 

This project will provide the funding to control exotic phragmites on Mackay Island and Currituck 

national wildlife refuges. This species quickly spreads in wetland habitats, forms dense stands, and 

essentially eliminates native plant species where these dense stands form. Phragmites has limited 

value for native wildlife. The weed currently covers approximately 200 acres of the refuges. This 

exotic plant will continue to expand in the refuge’s extensive wetlands unless control measures are 

implemented. Ducks Unlimited partnered with the refuge to control approximately 60 acres of this 

species in 1998 and will likely contribute to future efforts. 

Project 99003 Forest Management Plan Development 

One Time Request $67,000 

Station Rank - 5 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to inventory existing forest resources and develop forest 

management plans for Mackay Island NWR and Currituck NWR by contract. The refuges have more 

than 2,750 acres of forest habitat that the refuge staff has not inventoried or managed. The habitat is 

beginning to deteriorate due to lack of management (i.e., frequent disease outbreaks, wind damage). 
233

Project 99004 Administrative Management Improvement 

First Year Request $77,500, Recurring Request $44,000 

Station Rank - 2 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to employ a full time office assistant to improve administrative 

operation and outreach for Mackay Island NWR and Currituck NWR. The staff for both refuges is six 

permanent and two seasonal employees. As the biological and public use programs expand, the 

workload will be more than one office assistant can handle. The current position handles budgeting, 

purchasing, time-keeping, and personnel, as well as all other clerical duties. 

Project 00001 Endangered Species and Wetland Management Program Enhancement 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $53,000 

Station Rank - 2 (Currituck NWR Tier 1) 

This project will provide the funding to employ a biological technician to conduct annual studies and 

surveys of wildlife and their habitats essential to management of the natural resources of the Mackay 

Island NWR and Currituck NWR. The technician will also gather, analyze, and summarize data 

needed for planning purposes, including information to be used in the Comprehensive Conservation 

Planning process. Surveys and monitoring of threatened and endangered species include, but are not 

limited to, piping plovers, loggerhead sea turtles, and seabeach amaranth. Other duties include 

monitoring the impacts of feral animals and invasive species, monitoring and mapping submerged 

aquatic vegetation in refuge impoundments. Much of this information is currently not being gathered 

and impacting the ability to make management decisions. 

Project 00002 Outreach from Visitor Contact Station 

First Year Request $70,000, Recurring Request $16,000 

Station Rank - 3 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 1) 

This project will provide the funding to develop new outreach tools to include displays, interpretative 

materials, and signs for the Visitor Contact Station. The project will also develop color brochures and 

pamphlets for each refuge and portable displays and presentation materials for local and regional 

events (i.e., festivals, exhibits, and workshops). Outreach is not adequately addressed due to 

inadequate materials. Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges are on the edge of a large metropolitan 

area with more than one million residents. Requests for environmental education and interpretation 

programs are more than current facilities can accommodate. 

Project 00003 Great Marsh Habitat Alteration Grazing Research and Restoration 

One Time Request $60,000 

Station Rank - 6 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding for a college graduate student to research and evaluate the 

changes in marsh habitat beginning in the 1920's to the present. The student will compare current 

aerial photographs of the Middle Marsh area of the Mackay Island NWR with historic photographs to 

determine the amount of habitat lost to open ponds. Goose grazing, nutria feeding, or other 

conditions may have caused the loss. The project will evaluate the causes and recommend a 

restoration plan. Small openings in the marsh may have enlarged over the years resulting in loss of 

habitat. If the loss continues unabated, the loss may become significant and restoration may become 

difficult or unlikely due to a loss of soil. 

Project 00005 Water Quality Monitoring 

First Year Request $15,500, Recurring Request $6,500 

Station Rank - 6 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 1) 
234 

This project will provide the funding to purchase water quality monitoring equipment and fund water 

testing in refuge impoundments and mitigation area on the Mackay Island NWR. The monitoring will 

evaluate the impact of impoundments on water quality and document habitat changes in the 

mitigation area. State Coastal Zone Permit requirements for the construction of the Kitchin 

Impoundment require intensive monitoring of specific water quality parameters. 

Project 00006 Migratory Bird Management 

Tier 1 Project 

First Year Request $41,000, Recurring Request $35,000 

Station Rank - 4 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 1) 

This project will provide the funding to provide an aircraft for additional waterfowl and shorebird 

surveys, contract neotropical migratory songbird and habitat surveys, and establish habitat 

enclosures on the Mackay Island NWR and Currituck NWR. The project will add six waterfowl 

surveys and six shorebird surveys that the refuge had discontinued due to rising costs. The surveys 

will contribute valuable information to regional and national databases. Little is known about the 

neotropical birds on Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges. This information will allow the staff to 

make sound management decisions. The project will fund two habitat surveys annually. It will allow 

an annual survey of the Swan Island Impoundment on Currituck NWR to help make management 

decisions. The staff has not completed the survey in five years. The project will also fund habitat 

enclosures to monitor the impacts of wild horses on Currituck NWR. 

Project 00009 Fire Management Program Expansion 

First Year Request $85,000 Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank - 3 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to employ a fire management specialist and purchase equipment 

to facilitate the management of an expanded fire management program. The project will allow the 

Mackay Island NWR and Currituck NWR to increase the area of prescribed fire by 3,500 acres and 

respond to wildfires. Current refuge acreage for the two refuges is approximately 12,000 acres. Both 

refuges are expanding and have a total acquisition boundary of 19,000 acres. More than half of the 

existing and proposed area on the refuges is brackish marsh. Proper management for the marsh is to 

prescribed burn on a three-year rotation. 

Project 00010 Fisheries Survey 

One Time Request $20,000 

Station Rank - 10 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding for a comprehensive survey of existing fisheries on the Mackay 

Island NWR. The survey will sample impoundments, bays, creeks, and canals on the refuge. Nobody 

knows much of the existing fish populations. More than five trust species utilize the refuge. An 

evaluation is necessary to help determine management needs. 

Project 00011 Refuge Management Improvement 

First Time Request $65,000, Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank - 5 (Currituck NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to employ an assistant manager for Currituck NWR. The assistant 

manager will oversee the daily management and biological program of an expanding refuge. The refuge 

has an active acquisition program. The manager and assistant manager at Mackay Island NWR currently 

manage the Currituck NWR office on Knotts Island, North Carolina. As the Currituck NWR grows, it will 

become more and more difficult to manage the refuge from across the sound. When acquisition is 

complete, the refuge will span 25 miles from the NC/VA state line to the Dare County line. The refuge is 

long and linear following the barrier island known as the Outer Banks in North Carolina. 

Project 00012 Fisheries Survey 
235

One Time Request $20,000 

Station Rank - 8 (Currituck NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding for a comprehensive survey of existing fisheries on the Currituck 

NWR. The survey will sample impoundments, bays, creeks, and canals on the refuge. Nobody knows 

much of the existing fish populations. More than five trust species utilize the refuge. An evaluation is 

necessary to help determine management needs. 

Project 00013 Exotic Nutria Control 

First Year Request $75,000, Recurring Request $74,000 

Station Rank - 8 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to employ a biological technician to establish a program to 

monitor and control the rapidly increasing nutria population on the Mackay Island NWR. Nutria are 

exotic animals from South America. There is a substantial population on the refuge. These animals 

are damaging habitat and infrastructure. They burrow into dikes and levees, enlarge ponds, consume 

great quantities of marsh vegetation, and feed in farm fields. The population seems to be growing and 

the impacts are increasing. Failure to control this population will lead to the continuation of habitat 

destruction. 

Project 00014 Equipment Wash Rack 

First Year Request $18,000, Recurring Request $4,000 

Station Rank - 5 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 1) 

This project will provide the funding to construct a vehicle and equipment wash rack behind the 

existing shop that would comply with environmental standards of the State of North Carolina. The 

staff currently washes equipment immediately behind the shop on a gravel and mud driveway; this 

site creates a large muddy area for several days. Mud, oil, and diesel fuel washes into the ground on 

the site in violation of state water quality standards. 

Project 00016 Feral Horse Impact Research 

First Year Request $25,000, Recurring Request $40,000 

Station Rank - 3 (Currituck NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding for two studies on the impacts of feral horses on the habitat of 

Currituck NWR. One will be an enclosure study to evaluate the habitat impacts resulting from the feral 

horses. The second will be a movement study to determine animal movements on a seasonal basis. 

Each will be an extensive three-year research study. Currently a small herd of feral horses roam the 

outer banks areas north of Corolla, North Carolina. An intensive evaluation is needed to determine 

impacts and make management recommendations. Due to the disjunct nature of the refuge, horses 

travel on and off the refuge year round. Management options are limited by local regulations and 

sentiment about the horses. Failure to evaluate this threat may result in significant habitat impacts 

that could damage threatened and endangered species and migratory bird habitat. 

Project 00017 Corolla Navy Gunnery Site History Research 

One Time Request $43,000 

Station Rank - 7 (Currituck NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding for a research study of the history of the Corolla Navy Gunnery 

Site on the Monkey Island Unit of the Currituck NWR. Nobody knows much about this historic use. 

Some unexploded ordinance is present and occasional passing storms uncover additional ordinance. 

The refuge needs research into the extent of ordinance on the refuge to help determine the level of 

cleanup necessary and the level of public use that can currently occur inn this area. Without this 

research, the refuge cannot plan development on this unit. 

Project 00018 Weekend Public Access Improvement 
236 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $49,000 

Station Rank - 7 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to hire a public use specialist (outdoor recreation planner) to staff the 

Mackay Island NWR headquarters and visitor contact station on weekends from April through October. 

Currently the headquarters and the surrounding refuge area are closed on weekends for security 

reasons. This project will allow that area and the Kitchin Impoundment to be open for wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, interpretation, environmental education, and outreach. The public use specialist will 

also manage the Currituck NWR waterfowl hunts. Demand for public use activities is increasing every 

year. The demand will increase even more when the refuge develops the recreation facilities at the 

Kitchin Impoundment. The demand for weekend activity in the refuge is growing more than the demand 

for activity during the week. Failure to staff the headquarters on the weekend will limit our ability to 

provide wildlife-oriented recreation opportunities when the public wants them. 

Project 00019 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $52,000 

Station Rank - 1 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to employ an additional maintenance worker to maintain vehicles 

and equipment. As the staff and refuges increase in size, there will be additional needs for 

maintenance work. Currently the two employees perform all the maintenance on the 12,000 acres of 

both Mackay Island NWR and Currituck NWR. They struggle at keeping up with the current workload. 

This position will allow the refuge to properly maintain vehicles and equipment, and allow the other 

two employees to concentrate on other maintenance needs. Failure to fund this project will limit the 

proper maintenance of vehicles and equipment. 

Project 00020 Newly Acquired Tract Posting 

One Time Request $20,000 

Station Rank - 9 (Currituck NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to post the boundaries of three newly acquired tracts on Currituck 

NWR with signs. The tracts are: Currituck Marsh, Station Landing, and Ocean Associates. The 

project will fund signs, posts, and hardware. Currently the staff has only posted a few signs in the 

more visible areas. Failure to post these areas will result in more violations and disturbance to 

wintering waterfowl. 

Project 02001 Administrative Management Improvement 

First Year Request $17,500, Recurring Request $25,000 

Station Rank - 11 (Mackay Island NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to employ a half time office assistant to improve administrative 

operation and outreach for Mackay Island NWR and Currituck NWR. The staff for both refuges is six 

permanent and two seasonal employees. As the biological and public use programs expand, the 

workload will be more than one office assistant can handle. The current position handles budgeting, 

purchasing, time-keeping, and personnel, as well as all other clerical duties. 
237

Project 03000 Refuge Officer 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $71,000 

Station Rank - 1 (Currituck NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to employ a law enforcement officer. With the Department of the 

Interior’s mandated reduction in dual function officers, this refuge will have a lack of law enforcement 

presence. By providing an additional refuge officer to fill the void, the safety of the visiting public will 

be increased as well as our ability to provide much needed protection for refuge natural resources 

and facilities. The addition of a full time officer will provide a position whose primary responsibility is 

protecting the resource. Officer presence, surveillance, and visitor contacts are important to visitor 

safety and are critical in reducing crime on the refuge. 

Project 04001 Survey and Post Disputed Refuge Boundaries 

One Time Request $60,000 

Station Rank - 2 (Currituck NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to survey and post disputed refuge boundaries. 

Project 04002 Plan and Implement Big Game Hunting Program 

One Time Request $55,000 

Station Rank - 4 (Currituck NWR Tier 2) 

This project will provide the funding to plan and implement a big game hunting program. 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects Listed by Station Rank 

Station 

Rank/ 

Tier 

Project 

Number 

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring) 

Positions Project Title 

1/1 97013 65K, 53K 1.0 Interpretation, Education, Outreach 

2/1 00001 65K, 53K 1.0 Refuge Endangered Species and Wetland 

Management Enhancement 

3/1 97002 140K, 22K Boardwalk, Observation Platform, and 

Trail Construction 

1/2 03000 65K, 71K 1.0 Law Enforcement Officer 

2/2 04001 60K Survey and Post Disputed Boundaries 

3/2 00016 25K, 40K Feral Horse Impact Research 

4/2 04002 55K Plan and Implement Big Game Program 

5/2 00011 65K, 69K 1.0 Refuge Management Improvement 

6/2 97004 130K, 56K 1.0 Habitat Improvement for Waterfowl and 

Shorebirds 

7/2 00017 43K Corolla Navy Gunnery Site History 

Research 

8/2 00012 20K Fishery Survey 

9/2 00020 20K Newly Acquired Tract Posting 
238 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects Listed by Station Rank 

Station 

Rank/ 

Tier 

Project 

Number 

Cost 

(First Year, 

Recurring) 

Positions Project Title 

1/1 99001 43K, 3K Phragmites Control 

2/1 97006 65K, 63K 1.0 Biological Program Enhancement 

3/1 00002 70K, 16K New Outreach Tools 

4/1 00006 41K, 35K Migratory Bird Management 

5/1 00014 18K, 4K Equipment Wash Rack 

6/1 00005 15.5K, 6.5K Water Quality Monitoring 

1/2 00019 65K,52K 1.0 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 

2/2 99004 58K, 25K 1.0 Administrative Management Improvement 

3/2 00009 85K, 69K 1.0 Fire Management Program Expansion 

4/2 97011 81K, 2K Fire Management Program Improvement 

5/2 99003 67K Forest Management Plans 

6/2 00003 60K Great Marsh Research and Restoration 

7/2 00018 65K, 49K 1.0 Weekend Public Outreach 

8/2 00013 75K, 74K 1.0 Exotic Nutria Control 

9/2 97009 80K Cultural Resource Survey 

10/2 00010 20K Fisheries Survey 

11/2 02001 17.5K, 25K 0.5 Administrative Management Improvement 

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MMS) PROJECTS (CURRITUCK) 

Project 

Number 

Project Name Year 

Planned 

Cost Station 

Rank 

Station 

Name 

97008 

Old 

RONS 

Electric Fence 

Construction 

2011+ $70,000 25+ Currituck NWR 

99004 

Old 

RONS 

Satellite 

Headquarters 

Construction 

2011+ $204,000 9 Currituck NWR 

00004 Monkey Island 

Bulkhead 

Replacement 

2011+ $1,200,000 1 Currituck NWR 

02003 Visitor Contact 

Station/Research 

Facility 

Construction 

2011 $313,000 5 Currituck NWR 
239

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MMS) PROJECTS (MACKAY ISLAND) 

(Equipment Projects Benefit Currituck National Wildlife Refuge) 

Project 

Number 

Project Name Year 

Planned 

Cost Station 

Rank 

Station 

Name 

94001 Mackay Island 

Road Resurfacing 

2011+ $342,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

95004 Bulls Bay 

Bulkhead 

Replacement 

2009 $129,000 12 Mackay Island 

NWR 

95005 Bellows Bay 

Bulkhead 

Replacement 

2008 $169,000 13 Mackay Island 

NWR 

96003 Long Dike 

Resurfacing 

2011+ $1,082,000 20 Mackay Island 

NWR 

96005 Fire Cache 

Rehabilitation 

2005 $51,000 1 Mackay Island 

NWR 

96008 Mackay Island 

Road Resurfacing 

2011+ $514,000 21 Mackay Island 

NWR 

97003 

Old 

RONS 

Observation 

Platform and 

Fishing Pier 

Construction 

2011+ $31,000 6 Mackay Island 

NWR 

97006 Office Bulkhead 

Replacement 

2009 $37,000 7 Mackay Island 

NWR 

97007 

Old 

RONS 

Observation/ 

Photography Blind 

Construction 

2011+ $31,000 8 Mackay Island 

NWR 

97007 East Pool Parallel 

Dike Rehabilitation 

2007 $32,000 8 Mackay Island 

NWR 

97033 Astro Van 

Replacement 

2004 $31,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

99002 Long Dike Repair 2006 $135,000 3 Mackay Island 

NWR 

00003 1989 Blue Dodge 

Pickup Truck 

Replacement 

2004 $28,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

00008 

Old 

RONS 

Fire Management 

Facility Expansion 

2011+ $80,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

00011 Office Entrance 

Road 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $131,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

00015 

Old 

RONS 

Additional Shop 

Bay Construction 

2011+ $78,000 10 Mackay Island 

NWR 

00016 Office Parking Lot 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $62,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 
240 

Project 

Number 

Project Name Year 

Planned 

Cost Station 

Rank 

Station 

Name 

00017 Office Entrance 

Road 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $274,000 25 Mackay Island 

NWR 

00018 Refuge 

Headquarters 

Expansion 

2010 $334,000 4 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01001 Mackay Island 

Bulkhead 

Replacement 

2011 $814,000 2 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01002 1998 Airboat 

Replacement 

2011+ $27,000 17 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01003 D-4 Dozer 

Replacement 

2011+ $159,000 24 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01004 Heavy Duty Disc 

Replacement 

2011+ $10,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

01005 Backhoe 

Replacement 

2011+ $90,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

01006 Tracked Marsh 

Vehicle 

Replacement 

2011+ $94,000 16 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01007 14-Foot Rotary 

Mower 

Replacement 

2011+ $14,000 4 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01007 14-Foot Rotary 

Mower 

Replacement 

2011+ $14,000 4 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01008 16-Inch High 

Volume Lift Pump 

Replacement 

2011+ $8,000 10 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01010 1996 4X4 Ford 

Tractor 

Replacement 

2011+ $87,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

01011 1988 Case 585 

Tractor 

Replacement 

2011+ $47,000 14 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01012 1991 15 Ton Tilt 

Bed Trailer 

Replacement 

2011+ $16,000 23 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01013 1998 Tilt Bed 

Trailer 

Replacement 

2011+ $9,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

01014 1996 4X4 Dodge 

Dakota 

Replacement 

2011+ $33,000 5 Mackay Island 

NWR 

Project Project Name Year Cost Station Station 
241

Number Planned Rank Name 

01016 2001 Chevrolet 

Tahoe 

Replacement 

2011+ $37,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

01017 1999 Ford F-250 

4X4 Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $26,000 22 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01018 1999 Ford F-250 

4X4 Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $26,000 19 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01019 1995 Ford F-250 

4X4 Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $26,000 11 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01020 1995 Ford F-150 

4X4 Extended Cab 

Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $29,000 9 Mackay Island 

NWR 

01022 East Pool Pump 

Replacement 

2004 $40,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

02001 New Office 

Building 

Construction 

2011 $972,000 12 Mackay Island 

NWR 

02002 Great Marsh 

Natural Hydrology 

Restoration 

2011 $577,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

02004 18-Foot Boat, 60-

HP Motor, and 

Trailer 

Replacement 

2011+ $13,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

02005 2001 John Deere 

670CH Motor 

Grader 

Replacement 

2011+ $157,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

02006 2001 Kubota 

M8200 

Replacement 

2011+ $47,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

02007 2001 Alamo Side 

Mower 

Replacement 

2011+ $8,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

02008 2001 IngersollRand RT 706H 

Forklift 

Replacement 

2011+ $42,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

02009 1991 Chevrolet 

Fire Engine 

Replacement 

2011+ $84,000 6 Mackay Island 

NWR 
242 

Project 

Number 

Project Name Year 

Planned 

Cost Station 

Rank 

Station 

Name 

02010 Refuge Parking 

Lot Resurfacing 

2011+ $42,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

02011 20-Foot Boat, 70-

HP Motor, and 

Trailer 

Replacement 

2011+ $16,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

02012 Proclamation 

Boundary 

Re-Survey and 

Posting 

2006 $26,000 2 Mackay Island 

NWR 

03001 Shop Entrance 

Road 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $95,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

03002 Live Oak Point 

Road 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $435,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

03003 Hog Pen Point 

Road 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $568,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

03004 Cross Dike Road 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $317,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

03005 Office Entrance 

Road 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $430,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

03006 Five Refuge 

Parking Lots 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $57,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

03007 Storage 

Building/Garage 

Construction 

2010 $77,000 11 Mackay Island 

NWR 

04001 2003 Ford F250 

Extended Bed 

Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $28,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

04002 2003 Freightliner 

6X4 Stake Bed 

Dump Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $70,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

04003 30-Inch Pump and 

Bulkhead 

Replacement 

2011+ $60,000 15 Mackay Island 

NWR 

04004 Bunkhouse 

Replacement 

2011+ $38,000 18 Mackay Island 

NWR 

04005 Fire Cache/ 

Quarters 

Replacement 

2011+ $400,000 7 Mackay Island 

NWR 
243

Project 

Number 

Project Name Year 

Planned 

Cost Station 

Rank 

Station 

Name 

04005 Residence 

Entrance Road 

Rehabilitation 

2011+ $60,000 25+ Mackay Island 

NWR 

04006 Shop Building 

Replacement 

2011+ $600,000 3 Mackay Island 

NWR 
244 
245

Appendix IX. Biological Review 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Biological Review of National Wildlife Refuges 

of the Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear (RTNCF) Ecosystem 

in Northeastern North Carolina and Southeastern Virginia

July 2002 

Introduction. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1984. The refuge has 4,570 

acres of fee simple ownership and 3,931 acres of conservation easements. The primary 

purpose of the refuge is to protect the coastal dune ecosystem and habitat for wintering 

waterfowl that is he focus of the emergent wetlands on the west side of the island and one 

impoundment in the Swan Island Unit. The refuge now consists of seven units scattered 

amongst private lands (many supporting beach homes) from the Virginia-North Carolina border 

to North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve and a narrow band of property owned 

by The Nature Conservancy north of Corolla, North Carolina. Most of our discussion focused on 

the beach and dune (east) side of the refuge. The amount of public use on the beach was 

excessive but controlled only by the vehicles that were able to negotiate soft sands. Refuge 

staff will likely have little control over access since many people live all along the barrier island. 

 This is the clearest and most direct problem facing the future integrity of this refuge. 

Biological Review Overview. Work to restore quality beach nesting habitat by allowing the natural 

processes to occur, i.e., storm-driven blowouts in dunes. Maintain as wide as possible a line from high 

tide line through dunes into coastal scrub-shrub that is free of development or roads on public lands. 

Protect to the maximum degree possible known or suspected beach nesting bird habitat from April 

through July. Most likely sites are existing blowouts in the dunes and adjacent high beach, especially 

with broken shells strewn throughout. 

Where suitable nesting substrate exists for beach-nesting birds consider within an area of at least 1⁄2 

acre in size creating a depression area that would hold rainwater during the breeding season behind 

to nesting area but within a recent blow-out area. This would reduce conflicts between piping plover 

chicks and recreationists on the beaches. 

Within the framework of open hunting areas and navigable waterways, continue to enforce closed 

areas for waterfowl sanctuaries as much as possible. 

Develop water-pumping capabilities for the Currituck Flats impoundment as soon as possible. In the 

interim, install a flap gate that slides into the existing flash board riser slots and will allow high wind 

tide events to push water onto the flats. 

Manage the Currituck Flat Impoundment to provide a variety of early successional plant stages by 

dividing it into three vegetation management units and staggering disking/burning/mowing done on these 

units. 

In the long term (3 to 15 years) an additional 80 to 200 (2 to 3 units) acres of managed wetlands 

should be developed. Any ditched and drained wetlands that are acquired should be considered for 

meeting this objective. 
246 

Continue and expand exclosures in various plant communities to determine effect of horses on 

vegetation composition and structure. Work towards minimizing already demonstrated effects of wild 

horses on the marshes located between the coastal scrub-shrub and the high beach, primarily 

saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens). 

No obvious need for management of coastal shrub-scrub and maritime forest communities other than 

to minimize loses to encroaching development. 

Monkey Island is a locally (for northeast North Carolina) important heronry, but also is a historic site. 

In addition, the island is eroding away. 

Restrict public use, historic site restoration, and island restoration activities on Monkey Island to the 

non-breeding season (September to late February). 

Beaches and dunes. Besides waterfowl, the most important resources on the refuge are 

associated with the beach and dune systems, especially for sea beach amaranth, nesting sea 

turtles, and beach-nesting shorebirds, terns, and skimmers. Piping plovers formally nested on 

Currituck, but are not known to at present. Sea beach amaranth occurs here but present status 

is unclear. In the past seven years six sea turtle nests have been documented (three in 1995) 

along this ten-mile stretch of beach. Better survey efforts are needed to determine the status of 

these and other species. Additional biological staff is necessary to do the surveys needed 

(covered under surveys below). 

There is pressure for a permanent road behind the dunes from Corolla to all the housing to the 

north. There already are underground utility cables along the west edge of the dunes on the 

refuge. The cables follow a right-of-way on the Monkey Island Unit and an easement on the 

Swan Island Unit. Short of total resistance to a road, if one becomes inevitable, the team 

recommends working to eliminate vehicular access and pets on the beach during the nesting 

season and position the road as far to the west through the coastal scrub-shrub as possible. 

The former consideration is to provide better chances for success for beach nesting birds by 

reducing human disturbance and the latter for allowing movement of dunes and blowouts from 

storm events to increase the quality of beach-nesting bird habitat over time. A third 

consideration especially for nesting piping plovers is availability of water and moist substrate for 

foraging chicks, but many hazards exist for chicks required to move from the high beach to the 

ocean with the existing heavy vehicular use of this beach. 

Work to restore quality beach nesting habitat by allowing the natural processes to occur, i.e., stormdriven blowouts in dunes. Maintain as wide as possible a line from high tide line through dunes into 

coastal scrub-shrub that is free of development or roads on public lands. 

Protect to the maximum degree possible known or suspected beach nesting bird habitat from April 

through July. Most likely sites are existing blowouts in the dunes and adjacent high beach, especially 

with broken shells strewn throughout. 

Where suitable nesting substrate exists for beach-nesting birds consider within an area of at least 1⁄2 

acre in size creating a depression area that would hold rainwater during the breeding season behind 

the nesting area but within a recent blow-out area. This would reduce conflicts between piping plover 

chicks and recreationists on the beaches. 
247

Marshes/coves The major habitat management in marshes on the west side of Currituck are burning 

on a 3-year rotation. Most are dormant-season and single-ignition fires. Most marshes and coves 

within the refuge serve as sanctuary sites except where hunting occurs in the Currituck Marsh and 

South Marsh units. Disturbance may come from navigable waterways in other areas. 

Within the framework of open hunting areas and navigable waterways, continue to enforce closed 

areas for waterfowl sanctuaries as much as possible. 

Explore opportunities with the state to control certain navigable waters through a memorandum of 

agreement. 

Managed Wetlands. The impoundment on the Swan Island Unit is being managed as a moist soil 

unit. During the review, the effect of the horse exclusion fence was very obvious. On the same 

wetland complex outside the refuge boundary and outside the exclusion fence the moist soil 

vegetation was non-existent except for dwarf spike rush. The area on the refuge, within the exclusion 

fence, had excellent dwarf spikerush as well as three square, fall panicum, smartweed and bacopa. 

Keeping the horses and other livestock out of this area is critical to producing good waterfowl foods 

on this unit. The good growth of dwarf spikerush that resulted from the wetter conditions in 2000 

highlighted the advantages that would accrue from being able to keep the flats wetter than we can 

under normal conditions. (When the vegetation transects were performed this fall, 27% of the 

composition was dwarf spike rush whereas it never showed up on previous surveys.) The ability to 

pump some water onto the flats during the growing season should be a priority for the area. We 

know that the refuge is currently pursuing pumping capabilities for the area. In the interim you should 

consider a flapgate to allow wind tides to put some water on the area during the growing season. A 

flapgate that slides into the existing water control structure at the flats would be a low cost option. 

With the flapgate in the riser you would hold rainwater; but high tides would put water on the area 

through the flapgate if water levels were low behind the riser. Of course there is the problem of 

debris leaving the flapgate stuck open. It would have to be checked routinely. 

When the impoundment needs plant succession set back, to maintain good seed/food producing 

plants, the area should not be disked/mowed/burned all at once. (The need for disking etc. will be 

determined by your fall vegetation sampling.) The review team noted that some of the later 

succession moist soil, still producing a good proportion of waterfowl foods, was good habitat for rails 

and associated marsh sparrows (especially sharp-tailed). The earliest stages, i.e. right after disking 

or in the spring after waterfowl feeding and winter have created areas of sparse vegetation, also 

provide good shorebird habitat. On refuges with multiple impoundments this range of successional 

stages is provided for by staggering treatments by impoundment. Since Currituck currently has only 

one managed impoundment you could achieve this by timing your treatment for successional shifts in 

different vegetation units within the impoundment (see a suggested breakout into three vegetation 

units in Map). This will provide not only a range of successional habitats good for shorebirds to 

sharp-tailed sparrows, but will also give a better diversity of waterfowl foods from the earlier 

successional food plants (e.g. fall panicum and wild millet) to the later (e.g. rice cutgrass and Bidens 

sp.). Also if a portion of the area does not produce good moist soil plants in a given year, consider 

disking the area in August and flooding to provide southbound shorebird migration habitat rather than 

waiting until the next spring to set back succession. This will be most practical when you have 

pumping capabilities. 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge should utilize the existing 143 acres and develop additional 

managed wetlands, to eventually provide 150 to 270 acres of well-managed moist soil and/or 

permanent water impoundments to help meet migrating and wintering needs of dabbling/diving ducks 

and other wetland birds. 
248 

Develop water-pumping capabilities for the Swan Island Unit impoundment as soon as possible. In 

the interim, install a flap gate that slides into the existing flash board riser slots and will allow some 

high wind tide events to push some water onto the flats. 

Manage the Swan Island Unit Impoundment to provide a variety of early successional plant stages by 

dividing it into three vegetation management units and staggering disking/burning/mowing done on 

these units. 

In the long term (3 to 15 years) an additional 80 to 200 (2 to 3 units) acres of managed wetlands 

should be developed. Any ditched and drained wetlands that are acquired should be considered for 

meeting this objective. 

Horses. Horses on Currituck have been an important management issue since the establishment of 

the refuge. Regardless of sentimental value these horses have with the public, they are exotic and 

potentially damaging to vegetation under active management. The effect horses have on sea beach 

amaranth (if any) needs to be determined, as does interdune grasslands and marshes. Also noted 

during review was the difference between areas where horses are excluded versus where they freely 

feed. Clearly horses have a dramatic effect on the development of moist soil associated plants and 

therefore waterfowl use later in the year. 

Continue and expand exclosures in various plant communities to determine effect of horses on 

vegetation composition and structure. Work towards minimizing already demonstrated effects of wild 

horses on the marshes located between the coastal scrub-shrub and the high beach, primarily 

saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens). 

Impoundments 

Control invasive, non-desirable plant communities (alligator weed, Phragmites, etc.) so it does not 

impact more than 10 percent coverage of any impoundment. 

Utilize chemical, fire, disking, water control, etc., to reduce impact of invasive/non-desirable plants. 

If poor quality waterfowl foods or invasive plants equal or exceed 50% of coverage, then extreme 

control measures are needed (even fall disking or multi-year deep flooding). 

Recognizing personnel and budgetary limitations, work with and support migratory bird conservation 

efforts on nearby Private Lands. 

Contact/visit at least 75% of the adjacent landowners currently managing wetlands/forest, etc., for 

migratory birds and provide technical aid. 

Promote, encourage only 3 one-half days of hunting (or less) on private sites. 

Encourage landowners to keep holding water until mid-March or at least late February for waterfowl 

and do slow drawdown. Where possible hold and drawdown slowly through April-early May for 

migrating wading and shorebirds. 

Via membership on ecosystem teams and whenever State meetings occur, give support and priority 

to the State/Federal/Private Land sanctuary area program and North Carolina Partners activities. 
249

After hunting seasons, if landowner’s corn is still standing, work with him/her to recommend mowing 

or knocking down for better waterfowl use. 

Meet wood duck banding quota and help band/observe swans and geese. 

Work to band your quota of wood ducks, with emphasis on June, July, August, and early September 

periods and age/sex quotas. Record results in annual narrative. 

Each month (mid-October to early March) help band and/or observe collared swans. 

Check and monitor wood duck box use at least twice a year (right before spring nesting period and 

after peak spring/summer nesting - probably July). If feasible, check boxes every 35-40 days during 

peak nesting periods (March, April, May). 

Review Regional Guidelines for data recording, or utilize other standardized date recording sheets. 

Show results in Annual Narrative. 

Remove the boxes that are in poor condition, ensure all boxes have predator guards. 

If use of present boxes exceeds 60%, add up to 50 more wood duck boxes if personnel (volunteers, 

etc.) are available to clean and monitor boxes (follow procedures in Regional wood duck guidance). 

All refuges should use scientifically sound inventory/monitoring methods to survey numbers and 

trends of focus wildlife species, plant communities, and management programs. Properly 

recorded/archived data will be collected to (1) evaluate habitat management actions and wildlife 

responses and (2) allow use of adaptive management procedures that improve subsequent 

management/restoration decisions. 

Utilize standardized aerial and ground surveys to census waterfowl on all impoundments and aerial 

surveys to monitor Lake/Bay/Sound usage. Twice a month (preferred) conduct aerial counts (midOctober - mid March) and twice a month conduct ground surveys of impoundments (early October - 

late March). Continue coordinating these surveys through Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear 

Ecosystem as is currently being done. 

Continue to work with Migratory Bird Division pilot/biologists to cooperatively fly aerial surveys. Be 

sure and have refuge flown during the official mid-winter survey. 

Record ground survey data by individual impoundments or at least by impoundment units. 

All survey data should be available in refuge’s annual narrative and entered into the web site 

maintained by the Manteo Migratory Bird Field Office Office/Raleigh Ecological Services Office. 

Survey routes and techniques should be described and repeatable. 

If water is present in September, survey teal use. 

Actively record biweekly (i.e. every 2 weeks) water levels and plant germination progress in all 

managed impoundments during spring and summer to determine subsequent/follow up actions. 

Prepare proposed water management plan for next year’s actions. 
250 

Utilize water gauges in all impoundments to record biweekly/monthly water levels (especially in early 

spring/summer). 

Sample plant germination during early spring/after drawdown, identify dominant plant species, and 

modify management strategy as needed. Utilize Migratory Bird Field Office biologist to help with 

surveys. 

Record results of plant responses to impoundment management actions by conducting plant surveys 

in late summer/early fall. Determine coverage of preferred waterfowl plant species. Work with 

Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear Ecosystem Biologist Group to standardize survey methods and 

data analysis. 

Consult with Migratory Bird Field Office biologist to conduct standardized sampling of plant 

communities (record data in repeatable format). 

Present results in next years water management plan and in annual narrative. 

Maritime Grasslands. About 137 acres of this habitat type exists primarily on the Monkey Island Unit 

of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. 

Burning program should maintain grassy interdune areas free of invading shrubs, but should not be 

used to reduce well-developed shrub-scrub on elevated hummocks. 

Coastal scrub-shrub and maritime forest. Along much of the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, wide 

patches of coastal scrub-shrub exist behind the primary dunes. These patches vary from very dense 

to more open (with bare ground and grassy patches). The team saw no obvious need from a 

biological perspective to change anything through management recognizing importance of both of 

these conditions, primarily for migratory landbirds. In the more open patches, field sparrows were 

singing and it is possible such habitat may also support prairie warblers. However, there may be a 

need to occasionally reduce fuel load in the denser stands, which may require consideration of 

prescriptive burning. In more protected areas, maritime forests persist and these remnants should be 

important for canopy foraging neotropical migrants. 

No obvious need for management of coastal shrub-scrub and maritime forest communities other than 

to minimize loses to encroaching development. 

Monkey Island is a locally (for northeast North Carolina) important heronry, but also is a historic site. 

In addition, the island is eroding away. 

Restrict public use, historic site restoration, and island restoration activities on Monkey Island to the 

non-breeding season (September to late February). 

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Beachfront (202 acres) 

Goal. - Maintain, improve, and protect nesting habitat for sea turtles; nesting, foraging and roosting 

habitat for shorebirds and colonial waterbirds; and habitat supporting seabeach amaranth. 
251

Objective. - Convene a meeting including national and local sea turtle experts, all refuges 

subject to this review (Back Bay, Currituck, and Pea Island), national seashores, and other 

sea turtle nesting areas along the outer banks to resolve how best to conserve these species 

in areas where nests are doomed to fail from consistently high tides washing over nests. 

Objective. - Survey for seabeach amaranth and fully protect sites where this endangered 

plant is found. 

Objective. – Maintain and improve nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for shorebirds and 

colonial waterbirds. 

Objective. - Survey for plover and colonial waterbird nesting areas and at minimum determine 

number of pairs and if prudent determine productivity. 

Objective. – Maintain and improve nesting habitat for: 

piping plover (federally threatened), 

American oystercatcher, 

black skimmer, 

least tern, 

common tern, and 

gull-billed tern. 

Strategy - Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear Ecosystem Migratory Bird Committee 

– develop ecosystem population goals from the Southeastern Coastal PlainsCaribbean Regional Shorebird Plan/North American Waterbird Conservation Plan to 

the Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear Ecosystem area. Determine habitat needed 

to provide for the number of pairs /reproductive rate. 

Strategy. - Work to restore quality beach nesting habitat by allowing the natural 

processes to occur, i.e., storm-driven blowouts in dunes. Maintain as wide as possible 

a line from high tide line through dunes into coastal scrub-shrub that is free of 

development or roads on public lands. 

Strategy. - Protect to the maximum degree possible known or suspected beach 

nesting bird habitat from April through July. Most likely sites are existing blowouts in 

the dunes and adjacent high beach, especially with broken shells strewn throughout. 

Strategy. - Where suitable nesting substrate exists for beach-nesting birds consider 

within an area of at least 1⁄2 acre in size creating a depression area that would hold 

rainwater during the breeding season behind to nesting area but within a recent blowout area. This would reduce conflicts between piping plover chicks and recreationists 

on the beaches. 

Objective. - Improve foraging habitat by minimizing “beach restoration” after storm surges, 

thereby providing important overwash habitats. 

Objective. - Survey for beach foraging shorebirds during migration and winter using 

International Shorebird Survey protocol. 
252 

Objective. - Protect regularly used shorebird and colonial nesting bird roosting and loafing 

areas from repeated disturbances from the public, including both sites on the beach proper 

and unvegetated areas behind the dune line (including hard panne). 

Objective. - Search for roosting concentrations of shorebirds and determine relative threat 

from repeated disturbances. 

Marshes (predominantly Brackish and Fresh Water - 2,202 acres)

Goal. – Manage marshlands to maintain a diversity of plant species and patchy structure for 

supporting priority birds (both waterfowl and nongame species), diamondback terrapin, and fisheries. 

Objective. – Survey using secretive marshbird protocol for occurrence of priority species to 

identify both sites that should be maintained as well as sites in need of improvement through 

management, principally for: 

American bittern 

least bittern 

yellow rail 

black rail 

clapper rail 

king rail 

saltmarsh seaside sparrow 

seaside sparrow 

Objective. - Burn marshlands annually on a 1-4 year fire frequency to maintain or improve 

species diversity, improve plant productivity, and restore the upland marshes back to grasses. 

Objective. - Explore alternate firing techniques to mimic natural wildfires in marshes (e.g. 

single point ignitions). 

Objective. - Perform Phragmites and cattail control where needed. 

Objective. - Monitor effects of marsh burning and various firing techniques on “secretive 

marsh birds” such as bitterns, rails, and sparrows. Use findings to make recommendations to 

mitigate impacts on these species in the future. 

Objective. - Monitor vegetation response to burning and that of the biotic community at large 

to adapt management techniques. (Issues: timing, frequency, prescriptive criteria of burns, 

etc.). 

Objective. – Develop monitoring protocol for tracking diamondback terrapin populations. 

Managed Wetlands (i.e., impoundments with canals and dikes that may include open water, moist 

soil, exposed flat, trees (green tree reservoirs) and emergent vegetation with varying amounts and 

management regimes, as well as management of vegetation on dikes and levees; 143 acres)

Goal. - Manage and maintain impoundments to achieve habitat and migratory bird objectives for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, marshbirds, colonial waterbirds, other waterbirds, and associated landbirds. 
253

Objective. - Monitor water quality on a periodic basis. 

Objective. - Spot surveys of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) for affected open water 

areas and manage appropriately to maintain suitable to optimal conditions for wintering 

waterfowl and other waterbirds. 

Objective. - Currituck National Wildlife Refuge should utilize the existing 143 

acres and develop additional managed wetlands, to eventually provide 200 to 

300 acres of well-managed moist soil and/or permanent water impoundments to 

help meet migrating and wintering needs of dabbling/diving ducks and other 

wetland birds. 

Strategy. - Develop water-pumping capabilities for the Swan Island Unit impoundment 

as soon as possible. In the interim, install a flap gate that slides into the existing flash 

board riser slots and will allow some high wind tide events to push some water onto 

the flats. 

Strategy. - Manage the Swan Island Unit Impoundment to provide a variety of early 

successional plant stages by dividing it into three vegetation management units and 

staggering mowing/burning/mowing done on these units. 

Strategy. - In the long term (3-10 years) an additional 130-230 acres of managed 

wetlands (2-3 units) should be developed. Any ditched and drained wetlands that are 

acquired should be considered for meeting this objective. 

Strategy. - Continue and expand exclosures in various plant communities to 

determine effect of horses on vegetation composition and structure. Work towards 

minimizing already demonstrated effects of wild horses on the marshes located 

between the coastal scrub-shrub and the high beach, primarily saltmeadow cordgrass 

(Spartina patens). 

Objective. - Control invasive, non-desirable plant communities (alligator weed, Phragmites, 

etc.) so it does not impact more than 10 percent coverage of any impoundment. 

Strategy. - Utilize chemical, fire, disking, water control, etc., to reduce impact of 

invasive/non-desirable plants. 

Strategy. - As appropriate, farmer coop. rent should be used to control invasive plants. 

Strategy. - If poor quality waterfowl foods or invasive plants equal or exceed 50% of 

coverage, then extreme control measures are needed (even fall disking or multi-year 

deep flooding). 

Objective. - Recognizing personnel and budgetary limitations, work with and support 

migratory bird conservation efforts on nearby Private Lands. Contact/visit at least 75% of the 

adjacent landowners currently managing wetlands/forest, etc., for migratory birds and provide 

technical aid. 

Strategy. - Promote, encourage only 3 one-half days of hunting (or less) on private 

sites. 
254 

Strategy. - Encourage landowners to keep holding water until mid-March or at least 

late February for waterfowl and do slow drawdown. Where possible hold the water 

and drawdown slowly through April or early May for migrating wading and shorebirds. 

Strategy. - Via membership on ecosystem teams and whenever State meetings occur, 

give support and priority to the State/Federal/Private Land sanctuary area program 

and North Carolina Partners activities. 

Strategy. - After hunting seasons, if landowner’s corn is still standing, work with 

him/her to recommend mowing or knocking down for better waterfowl use. 

Objective. - Meet wood duck banding quota and help band/observe swans and geese. 

Strategy. - Work to band your quota of wood ducks, with emphasis on June, July, 

August, and early September periods and age/sex quotas. Record results in annual 

narrative. 

Strategy. - Each month (mid-October - early March) help band and/or observe 

collared swans. 

Objective. - Check and monitor wood duck box use at least twice a year (right before spring 

nesting period and after peak spring/summer nesting - probably July). If feasible, check 

boxes every 35 to 40 days during peak nesting periods (March, April, May). 

Strategy. - Review Regional Guidelines for data recording, or utilize other 

standardized date recording sheets. Show results in Annual Narrative. 

Strategy. - Remove boxes that are in poor condition, ensure all boxes have predator 

guards. 

Strategy. - If use of present boxes exceeds 60%, add up to 50 more wood duck boxes 

if personnel (volunteers, etc.) are available to clean and monitor boxes (follow 

procedures in Regional wood duck guidance). 

Goal. - All refuges should use scientifically sound inventory/monitoring methods to survey numbers 

and trends of focus wildlife species, plant communities, and management programs. Properly 

recorded/archived data will be collected to (1) evaluate habitat management actions and wildlife 

responses and (2) allow use of adaptive management procedures that improve subsequent 

management/restoration decisions. 

Objective. - Utilize standardized aerial and ground surveys to census waterfowl on all 

impoundments and aerial surveys to monitor Lake/Bay/Sound usage. Twice a month 

(preferred) conduct aerial counts (mid-October - mid March) and twice a month conduct 

ground surveys of impoundments (early October - late March). Continue coordinating these 

surveys through Roanoke to Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear Ecosystem as is currently being done. 

 Where possible count other waterbirds using a standardized approach (to be determined). If 

possible– utilize weekly ground counts – including ground counts same week as aerial survey. 

Strategy. - Continue to work with Migratory Bird Division pilot/biologists to 

cooperatively fly aerial surveys. Be sure and have refuge flown during the official midwinter survey. 
255

Strategy. - Record ground survey data by individual impoundments or at least by 

impoundment units. 

Strategy. - All survey data should be available in refuge’s annual narrative and 

entered into the web site maintained by the Manteo Migratory Bird Field Office/Raleigh 

Ecological Services Office. Survey routes and techniques should be described and 

repeatable. 

Strategy. - If water is present in September, survey teal use. 

Objective. - Actively record biweekly water levels and plant germination progress in all 

managed impoundments during spring and summer to determine subsequent/follow up 

actions. 

Strategy. - Prepare proposed water management plan for next year’s actions. 

Strategy. - Utilize water gauges in all impoundments to record biweekly/monthly water 

levels (especially in early spring/summer). 

Strategy. - Sample plant germination during early spring, identify dominant plant 

species and modify management strategy as needed. Utilize Migratory Bird Field 

Office biologist to help with surveys. 

Objective. - Record results of plant responses to impoundment management actions by 

conducting plant surveys in late summer/early fall. Determine coverage of preferred waterfowl 

plant species. Work with Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear Ecosystem Biologist Group to 

standardize survey methods and data analysis. 

Strategy. - Consult with Migratory Bird Field Office biologist to conduct standardized 

sampling of plant communities (record data in repeatable format). 

Strategy. - Present results in next years water management plan and in annual 

narrative. 

Objective. – Survey using secretive marshbird protocol for occurrence of priority species to 

identify both sites that should be maintained as well as sites in need of improvement through 

management, principally for:

American bittern 

least bittern 

yellow rail 

black rail 

clapper rail 

king rail 

saltmarsh seaside sparrow 

seaside sparrow 

Objective. - Burn marshlands annually on a 1-4 year fire frequency to maintain or improve 

species diversity, improve plant productivity, and restore the upland marshes back to grasses. 
256 

Objective. - Explore alternate firing techniques to mimic natural wildfires in marshes (e.g. 

single point ignitions). 

Objective. - Monitor vegetation response to burning and that of the biotic community at large 

to adapt management techniques. (Issues: timing, frequency, prescriptive criteria of burns, 

etc.). 

Objective. - Control Phragmites/cattail encroachment and control other exotic pest invasions. 

Objective. - Monitor effects of marsh burning and various firing techniques on “secretive 

marsh birds” such as bitterns, rails, and sparrows. Use findings to make recommendations to 

mitigate impacts on these species in the future. 

Objective. – Provide exposed mudflat for shorebirds April to May and July to October 

(Acreage objectives should be guided by the Southeastern Coastal Plain-Caribbean Regional 

Shorebird Plan that gives goals for the Southeastern Virginia-North Carolina Region. These 

goals and a listing of the planned shorebird habitat for the current migration will be available 

on the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI) web page). 

Objective. - Survey for foraging and roosting shorebirds during migration and winter using 

International Shorebird Survey protocol. 

Objective. – Record results of invertebrate responses to impoundment 

management actions by conducting surveys. Work with the Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape 

Fear Ecosystem Biologist Group to standardize survey methods and data analysis. Survey 

conditions and seasons most likely to support high aquatic invertebrate densities in support of 

peak shorebird migration and wintering populations.

Objective. - Manage vegetation along dikes as necessary for maintenance, but maintain 

flexibility for maintaining quality landbird habitat during migration as much as possible 

(especially at Pea Island).

Objective. – For wooded areas/edges along dikes, track use of habitat use during landbird 

migration using standardized migration monitoring protocol.

Maritime Grasslands (includes Dune Grass, 137 acres) 

Goal. – Restore and maintain grassy conditions throughout interdune systems for grassland priority 

species, while maintaining shrub and small tree patches on elevated hummocks for landbird 

migrants. 

Objective. – Apply prescribed fire to reduce dense shrub-scrub coverage and increase grassy 

conditions, but maintain shrub and small tree patches on hummocks. 

Objective. – Monitor migrant and winter grassland bird communities using Project Prairie Bird 

protocol (especially search for “Ipswich” savannah sparrows) and raptor roadside surveys. 

Maritime Shrub (778 acres)

Goal. – Monitor condition of maritime shrub communities and use by wildlife. 
257

Objective. – Determine management need based on surrounding conditions. 

Strategy. - No obvious need for management of maritime shrub-scrub communities 

other than to minimize loses to encroaching development, though some attention to 

fire hazard may also be needed. 

Objective. – Monitor use by migrant and breeding songbirds using Migration Monitoring 

protocol and point counts as appropriate.

Maritime Forest (637 acres)

Goal. – Monitor condition of maritime forest communities and use by wildlife.

Objective. - No obvious need for management of maritime forest communities other than to 

minimize losses to encroaching development.

Objective. – Monitor use by migrant songbirds at least during southbound migration using 

Migration Monitoring protocol, compare with Kitty Hawk and Nags Head Woods.

Administrative Areas 

Goal. - Provide for efficient management access and care of equipment and safety of personnel. 

Wherever possible, work to reduce the numbers and widths of roads, firebreaks, and other administrative 

features that may contribute to habitat fragmentation and elevated depredation of bird nests. 

Objective. - Either maintain administrative buildings and maintenance areas off-refuge as 

much as possible or concentrate them in areas of already extensive open land on the refuge. 

Objective. - As habitats are restored, the need may be a reduced need to maintain existing 

road networks. Each refuge should plan accordingly. 

Objective. - Although many refuge lands temporarily require more frequent prescribed 

burning than would be recommended due to past fire suppression practices, after several 

cycles the numbers and widths of firebreaks should be reduced.