Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

November 2008

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Currituck County, North Carolina 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

November 2008 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refuges of the Ecosystem ............................................................................................................ 3

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

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

Relationship to State Partners ...................................................................................................... 4

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

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

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

Special Designations .................................................................................................................... 9

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

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

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

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

Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 14

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

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

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

Physical Environment ................................................................................................................. 16

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

Geology ............................................................................................................................. 17

Minerals ............................................................................................................................. 17

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 17

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 20

Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 20

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 21

Visual Resources ..............................................................................................................22

Biological Environment ............................................................................................................... 22

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 22

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................24

Insects and Diseases ........................................................................................................ 30

Exotic Organisms ..............................................................................................................31

Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 31

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 31

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 31

Socioeconomic Conditions and Land Use ........................................................................ 31

History of the Area ............................................................................................................ 32

Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 34

Demographics ................................................................................................................... 35

Employment ...................................................................................................................... 38
ii Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Forestry ............................................................................................................................. 38

Outdoor Recreation .......................................................................................................... 40

Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 40

Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 41

Transportation ................................................................................................................... 41

Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................ 42

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 42

Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 42

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 44

Personnel, Operations and Maintenance ......................................................................... 44

Refuge Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 46

Roads and Trails ............................................................................................................... 46

Utility Corridors and Distribution ....................................................................................... 46

Communication System .................................................................................................... 47

Solid Waste Collection and Disposal ................................................................................ 47

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 49

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 49

Plan Review and Revision .......................................................................................................... 50

Summary of Issues and Concerns ............................................................................................. 50

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 50

Global Warming and Sea Level Rise ................................................................................ 50

Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................ 51

Habitats ............................................................................................................................. 52

Public Use ......................................................................................................................... 52

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 53

Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 54

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................................... 55

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 55

Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 55

Objectives and Strategies .......................................................................................................... 55

Goal 1. Fish and Wildlife Populations .............................................................................. 55

Goal 2. Habitats ............................................................................................................... 59

Goal 3: Public Use ........................................................................................................... 62

Goal 4: Resource Protection ............................................................................................ 67

Goal 5: Refuge Administration ......................................................................................... 71

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 75

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 75

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 75

Refuge Administration ................................................................................................................ 76

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 77

Volunteers .................................................................................................................................. 79

Partnership Opportunities .......................................................................................................... 79
Table of Contents iii

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 81

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................. 87

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ............................................................................... 91

APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................... 99

Public Scoping ............................................................................................................................ 99

Public Comments on Draft Plan and Service Responses ........................................................ 108

APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ............................................................................... 113

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ........................................................................... 113

Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................................... 116

APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 135

APPENDIX VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS ............................................... 161

APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................ 163

APPENDIX IX. BIOLOGICAL REVIEW ............................................................................................. 177

APPENDIX X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................. 195

APPENDIX XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 199
iv Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge in Currituck County, ............................. 8

Figure 2. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Area. ............................................................................................................ 11

Figure 3. Hydric and non-hydric soils of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. ............................. 18

Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. .................................. 23

Figure 5. Approved acquisition boundary, Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. .......................... 43

Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. .................................... 45

List of Tables

Table 1. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge acquisition history. ................................................... 9

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy’s ranking of vegetative communities of Mackay Island 

National Wildlife Refuge. ....................................................................................................... 10

Table 3. Federally threatened and endangered animal species that occur on the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain in North Carolina and Virginia. ........................................................................ 13

Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................... 18

Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Mackay Island 

National Wildlife Refuge. ....................................................................................................... 21

Table 6. Vegetative composition of the Mackay Island east pool moist-soil unit. ............................... 24

Table 7. Vegetative composition of the Mackay Island middle pool moist-soil unit. ........................... 26

Table 8. Vegetative composition of the Mackay Island west pool moist-soil unit. .............................. 27

Table 9. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge waterfowl survey results, 2002-2003. .................... 28

Table 10. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge shorebird/wading bird survey results, 

spring 2003. ......................................................................................................................... 28

Table 11. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge shorebird/wading bird survey results, fall 2002. ................ 29

Table 12. Currituck County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture. ......... 35

Table 13. Commodity production in Currituck County in 2002 and 1997, from the 2002 and 

1997 USDA Census of Agriculture. .................................................................................... 36

Table 14. Virginia Beach agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture. ............. 37

Table 15. Commodity production in Virginia Beach in 2002 and 1997, from the 2002 and 

1997 USDA Census of Agriculture. ..................................................................................... 37

Table 16. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties. ......................... 39

Table 17. Staff of Mackay Island and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges – 2005 ............................. 46

Table 18. Projects supporting wildlife strategies. ............................................................................... 75

Table 19. Projects supporting habitat strategies. ............................................................................... 76

Table 20. Projects supporting public use strategies. .......................................................................... 77

Table 21. Projects supporting resource protection. ............................................................................ 78

Table 22. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies. ......................................................... 79
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the 

management of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge in Currituck County, North Carolina, and 

Virginia Beach, Virginia. The plan outlines the programs and corresponding resource needs for the 

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

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

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

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

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

staff held 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 very intensively by managing water 

levels and vegetation to create optimum habitat for migrating waterfowl. 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 a 

request basis only. A staff of seven members is stationed at the Mackay Island Refuge. The staff 

spends 4.15 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years on the Mackay Island Refuge and 2.85 FTE staff 

years at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. 

Alternative 2 proposed moderate program increases. Under this alternative, the staff would develop a 

habitat management plan and manage all habitats on the refuge. The staff 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 numbers of opportunities. The staff would conduct regularly scheduled 

environmental education and interpretation programs. The Service would build an environmental 

education center. There would be fifteen staff members, of whom eleven would be stationed at the 

Mackay Island Refuge and four stationed at Currituck. The staff would spend 7.8 FTE staff years at 

Mackay Island and 7.2 FTEs at Currituck. The staff would include a biologist and a public use specialist. 

Alternative 3 proposed substantial program increases. Under this alternative, the staff would 

develop a habitat management plan and manage all habitats on the refuge. The staff would 

survey all wildlife on the refuge. The refuge would increase further the number of public use 

opportunities. The Service would build an environmental education center. There would be 

twenty-four staff members - seventeen stationed at the Mackay Island Refuge and seven 

stationed at the Currituck Refuge. The staff would spend 11.25 FTE staff years at the Mackay 

Island Refuge and 12.75 FTEs at Currituck. The staff would include separate law enforcement 

officers and public use specialists for the Mackay Island and Currituck refuges. 

The planning team and refuge staff selected Alternative 2 as the 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. 
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to 

provide a foundation for the management and use of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge in 

Currituck County, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. 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 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 development of an environmental 

assessment, which was incorporated in Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. The environmental assessment contained a description of the 

alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives. When 

fully implemented, this comprehensive conservation plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of 

Mackay Island 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. The Service allows and encourages 

public use (i.e., 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, Realty, Fisheries, Ecological Services, and 

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

state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, local citizens, and the general public through a 

series of stakeholder and public scoping meetings. A description of this public involvement and the 

planning process itself are provided in Chapter III, Plan Development. 

This plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward after considering two 

other alternatives, as described in the environmental assessment referred to above and summarized 

in the Executive Summary. The preferred alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action 

for the 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 Mackay Island 

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

and to provide long-term guidance to 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; 

• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 
2 Mackay Island National Wildlife 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 management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; and 

• provide a basis for budget requests for operational, maintenance, and capital improvement 

needs. 

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

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

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

with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System. This plan supports the Partners in 

Flight Initiative; South Atlantic Coastal Plain Migratory Bird Conservation Plan; North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan; Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; and National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

states and several island territories. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The mission of the 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 the 

Service shall manage each refuge to: 

• fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

• fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

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

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

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

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

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

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

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

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

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

comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared in conjunction with public involvement, and 

each refuge must complete its own plan within a 15-year schedule. 

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. 

REFUGES OF THE ECOSYSTEM 

Mackay Island National Wildlife refuge is one of 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 have been classified as 

Ecosystem Unit #34 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
4 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

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

presidential executive orders guide the administration of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. The 

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

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges. 

NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

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

organizations; and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on and off public lands. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to conserving those species groups. Restoration of Migratory songbird populations is a high priority 

of the Partners in Flight Plan. It also provides strategies for conserving and managing wintering, 

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

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

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

priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified 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 croplands to natural habitats. The programs provide 

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

wildlife habitat, or to protect it with easements. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS 

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

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

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

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

of fish and wildlife throughout the United States. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the Virginia Department of Wildlife and 

Inland Fisheries are the state-partnering agencies with the Service, charged with enforcement 

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

resources. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission also manages approximately 1.8 

million acres of game lands in North Carolina. The Virginia Department of Wildlife and Inland 

Fisheries manages approximately 192,000 acres of wildlife management areas in Virginia. 

The state fish and wildlife agencies coordinate the states’ wildlife conservation programs and provide 

public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several game 

lands and from several boat ramps located near the Mackay Island Refuge. The agencies’ 

participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process have 

been valuable. They are continuing to 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 and Virginia. They have participated in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field 

reviews as part of the planning process. They also are active partners in the planning and 

coordination of annual hunting seasons and various wildlife and habitat surveys. Mackay Island 

National Wildlife Refuge provides hunting opportunities for deer and waterfowl in cooperation with 

both agencies. A key part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of 

common mission objectives between the Service and the two state agencies, where appropriate. 
6 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge is in Currituck County, North Carolina and Virginia Beach, 

Virginia (Figure 1). The Service named the refuge for Mackay Island where it is located, which is, in turn, 

named for John Mackie, who once owned the island. The refuge’s approved acquisition boundary lies in 

Currituck County, North Carolina (population 18,190) and the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia 

(population 425,257). The southern end of the city of Virginia Beach lies at the northern end of the 

refuge; the closest developed area of the city is 18 miles north of the refuge; and the center of the city is 

27 miles north of the refuge. The city of Chesapeake, Virginia (population 199,184) lies about 27 miles 

northwest of the refuge and the city of Norfolk, Virginia (population 234,403) is 31 miles northwest of the 

refuge. The refuge covers a total of 8,219 acres. Its western boundary is on the North Landing River, 

just northeast of its outlet into the Currituck Sound and just south of Back Bay. This region is part of the 

physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

administrative ecosystem known as the Roanoke–Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear Ecosystem. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES 

Congress established Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge on December 30, 1960, under the 

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

acquisition boundary of 7,835 acres in 1961 and expanded the boundary to 9,503 acres in 1991. The 

Secretary of the Interior issued a proclamation on August 21, 1963, prohibiting waterfowl hunting on 

4,621 acres of the refuge and 1,098 acres of water south and west of the refuge. 

The proposed acquisitions qualified for funding under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 

(16 U.S.C. 715-715R) and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. Sec 460k-1). 

See Table 1 for the refuge’s complete acquisition history. 

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

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

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

the following laws: 

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

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

...for (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). 

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. 
8 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge in Currituck County, 

North Carolina and Virginia Beach, Virginia. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Table 1. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge acquisition history. 

DATE TRACTS ACRES COST COST 

ACRE 

TOTAL 

ACREAGE 

TOTAL 

COST 

1960 1 4,183.65 $167,346 $40.00 4,183.65 $167,346

1961 7 2,291.03 $73,199 $31.95 6,474.68 $240,545

1962 3 63.40 $2,875 $45.34 6,538.08 $243,420

1963 6 114.77 $37,395 $325.83 6,652.85 $280,815

1964 16 175.17 $17,357 $99.09 6,828.02 $298,172

1966 5 118.85 $53,600 $450.99 6,946.87 $351,772

1967 1 27.24 $14,000 $513.95 6,974.11 $365,772

1968 2 20.75 $18,600 $896.39 6,994.86 $384,372

1969 1 17.80 $16,000 $898.87 7,012.66 $400,372

1971 1 11.30 $14,500 $1,283.19 7,023.96 $414,872

1977 1 32.10 $1,040 $32.39 7,056.06 $415,912

1985 2 54.80 $101,350 $1,849.45 7,110.86 $517,262

1992 1 72.00 $31,000 $430.56 7,182.86 $548,262

1993 1 636.73 $0 $0 7,819.59 $548,262

1994 3 205.15 $0 $0 8,024.74 $548,262

2000 2 21.17 $130,000 $6,140.77 8,045.91 $678,262

2001 3 91.83 $375,600 $4,090.17 8,137.74 $1,053,862

2003 2 81.42 $438,400 $5,384,43 8,219.16 $1,486,182

Total 58 8,219.16 $1,486,182 $180.81

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

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

of cropland, moist-soil areas, and the shop area, as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. The Nature 

Conservancy ranks certain vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 2). 

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

the Mackay Island Refuge as outstanding resource waters or high-quality waters (Table 5). 

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

around the refuge as anadromous fish spawning habitats. 
10 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain (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 have fluctuated 

annually, recharging the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s aquatic systems and creating a rich diversity 

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

Table 2. The Nature Conservancy’s ranking of vegetative communities of Mackay Island 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank 

Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest S3 G3 

Tidal Freshwater Marsh S3 G4 

Mesic Pine Flatwoods S3 G5 

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. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

development of comprehensive conservation plans. 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 the Fish and Wildlife Service; the 

Partners in Flight Plan; and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative. 

The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focuses on 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 

midcontinental wood duck and colonial bird populations. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is 

a high priority of the Partners in Flight Plan for the South Atlantic Physiographic Region. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 2. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Area. 
12 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 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. For private landowners who own 

lands in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges, the Service uses these programs to help them 

manage habitat for wildlife or protect their lands 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. Scientists have estimated that 40 percent of the natural vegetation has been 

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

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

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

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

South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Development has reduced vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests 

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

areas that have maintained many of the original functions and values. Severe fragmentation has 

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

Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become threatened, endangered, or extinct 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. Increased nest parasitism is also common in fragmented forests. 

More that 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds inhabit the region. Some of these species, 

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

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

recover and sustain their existence. 

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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

building a nest of its own. Nesting 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 reestablishing travel corridors is 

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

Table 3. Federally threatened and endangered animal species that occur on the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain in North Carolina and Virginia. 

Status Common Name Scientific Name 

Endangered Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus 

Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana 

Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum 

Endangered Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii 

Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus 

Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae 

Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis 

Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis 

Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon 

Endangered Wolf, Red Canis rufus 

Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Threatened Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis 

Threatened Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Threatened Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas 

Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa 
14 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

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

occurred in the region’s hydrology. These changes are due to managed stream flows from flood 

control and hydroelectric power generation reservoirs; drainage ditches; river channel modifications; 

flood control levees; deforestation; degradation to aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation and 

contaminants; and urban development. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

alterations have modified both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding. The alteration of this 

annual flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the forested wetlands and their associated 

wetland-dependent species. Specifically, the combination of managed stream flows and drainage 

ditches in bottomland forests exposes the forests to more frequent flooding than occurs naturally, drains 

back swamps through natural levees, and floods the back swamps at low flows through the ditches. 

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 the wetlands depend on a dynamic 

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

SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

Siltation from deforestation and hydrologic alteration has degraded aquatic systems, including lakes, 

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

accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Sediment now fills many water 

bodies, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. It also reduces light penetration in shallow 

water and the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation growing in the water. Concurrently, the nonpoint source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic 

resources. Six species of federally threatened aquatic organisms and twelve species of federally 

endangered aquatic species occur in North Carolina and Virginia. 

Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created oxbow 

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

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

flood control and navigation. 

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS 

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

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

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

proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic (nonnative) plants capable of aggressive growth is further threatening the viability of aquatic systems. 

These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems, 

and choke waterways to a degree that limits biodiversity and often prevents recreational use. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

The declines in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s bottomland hardwood forests and their associated 

fish and wildlife resources have prompted the Service to designate these forest systems as areas of 

special concern. A collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is 

now underway to implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The goal is to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively 

maintain and possibly restore the biological diversity in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Some areas 

are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation. 

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

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

A cooperative private-state-federal partnership, known as the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, was established in 1986 to help provide sufficient 

wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. 

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

bird objectives for shorebirds, marshbirds, seabirds, wading birds, and neotropical migratory 

songbirds. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is working with the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Working 

Group to establish step-down objectives for shorebird foraging habitat for the fall migration period 

throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. 

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

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

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

or blocks of habitat in an otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The targeted block sizes of forest 

habitat range from 10,000 to 100,000 acres. Such areas are large enough to support viable 

populations of various suites of neotropical migratory interior forest-dwelling songbirds. Of course, 

these areas will also support other species that depend on large forested blocks. The plans are 

anchored by existing or proposed state wildlife management areas or national wildlife refuges. These 

public lands serve as centers of biodiversity that are enhanced and supported by the expansion of 

blocks of habitat, either through public or private management. 

One of the biggest challenges to 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 will conflict 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. Land managers 

must exercise caution to prevent the start-up of management and restoration actions that are difficult 

to reverse and fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or a 

specific area within the ecosystem. An example might be a tendency to totally manage the Mackay 

Island Refuge in an effort to provide habitat for many species of waterfowl that require wetlands with 

supporting submerged aquatic vegetation. Such an approach may overlook the critical habitat needs 

of shorebirds that prefer mudflat habitat. 
16 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

The partners in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture can only meet their habitat goals through active 

management of croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private land 

(Reinecke and Baxter 1996). Biologists must actively manage land (i.e., vegetation manipulation and 

hydrology restoration) to compensate for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that deforestation 

and hydrologic alterations have caused throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Properly 

managed, the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge will make a substantial contribution to meeting 

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

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

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

Although the management of marshes and forests is probably the best solution for restoring the vast 

forests that commercial timber management have altered, land managers must remember 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. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

CLIMATE 

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

is much greater than the ocean or marine influence. Therefore, the 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. 

Winter's storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the winter 

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

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

throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn is slightly drier than 

the other three seasons and is to many people the most pleasant with its many clear, warm days and 

cool nights with relatively little rain. This weather usually lasts until November. 

Occasional hurricanes do have major impacts on Currituck County. The storms usually pass off the coast 

east of the Mackay Island Refuge, but may bring large quantities of rain to the refuge. Most North Carolina 

tornadoes occur in the Piedmont and the interior of the coastal plain, which spares Currituck County. 

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

snowfall was 14.2 inches at Norfolk, Virginia, and 25 inches at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. Snow 

accumulations of more than 1 inch for more than a day are rare. Rainfall is evenly distributed 

throughout the year without a pronounced wet or dry season: average monthly rainfall ranges from 

2.98 in November to 5.17 in July. Ten months have average precipitation between three and five 

inches. Of the total annual precipitation, about 25 inches usually fall in April through September. The 

growing season for most crops falls within this period. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

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 possible in summer 

and 60 percent in winter. The prevailing wind is from the southwest. Average wind speed is highest, 

10 miles per hour, in spring. The average daily maximum temperature is 68 degrees F, 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 87 degrees, and the average daily minimum is 71 degrees. 

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. 

GEOLOGY 

The Coastal Plain Province lies east of the Piedmont Province. The Piedmont begins at the "Fall 

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

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

buried by the marine sediments of the Coastal Plain. 

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

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

of unconsolidated sediments directly dictates the general characteristics of the Coastal Plain, including 

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

potential land use. Quaternary sediments were deposited by the coastal system, which rapidly migrated 

back and forth across the Coastal Plain-Continental Shelf as sea-level fluctuated in response to repeated 

episodes of glaciation and deglaciation. Within this rapidly changing coastal system, extremely varied 

sediments, including gravel, sands, clays, and peat in all possible combinations, were deposited in river, 

estuarine, barrier island, and continental shelf environments. The Quaternary sediments range from a 

few meters in thickness in places along the lower Roanoke River up to 70 meters in the outer Albemarle 

area (Riggs et al., in prep.). The Quaternary history continues today. 

MINERALS 

Sand is the only mineral resource occurring in economic quantities. There is a commercial sand pit 

adjacent to the refuge's northern boundary in Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

SOILS 

Soil types identified on the refuge are Altavista fine sandy loam, Augusta fine sandy loam, Bojac 

loamy sand, Conetoe loamy fine sand, Currituck mucky peat*, Dragston loamy fine sand, Munden 

loamy sand, Nimmo loamy sand*, Roanoke fine sandy loam*, State fine sandy loam, and Wahee fine 

sandy loam* (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1982). Soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in 

“Hydric Soils of the United States” (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985) (Table 4 and Figure 3). 

Hydric soils are "soils that in their undrained condition are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough 

during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of 

hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation" (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985). 

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

over sand. It floods regularly 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. 
18 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 3. Hydric and non-hydric soils of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Series Approximate 

Acreage Surface Texture Muck Depth 

Water Table 

Depth 

Flooding 

Frequency 

Currituck 4,800 Mucky Peat 60’ 0-1’ Regular 

Roanoke 1,311 Loam None 0-1’ Frequent 

Bojac 110 Loamy Sand None >4’ Never 

Altavista 100 Fine Sandy Loam None 1-2’ Never 

Dragston 88 Loamy Fine Sand None 1.0-2.5 Never 

State 70 Loamy Fine Sand None 4-6’ Never 

Nimmo 65 Loamy Sand None 0.0-0.5 Never 

Conetoe 50 Loamy Fine Sand None >6’ Never 

Augusta 45 Fine Sandy Loam None 1-2’ Never 

Wahee 10 Fine Sandy Loam None 0.5-1.5 Never 

Munden 5 Loamy Sand None 1.5-2.5 Never 

Total Land 6,664 

Water 681 

Total 7,345 

Roanoke fine sandy loam, Wahee fine sandy loam, and Nimmo loamy sand are poorly drained soils 

that occur on the outer perimeter of the Currituck soils. Roanoke soils have eight inches of fine 

sandy loam soil over silty clay loam and silty clay subsoil with slow permeability. They have water 

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

but only for two to seven days. Roanoke soils support hardwood forest vegetation adapted to poor 

drainage. Wahee soils have seven inches of fine sandy loam soil over clay loam and clay with slow 

permeability. They have water tables from six to eighteen inches below the surface, but do not flood. 

 Wahee soils support pine and hardwood forest vegetation adapted to poor drainage. Nimmo soils 

have nine inches of fine loamy sand soil over sandy loam and sand with moderate permeability. 

They have water tables from zero to six inches below the surface, but do not flood. Nimmo soils 

support pine and hardwood forest vegetation adapted to poor drainage. 

Bojac loamy sand, State fine sandy loam, and Conetoe loamy fine sand are well-drained soils that occur 

on the eastern and western edges of the refuge. Bojac loamy sand has 72 inches of loamy sand over 

sandy subsoil. The water table is more than four feet below the surface. Bojac soils also support 

hardwood and pine forests adapted to good drainage. They are also excellent soils for cropland and 

building construction. State fine sandy loam has 43 inches of fine sandy loam over loamy sand subsoil. 

The water table is four to six feet below the surface. State soils support hardwood and pine forests 

adapted to good drainage. They are also excellent soils for cropland and building construction. Conetoe 

fine sandy loam has eight inches of loamy fine sand over loamy sand, clay loam, and sandy subsoil. The 
20 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

water table is more than four feet below the surface. Conetoe soils support hardwood and pine forests 

adapted to good drainage. They are also excellent soils for cropland and building construction. 

Altavista fine sandy loam, Dragston loamy fine sand, Augusta fine sandy loam, and Munden loamy 

sand 1.5-2.5 are moderately well-drained soils and somewhat poorly drained that occur on the 

eastern and western edges of the refuge. Altavista fine sandy loam has nine inches of fine sandy 

loam over sandy clay loam subsoil. The water table is one to two feet below the surface. Altavista 

soils also support hardwood and pine forests adapted to moderately good drainage. Dragston loamy 

fine sand has eight inches of loamy fine sand over sandy loam subsoil. The water table is twelve to 

thirty inches below the surface. Dragston soils support hardwood and pine forests adapted to 

somewhat poor drainage. Augusta fine sandy loam has eight inches of fine sandy loam over clay 

loam subsoil. The water table is one to two feet below the surface. Augusta soils support hardwood 

and pine forest adapted to somewhat poor drainage. Munden loamy sand has nine inches of fine 

loamy sand over sandy loam subsoil. The water table is eighteen to thirty inches below the surface. 

Munden soils support hardwood and pine forests adapted to moderately good drainage. 

HYDROLOGY 

The refuge is 77 percent hydric soil that is maintained as natural or managed wetlands. Fifty-five percent 

of the refuge is subject to regular inundation by tidal waters. These wetlands are in the coastal plain 

province. Water is the driving force of the Mackay Island Refuge's marsh and hardwood/pine forest 

communities. Water forms and maintains the wetlands by transporting and redistributing sediments from 

watersheds upstream. It provides seasonal access for aquatic organisms to the marsh and forest and 

transports nutrients and detritus across the marsh. Sources of water to the area’s hydrologic system 

include precipitation and runoff and groundwater that originate from it. 

Groundwater is the source of the county’s water supply. The depth to freshwater is generally less 

than 100 feet. The freshwater is contained in sands and clays of the upper sandy aquifer, which is 

capable of yielding up to 50 gallons per minute. The maximum available groundwater is estimated at 

one million gallons per day per-square-mile. The water from deeper wells in the freshwater zone 

tends to be hard and may contain excessive iron. Water from shallow wells may be hard or soft and 

may also contain excessive iron (Robison 1977). 

WATER QUALITY 

The water quality on Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge is related directly to the water quality in 

Currituck Sound. Impoundment waters are maintained through exchange with Currituck Sound. 

Nutrient loading in the North Landing and northwest rivers and related non-point source pollution will 

affect the water quality of the refuge in the future. 

Developments and agricultural operations in the area located on hydric soils, non-hydric 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 streams and water bodies may also impact water quality. 

There are no facilities on Knotts Island, North Carolina, in the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System. There are numerous facilities in Virginia watersheds that drain into the water 

bodies around Mackay Island Refuge. 

The State of North Carolina and Commonwealth of Virginia have classified the water bodies around 

the refuge for minimum water quality standards (Table 5). All water bodies and streams meet the 

standards established for the best uses. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

AIR QUALITY 

In North Carolina, the law states 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. 

Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding the Mackay Island National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Water Body or Stream Classification Best Uses 

Back Bay (VA) 

North Landing River (VA) 

Northwest River (VA) 

VA Class II Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 

Currituck Sound (NC) 

Knotts Island Bay (NC) 

Knotts Island Channel 

(NC) 

Capsies Creek (NC) 

Porpoise Slough (NC) 

North Landing River (NC) 

SC – Saltwater Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 

Gibbs Creek (NC) 

Northwest River (NC) 

Moyock Run (NC) 

Peter Dozier Pond (NC) 

Buck Island Pond (NC) 

Nellie Bell Ponds (NC) 

C – Freshwater 

Sw – Swamp 

Waters 

Secondary Recreation, Fishing, Aquatic Life 

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, 
22 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

The Mackay Island Refuge is part of an extensive complex of brackish marshes along the North 

Landing River, Back Bay, Knotts Island Bay, and Currituck Sound. The marshes are largely 

undisturbed protected by the Federal Government at the Mackay Island, Currituck, 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 Ann 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 the sounds of activity in the marsh and forested wetlands. 

 The casual observer will see large expanses of brackish marsh and hardwood/pine forest. During 

the growing season, the marshes appear alive with neotropical songbirds, raptors, wading birds, 

marsh birds, mink, otter, and other wildlife species. The forests of loblolly pine, red maple, black 

gum, sweetgum, green ash, and wax myrtle echo the sounds of songbirds, wood ducks, and deer. 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

HABITAT 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge is a typical southeastern United States coastal wetland system 

that has formed brackish marshes and forested swamps in the Coastal Plain region. There are no plant 

species federally listed as endangered known to occur on the refuge. The National Wetlands Inventory 

described 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) (Figure 4). Schafale and Weakley (1990) classify the 

three natural communities within the refuge boundary as: tidal freshwater marsh, estuarine fringe loblolly 

pine forest, and mesic pine flatwoods. Other habitats have been altered or created by man. 

Tidal Freshwater Marsh. Marshes occupy 4,774 acres and tend to occur on the peat soils in the center 

section of the refuge from Back Bay in the north to the North Landing River in the south. The marshes 

were brackish when numerous inlets occurred along the Outer Banks; they are now influenced more by 

freshwater, but still have plants typical of brackish marshes. The Nature Conservancy ranks the marshes 

as S3, or rare in North Carolina, and G4, or apparently secure globally. They are dominated by black 

needle rush and saltmeadow cordgrass with big cordgrass, seashore saltgrass, and sawgrass present in 

substantial quantities. With frequent fires, the black needle rush is suppressed and the other grasses 

dominate. In the absence of fire, black needle rush dominates the stand. The staff currently burns the 

marshes on a 3-year rotation to maintain the diversity of vegetation in the marsh and the palatability of 

that vegetation. The staff does not survey vegetation in the marshes before or after the prescribed burns. 

Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest. The estuarine fringe loblolly pine forest occurs on 1,329 

acres of mineral hydric soils to the east and west of the brackish marsh. The Nature Conservancy 

ranks the forests as S3, or rare in North Carolina, and G3, or very rare throughout its range. Species 

in the forest include loblolly pine, red maple, swamp tupelo, sweetgum, green ash, wax myrtle, and 

saltmeadow cordgrass. With frequent fires, the hardwoods and wax myrtle are suppressed and the 

pine and cordgrass dominate. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. 
24 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Mesic Pine Flatwoods. The refuge includes 131 acres of this community. It is found on the welldrained ridges near Knotts Island Road. The Nature Conservancy ranks the forests as S3, or rare in 

North Carolina, and G5, or demonstrably very secure. The typical tree species present are 

sweetgum, American holly, and loblolly pine. Shrubs include dogwood, ironwood, blueberry, and 

gallberry and the ground cover consists of mixed grasses and sedges. In certain forest stands on the 

refuge, the understory is infested with Chinese privet, an exotic invasive shrub. The refuge does not 

actively manage or regularly survey the forest, but does treat outbreaks of insects and diseases as 

they occur and conduct prescribed burning when the proper conditions exist. 

Cropland. The refuge manages 298 acres of cropland. A cooperative farmer grows corn, wheat, 

and soybeans on 241acres. The farmer plants 50 acres as wheat pasture for migratory geese 

and swans. The cooperative farmer is required to follow the Cropland Management Plan and 

annual Cooperative Farming Agreements to ensure that he produces the crop without damage to 

the environment. 

Firebreaks. The refuge manages 8 acres (2 miles) of firebreaks to provide safe defensible edges 

from which to manage prescribed fires and wildfires. The staff manages the firebreaks to provide 

low-growing vegetation that will control erosion and produce forage for wildlife. 

Moist-soil Units. The refuge manages 876 acres of impoundments as managed wetlands to 

produce vegetation that will produce seed to feed waterfowl and to expose mudflats that will serve as 

habitat for invertebrates to feed shorebirds. Water levels are managed to provide optimum 

hydrological conditions for the vegetation and the staff mows, burns, and discs the vegetation to 

maintain a stage of succession that will produce an optimum amount of seed. Vegetation is surveyed 

to monitor the effectiveness of management (Tables 6, 7, and 8). 

Roads. The refuge manages 220 acres (9.2 miles) of roads and roadsides to provide administrative 

access and visibility along the roads. The staff manages the road surfaces to provide a safe, durable 

surface. They maintain the roadsides to provide a low-growing vegetative cover that will control 

erosion and produce forage for wildlife. 

WILDLIFE 

Birds. The threatened bald eagle has nested on the refuge for the past seven years. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service and/or the State of North Carolina and/or the Commonwealth of Virginia list several 

refuge species as high priority or rare and of special concern. These include the prairie warbler, 

hooded warbler, black-throated green warbler, yellow-throated warbler, prothonotary warbler, 

northern parula, sharp-tailed sparrow, northern bobwhite, king rail, black rail, solitary sandpiper, 

semipalmated sandpiper, black tern, American black duck, American woodcock, short-eared owl, and 

American kestrel, to name a few. Biologists have seen the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker 

on rare occasions, with the most recent sighting more than 20 years ago. At least 187 species of 

birds, including 60 breeding species, utilize the refuge (Appendix VI). 

Wintering and migrating waterfowl make extensive use of the refuge's wetlands. Principal species 

include the snow goose, tundra swan, mallard, wood duck, American black duck, American widgeon, 

green-winged teal, gadwall, and northern pintail (Tables 9, 10, and 11). The marshes surrounding 

Currituck Sound, Back Bay, and Knotts Island Bay provide habitat for a substantial portion of the 

most commonly harvested duck species in North Carolina. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Table 6. Vegetative composition of the Mackay Island east pool moist-soil unit. 

Common Name Scientific Name Food 

Value 

Percent Composition 

By Year 

2002 1997 1989 1981 1972 

Unidentified Grass NA Good 32.0 1.8 0.0. 0.0 0.0

Fleabane Pluchea purascens None 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fall Panicum Panicum 

dichotomflorm Good 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Spikerushes Eleocharis sp Good 8.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 36.6

Water Hysop Bacopa spp. Good 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Soft Rush Juncus effusus None 3.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Flatsedges Cyperus spp. Fair 3.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Baldrush Fimbristylis spp. Fair 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cattail Typha spp. None 1.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 0.0

Three Square Scirpus pungens Fair 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sedges Carex spp. Fair 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Millet Echinochloa crusgalli Good 0.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Eurasian Milfoil Myriophyllum 

spicatum Good 0.0 61.7 22.8 0.0 0.0

Bare NA None 0.0 16.2 28.2 6.0 1.7

Smartweed Polygonum sp Good 0.0 3.6 0.0 21.0 1.7

Niad Najas quadalupensis Good 0.0 1.8 21.8 0.0 0.0

Common Reed Phragmites australis None 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0

Muskgrass Chara spp. Good 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0

Pondweed Potamogeton spp. Good 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0

Black Needlerush Juncus 

Roemerianus None 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 49.1

Cordgrass Spartina patens None 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0

Beggarticks Bidens spp. Good 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0

Total Good 64.8 74.3 64.0 52.0 38.3

Total Fair 5.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total None 29.8 18.1 31.1 28.0 50.8

Grand Total 100.0 94.7 95.1 80.0 89.1
26 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 7. Vegetative composition of the Mackay Island middle pool moist-soil unit. 

Common Name Scientific Name Food 

Value 

Percent Composition 

By Year 

2002 1999 1996 1994 1989 

Niad Najas quadalupensis Good 48.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Soft Rush Juncus effuses None 16.0 1.1 5.8 4.9 16.7

Bare NA None 15.0 3.8 1.1 40.0 46.5

Foursquare Eleocharis 

quadrangulata Good 15.0 3.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

Fleabane Pluchea purascens None 7.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cordgrass Spartina patens None 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0

Common Reed Phragmites australis None 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Eurasian Milfoil Myriophyllum 

spicatum Good 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Asian Pennywort Centella asiatica Fair 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alligatorweed Alternanthera 

philoxeroides None 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0

Fall Panicum Panicum 

dichotomflorm Good 0.2 7.7 45.7 0.1 0.0

Millet Echinochloa crusgalli Good 0.0 48.0 7.3 0.0 0.0

Pondweed Potamogeton spp. Good 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Flatsedges Cyperus spp. Fair 0.0 6.7 31.0 0.0 11.4

Frogbit Limnobium spongia Fair 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.3 0.0

Sloughgrass Sacciolepsis striata Good 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dogfennel Eupatorium 

capillifolium None 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.4

Spikerushes Eleocharis spp. Good 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 15.4

Knotgrass Paspalum distichum Fair 0.0 0.6 0.4 2.3 0.0

Bladderwort Utricularia spp. Good 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.7 0.0

Total Good 63.4 72.5 53.0 44.7 15.4

Total Fair 0.3 12.3 31.4 4.6 11.4

Total None 36.3 12.6 7.5 48.0 63.6

Grand Total 100.0 97.4 91.9 96.3 90.4
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Table 8. Vegetative composition of the Mackay Island west pool moist-soil unit. 

Common Name Scientific Name Food 

Value 

Percent Composition 

By Year 

2002 1999 1996 1994 1979 

Water Hysop Bacopa spp. Good 32.2 3.3 6.2 0.0 5.7

Millet Echinochloa crusgalli Good 23.9 2.0 4.6 0.0 20.5

Fleabane Pluchea purascens None 19.9 27.0 4.4 0.0 2.3

Fall Panicum Panicum dichotomflorm Good 5.8 53.1 21.9 0.0 14.1

Baldrush Fimbristylis spp. Fair 5.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 20.9

Knotgrass Paspalum distichum Fair 5.0 1.5 4.0 0.0 0.0

Crabgrass Digitaria spp. Good 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5

Flatsedges Cyperus spp. Fair 2.4 4.2 2.5 0.0 11.8

Alligatorweed Alternanthera 

philoxeroides None 1.7 0.0 4.5 44.0 0.0

Dogfennel Eupatorium capillifolium None 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Aster Aster spp. Good 0.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0

Foxtail Setaria spp. Good 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.8

Bare NA None 0.0 0.4 23.0 32.0 1.1

Frogfruit Lippia lanceolata Good 0.0 0.4 0.1 3.0 2.7

Spikerushes Eleocharis spp. Good 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.0 6.5

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon None 0.0 0.0 24.2 6.0 0.0

Asian Pennywort Centella asiatica Fair 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0

Paspalum Paspalum spp. Fair 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.0

Smartweed Polygonum spp. Good 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.3

Beggarticks Bidens spp. Good 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.9

Total Good 82.3 62.3 33.1 6.0 59.0

Total Fair 15.8 5.7 8.5 4.0 32.7

Total None 21.7 31.9 56.1 82.0 3.4

Grand Total 100.o 99.9 97.7 92.0 95.1
28 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 9. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge waterfowl survey results, 2002-2003. 

Species October November December January February 

American Black Duck 396 1,923 1,275 535 569

Gadwall 125 972 1,151 682 492

Mallard 207 526 728 800 391

Green-winged Teal 474 595 204 155 230

Common Merganser 0 0 0 0 1,000

American Widgeon 0 204 0 445 0

Northern Pintail 56 103 40 54 290

Ruddy Duck 0 350 0 0 0

American Coot 0 50 100 0 0

Greater Scaup 100 6 0 0 40

Northern Shoveler 0 0 0 85 2

Ring-necked Duck 0 0 0 0 11

Hooded Merganser 0 2 5 0 0

Blue-winged Teal 0 2 0 0 0

Snow Goose 3 7,000 1,500 5,000

Tundra Swan 18 765 625 722

Canada Goose 100 400 270 160 131

Total Ducks 1,358 4,683 3,403 3,756 2,177

Grand Total 1,461 12,151 4,538 6,041 7,363

Table 10. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge shorebird/wading bird survey results, spring 2003. 

Species April 18 May 8 May 27 

Snowy Egret 40 41 36 

Yellowlegs 50 25 1 

Semipalmated Sandpiper 45 29 

Great Egret 36 15 16 

Glossy Ibis 2 40 

Great Blue Heron 18 5 3 

Little Blue Heron 13 7 

Dunlin 6 1 

Least Sandpiper 7 

White Ibis 5 

Semipalmated Plover 4 

Spotted Sandpiper 2 

Solitary Sandpiper 2 

Total 167 151 137 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Table 11. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge shorebird/wading bird survey results, fall 2002. 

Species July 

5 

July 

25 

August 

5 

August 

28 

September 

16 

September 

25 

Great Egret 21 45 33 36 17 8 

Great Blue Heron 5 6 9 9 4 5 

Common Snipe 3 1 1 4 

Killdeer 5 6 2 

Lesser Yellowlegs 2 2 2 

Greater Yellowlegs 3 1 

American Bittern 1 

Glossy Ibis 1 

Solitary Sandpiper 

Tricolored Heron 7 5 2 2 

Snowy Egret 7 7 10 7 4 

Spotted Sandpiper 6 3 2 8 

Little Blue Heron 7 9 12 4 

Western Sandpiper 3 

Peep 5 33 

Least Sandpiper 1 5 

Green Heron 2 4 1 

Cattle Egret 2 1 

Double-crested 

Cormorant 1 2 

Short-billed Dowitcher 3 

White Ibis 1 

Least Bittern 4 

Belted Kingfisher 2 

Total 62 97 76 112 33 24 
30 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Recent studies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983) have shown the importance of wooded wetlands 

to wintering waterfowl as prime sources of cover and food, providing supplemental dietary needs prior 

to spring migration, mating, and nesting. Migratory mallards, American black ducks, and some wood 

ducks utilize coastal fringe evergreen forests primarily in the fall and winter months. They often feed 

on the vegetable matter found in shallow water, and for migration and pre-breeding activities they 

supplement this with the high protein foods found in the wooded wetlands, including acorns; 

beechnuts; the seeds of buttonbush; bald cypress and tupelo gums; insects; and the abundant 

floodplain aquatic invertebrates such as snails, crustaceans, and insects (Bellrose 1976). Other 

wood ducks move into the area in the late winter and spring to nest in cavities in the standing timber 

in the coastal fringe evergreen forests. 

Mammals. The combination of hard and soft mast-producing trees, the availability of cover habitat, 

and nearby cropland provides forage for large white-tailed deer populations. Furbearers present 

include raccoon, mink, muskrat, otter, fox, bobcat, and opossum (Barick and Critcher 1975). Nutria 

are exotic pests that burrow into impoundment dikes and consume marsh grasses. 

Reptiles and Amphibians. The Service has not performed a comprehensive survey of reptiles and 

amphibians on the Mackay Island Refuge. The refuge staff adapted the list of reptiles and 

amphibians in Appendix VI from the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Currituck National 

Wildlife Refuge in 1980. 

Fish. The Service has not performed a comprehensive survey of fish at the Mackay Island Refuge. 

The refuge staff adapted the list of fish in Appendix VI from the Environmental Impact Statement 

prepared for Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in 1980. 

Invertebrates. The Service has not performed a comprehensive survey of invertebrates on the 

Mackay Island Refuge. The list of invertebrates in Appendix VI is from the Environmental Impact 

Statement prepared for Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in 1980. 

INSECTS AND DISEASES 

In recent years, the forest tent caterpillar has caused widespread defoliation in the state. Prolonged 

flooding and saturation on coastal plain soils adversely impact 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 forest tent caterpillar 

populations. This may account for the large outbreaks resource managers have been observing on 

the coastal plain over the last decade. 

The gypsy moth is now well established as far south as northeastern North Carolina. The North 

Carolina Division of Plant Industry and the USDA Forest Service closely monitor gypsy moth 

populations. Each utilizes pheromone traps located throughout the state, including refuge lands. 

When large-scale outbreaks are detected, integrated pest management techniques are used to 

suppress the outbreaks, but not necessarily eliminate the species from the area. 

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 straw-colored within two or three 

weeks of the attack, before finally turning reddish-brown. Land managers treat infected stands by cutting 

down a swath of trees around the area where the beetles are actively feeding, thus removing their food and 

starving them. Managers must monitor their pine stands and investigate any trees that appear infected. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

EXOTIC ORGANISMS 

There are four exotic animals present within the area and thus are presently impacting or have the 

potential of impacting refuge lands. They are the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio), nutria (Myocaster coypus) and the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). Exotic plants that 

threaten refuge resources include common reed (Phragmites australis), alligatorweed (Alternanthera 

philoxeroides), fleabane (Erigeron annuus), johnsongrass (Sorghum halpense), and Chinese privet 

(Ligustrum chinense). 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

After an absence of many years, the threatened bald eagle recently returned to nest on the refuge. 

There are records of the occurrence of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker in the county from 

more than 20 years ago. There have been incidental reports of endangered West Indian manatees in the 

county, well north of their normal range. No other federally threatened or endangered species are known 

to occur on or adjacent to refuge lands. 

The refuge staff will give the status and habitat requirements of these species primary 

consideration when planning and implementing management actions. The refuge will also give 

emphasis to state-listed species. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

There is a cemetery and the foundation of the Joseph P. Knapp residence on the refuge, plus thirteen 

other cemeteries. The refuge does not maintain them, but does no intensive management in their 

vicinity that would damage the graves or their markers. One is on the north side of the entrance road 

in the northern end on the refuge. A fence surrounds it and private interests maintain the grass 

cover. The foundation of the Joseph P. Knapp residence is on Live Oak Point in the southeastern part 

of the refuge. The refuge plans to erect a memorial to Mr. Knapp and his accomplishments. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The current area of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge lies in Currituck County, North 

Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. The refuge affects the environment, society, and 

economy of this county and city more than any other area. The staff must consider the social 

and economic conditions of the county and city 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. The land 

protection step-down plan will also consider land in Currituck County and Virginia Beach. 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND LAND USE 

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 that 

connects to northern Dare County on the Outer Banks, the barrier island next to the ocean. Knotts Island, 

where the refuge is located, is accessible by traveling from mainland Currituck County by road through the 

cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia, or by ferry across the Currituck Sound. 
32 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Despite the difficulty of traveling in the county, Currituck County has experienced a great amount of 

growth in the last 30 years due its proximity to the city of Virginia Beach and the ocean. The county’s 

unemployment and poverty rates are much lower than the state average. 

Currituck County is still predominantly rural. The largest town and county seat is 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 and farming, commercial 

fishing, and forestry are important elements 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. Virginia Beach has experienced steady growth in the last 120 

years due its proximity to the ocean and access by water, railroad, highways, and air. Its 

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. 

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 

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 regular internal organization with palisades and some were less 

organized with an open structure. They settled where they could conduct agriculture, fishing, shell fishing, and 

hunting, 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 west of the Tidewater region (Mathis and Crow 2000). The 

Algonkians called the area “Coratank” 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. The government built the Currituck Beach 

Lighthouse in Corolla in 1875 on the Outer Banks to provide warning of the coast to ships at sea. 

The first attraction to settlement was the abundant fish and game, which gave the county a 

reputation as a “Sportsmen’s Paradise.” William 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 Whalehead Club in Corolla in 1922, the 

Monkey Island Hunt Club in 1931, and Joseph Knapp’s estate on Mackay Island in 1918. Joseph 

Knapp was a wealthy publisher and insurance entrepreneur. He was a great 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” that is now known as “Ducks Unlimited.” 

The Knapp estate was on the land that is now the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge where 

he experimented with wildlife management techniques. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

As Virginia Beach has grown, suburban development has occurred on the mainland of Currituck 

County over the last thirty years. The Outer Banks portion of the county has grown rapidly since 

1984, when the State of North Carolina extended Highway 12 ten miles north of Dare County into 

Currituck County. Extensive residential development of the dunes along the oceanfront began 

immediately after the highway was opened. 

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 Chesapeake, Powhatan, Arohatock, Appamattuck, 

Pamunkey, Youghtanund, and Mattaponi. All the tribes except the Chesapeake eventually 

surrendered to the Powhatan. All the tribes spoke the Powhatan dialect of the Algonquin language. 

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 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 who 

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 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 the Chesapeake Bay. 

Princess Anne County had a continuous shoreline from the North Carolina border, north along the 

Atlantic Coast to Cape Henry, then west along the banks of the 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 in Virginia Beach along the coast 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 four installations in Virginia Beach: Oceana Naval Air Station, Little 

Creek Amphibious Base, Fort Story Army Base, and Dam Neck Naval Base. These four 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. 
34 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

LAND USE 

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 

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), and 18 

percent cropland (29,592 acres). 

From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms decreased 12 percent from 39,571 to 34,802 acres; the 

average size of farms decreased slightly; the number of 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 12). 

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 had also been important, but there were not enough to report in 2002 (Table 13). 

Within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary, the major land uses are farming and waterfowl 

hunting. There is little residential construction in the wetlands surrounding the refuge. The welldrained areas of the county have had extensive residential and commercial development. 

Virginia Beach. The historic land use in Virginia Beach depended for the most part on 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 side of the city. 

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 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; the number of 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 14). 

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 15) (USDA 2002). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Currituck County. Currituck County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 18,190 in 

2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The county gained 32 percent of its population between 1990 and 

2000 (U.S Census Bureau 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, 0.6 percent Native 

American, and 0.4 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the mean 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 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average in 

2004 was 2.8 percent, well below the State of North Carolina unemployment rate of 5.5 percent 

(North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). 

Table 12. Currituck County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture. 

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 
36 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 13. Commodity production in Currituck County in 2002 and 1997, from the 2002 and 

1997 USDA Census of Agriculture. 

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 Increased 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% 

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years 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. Census Bureau 2000). Home ownership rate is 81.6 percent, well 

above the state average rate of 69.4 percent. There are 2.61 persons per household in Currituck 

County, slightly above the state average of 2.49. 

Virginia Beach. Virginia Beach is primarily a suburban community with a total estimated population 

of 425,257 in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The city gained 8.2 percent of its population 

between 1990 and 2000 (U.S Census Bureau 2000). 

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. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the median family income 

was $48,705, a little above the state average of $46,677. The poverty rate was 6.5 percent of the 

population, well below the state average of 9.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The 

unemployment rate in November 2002 was 3.6 percent, slightly below the Commonwealth of 

Virginia’s unemployment rate of 3.7 percent (Virginia Employment Commission 2004). 

The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years 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. Census Bureau 2000). Home ownership rate is 65.6 

percent, below the state average of 68.1 percent. There are 2.70 persons per household in Virginia 

Beach, slightly above the commonwealth average of 2.54. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Table 14. Virginia Beach agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture. 

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 Sold 0 

Beef Cows Sold 0 

Land in Soybeans (Acres) 13,306 

Land in Corn (Acres) 5,809 

Land in Wheat (Acres) 7,928 

Table 15. Commodity production in Virginia Beach in 2002 and 1997, from the 2002 and 1997 

USDA Census of Agriculture. 

Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1987-1997 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 
38 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

EMPLOYMENT 

Currituck County. Real estate 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, County Business Patterns 2000). This is due in large part to the Resort Quest of the 

Outer Banks (the largest single employer) that employs more than 500 employees (North Carolina 

Economic Security Commission 2002). 

In 2000, 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. Census Bureau, Economic Census 1997). 

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, 

County Business Patterns 2000). 

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, County Business Patterns 2000). 

FORESTRY 

Currituck County. Timber has always been a source of wealth for Currituck County. However, 

much of the timber was cleared 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 oakgum-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 were the largest forest landowner and owned 74 percent of the county’s 

forested land. The state government owned 17 percent, 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 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). 

Virginia Beach. In the past, timber was a source of wealth for Virginia Beach. However, much of 

the timber was cleared in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, 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, 24 percent is in oak-hickory (USDA Forest Service 1992). 

In 1990, private landowners owned 72 percent of the city’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). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Table 16. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties. 

County Average 

Income1

Povert

y Rate 

(%)1

Average 2004 

Unemployment 

Rate (%)23

2000 

Populatio

n1

Population Trend1

N. 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 Mackay Island 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 
40 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

OUTDOOR RECREATION 

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, Mackay Island National Wildlife 

Refuge was created to conserve and restore habitat for native wildlife and migratory birds (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715-715r, as amended] and Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 

[16 U.S.C. 460-460k-4, as amended]). 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. Numerous 

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-acre 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 and activities that revolve around natural resources include the Knotts Island Wildlife 

Festival; whale watching and dolphin watching boat trips in Virginia Beach; Wildlife Arts Show and 

Waterfowl International Art Show in Virginia Beach; and fishing tournaments in Virginia Beach. 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS 

Fish and wildlife are the focuses of the refuge, but they are also important to the local economy. 

First, a commercial fishery is present in Currituck Sound. Blue crab and flounder are the major 

species harvested. Second, 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 county. 

Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the conservation 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, the Mackay Island 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 by 

hunters, and $199 per day by wildlife observers and photographers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 

The Partnership for the Sounds had a study conducted on 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). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

Ecotourists on Dauphin Island, Alabama, spent an average of $60 per visitor per day 

(Kerlinger 1999). 

Bird watchers on High Island, Texas, from the local area reported an average expenditure of $46 per 

day, while non-residents 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, Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge can 

serve as an important commodity in the economic life of the community. Local officials consider 

ecotourism, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental interpretation 

elements of 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 recreational opportunities for the local population, and indirectly by 

attracting tourists from outside the county to generate additional dollars to the local economy. 

TOURISM 

Tourism in the area is based on the natural resources and cultural attractions in the area. 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 to both Virginia Beach and 

the Outer Banks of Currituck County. Virginia Beach attracts three million tourists per year. 

More developed tourist attractions based on natural resources include Currituck 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, First Landing and False Cape State Parks, 

Munden Point City Park, Chesapeake Bay Center, and the Virginia Marine Science Museum. 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge could serve as an additional attraction to tourists visiting the 

area. If the Service provided better roads and more facilities within the refuge, tourists might 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. 

TRANSPORTATION 

In its early days, residents of the area relied on water transportation. The rivers and streams that 

crisscross the counties served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication between 

almost every community in the area. The North Landing River, Back Bay, and Currituck Sound were 

once the major transportation avenues in the area. As the area grew and the railroad arrived, river 

and boat traffic declined. The waterways are still important as sources of income and for recreation. 

A ferry operated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation carries 78,000 people per year 

from Knotts Island to Currituck, North Carolina. 
42 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 with the Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Chesapeake areas through the 

mainland part of the county. Interstate Highway 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 

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 performing arts performances. It attracts 

400,000 visitors annually. The Atlantic Wildfowl museum celebrates the art of decoy making that was 

instrumental in attracting 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 AfricanAmerican stage performances. The 1,632-seat Harrison Opera House is home to the Virginia Opera. 

The Chrysler Museum of Art is a venue for 30,000 paintings, sculptures, and decorative arts from the 

world over. The 12,067-seat Harbor Park is home to the Norfolk Tides baseball team. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

The Fish and Wildlife Service administers Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge located on Knotts 

Island along the North Landing River. The refuge staff administers 8,219 acres of fee title land in 

Currituck County, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia, and 4,383 acres of the fee title land 

and 3,931 acres of conservation easement land at the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge on the Outer 

Banks of Currituck County, North Carolina. The marshes on the western edge of Currituck National 

Wildlife Refuge are located 6 miles east of the Mackay Island Refuge headquarters across Currituck 

Sound. The western marshes are 1⁄2-mile east of the boat ramp on Knotts Island Bay; the upland 

portion of the refuge is 2 miles east of the boat ramp. It is 100 miles and almost a 3-hour drive to the 

Currituck Refuge around the Sound by roads (Figure 1). 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

Congress established Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge on December 30, 1960, by the authority of 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The Service established the original acquisition boundary of 

7,835 acres in 1961 and expanded the boundary to 9,503 acres in 1991 (Figure 5). The Secretary of the 

Interior issued a proclamation on August 21, 1963, prohibiting waterfowl hunting on 4,621 acres of the 

refuge and 1,098 acres of water south and west of the refuge. 

The Service also manages the 8,000-acre Currituck National Wildlife Refuge on the Outer Banks of 

Currituck County, North Carolina; the 8,000-acre Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia Beach, 

Virginia; and the 110,000-acre Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in Suffolk, Virginia. 

The proposed acquisitions qualified for funding under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 

U.S.C. 715-715R) and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. Sec 460k-1). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Figure 5. Approved acquisition boundary, Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. 
44 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

There are lands in the area protected by other agencies and organizations. 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-

acre 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. 

The Nature Conservancy protects the 7,533-acre North Landing River Preserve in southwestern 

Virginia Beach. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Hunting. Hunting and fishing are the primary recreational activities conducted on the Mackay Island 

project area. Historically, hunting was primarily confined to those hunters who belonged to hunt clubs 

within the project area. Hunt clubs are social organizations that have traditionally used the marshes 

around Currituck Sound, Back Bay, and Knotts Island Bay for hunting purposes and are found throughout 

the refuge's project area. The land is generally leased on a yearly basis. Before the service acquired the 

land, five hunt clubs operated within the refuge's approved acquisition boundary. The refuge has held 

deer hunts since 1981. There are currently 450 annual hunter-use-days for the deer hunt. 

Fishing. The refuge canals and moist-soil units are open to fishing. The refuge has a fishing pier 

that is accessible to the disabled. There are currently 15,000 annual angler use-days on the refuge. 

Environmental Education. The refuge does not have a developed environmental education 

program. Staff has taken groups out on the refuge to teach them about the marsh ecosystem and the 

wildlife that inhabit the marsh. There are currently 100 students that use the refuge annually. 

Interpretation. The refuge has developed a 0.3-mile-long interpretive trail, located off the south side 

of North Carolina Highway 615. At the head of the trail is an interpretive kiosk. There are also 

interpretive kiosks at the wildlife observation platform on the north side of North Carolina Highway 

615 and along Knotts Island Road on the refuge. The wildlife observation platform and kiosk are part 

of the Charles Kuralt Trail system that connects the eleven national wildlife refuges in the Roanoke–

Tar–Neuse–Cape Fear ecosystem in northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. There 

are currently 5,000 visitors to the refuge for interpretation annually (Figure 6). 

Wildlife Observation. There is a wildlife observation platform on the north side of North Carolina 

Highway 615. The wildlife observation platform and kiosk are part of the Kuralt Trail system that 

connects the eleven national wildlife refuges in the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear ecosystem in 

northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. Visitors can also observe wildlife along a 0.3-

mile-long interpretive trail, located off the south side of North Carolina Highway 615 and the refuge’s 

9.2 miles of roads. There are currently 70,000 visitors to the refuge annually for wildlife observation. 

Wildlife Photography. There are no photography blinds available for public use. However, visitors 

can photograph wildlife on the refuge in areas not restricted to access during refuge use hours. 

There are currently 700 visitors to the refuge annually for wildlife photography. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

Personnel. The refuge’s staff currently manages both the Mackay Island and Currituck national 

wildlife refuges and includes the seven positions listed in Table 17. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. 
46 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 17. Staff of Mackay Island and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges – 2005 

Position Status Percent of Time on 

Mackay Island 

Refuge Manager, GS-0485-13 PFT 55 

Assistant Manager, GS-0485-09 PFT 65 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS-0026-09 PFT 25 

Office Assistant, GS-0303-05 PFT 85 

Maintenance Mechanic, WG-4749-10 PFT 85 

Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-08 PFT 60 

Forestry Technician, GS-0462-05 (Fire) PFT 60 

PFT = permanent full time, TFT = temporary full time, Fire = Funded by Fire Budget 

Operations. The Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Mackay Island Refuge from an office 

located on Knotts Island along the Currituck Sound in the southwestern corner of the refuge. The 

refuge staff administers 8,219 acres of fee title land of the refuge in Currituck County, North Carolina, 

and Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Service houses the maintenance and fire personnel at a shop 

facility on the eastern edge of the refuge. 

Most of the land is wetlands and much of those wetlands have peat soils that cannot support 

equipment, roads, or buildings. The refuge has a road and drainage ditch system installed by 

previous owners. The principal habitat management activity is water management to provide 

optimum conditions for waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds in managed wetlands. The staff 

conducts prescribed fire according to the fire management plan and maintains roads and roadsides 

as firebreaks to manage wildfires. Cooperative farmers manage the refuge cropland. 

REFUGE INFRASTRUCTURE 

ROADS AND TRAILS 

There are 9.2 miles of roads on the refuge. The roads around the managed wetlands (moist-soil 

units) make up most of the refuge’s road and trail system. A 0.3-mile trail is on the south side of 

North Carolina Highway 615. 

UTILITY CORRIDORS AND DISTRIBUTION 

The only dedicated utility corridor follows North Carolina Route 615 along the marsh causeway. This 

corridor carries cable, phone, and power to the community of Knott’s Island. There are also smaller 

segments of this distribution network that traverse refuge properties east of North Carolina Route 615 

on Knott’s Island. Additional service corridors provide power and phone service to the shop, 

quarters, fire cache, and office buildings. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 

The refuge communications system is analog mobile radios with a base station. One repeater is 

used to extend the range of the radio system. In some places, cellular phones are used for 

communication between the field and office. The radio system is scheduled to be replaced with 

digital band radios to meet Department of the Interior mandates. 

SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 

Presently, a commercial vendor manages solid waste. The staff places waste into a dumpster and 

the vendor transports it to an approved collection disposal facility. 
48 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

The Service formed a core planning 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 core 

planning team, the biological review team, and expert contributors are identified in Appendix X, 

Consultation and Coordination. 

Representatives from the Service and state wildlife agency personnel attended the initial planning 

meetings. At these initial meetings, they discussed strategies for completing 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 held 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 scoping 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 the objectives in the 

different alternatives, which were described in the environmental assessment (Section B of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan). 

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. 

The Service then completed the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge and made it available for public review and comment from 

January 17, 2006 to February 16, 2006. On January 30, 2006, the Service received a request for an 

extension of the comment period from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. In response to this 

request, the comment period was extended for twelve days and ended on February 28, 2006. 
50 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

A summary of the comments received from the two public scoping meetings, as well as those received 

from public review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, is 

provided in Appendix IV, Public Participation. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This comprehensive conservation plan will be reviewed annually to determine the need for 

revision. A revision will occur if and when major changes in ecological conditions occur or the 

Service plans a major expansion of the refuge. The staff will augment this plan with detailed stepdown management plans and annual plans to address the completion of specific strategies in 

support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to the comprehensive conservation plan 

and the step-down management plans will be subject to public review and compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

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 Appendix X, 

Consultation and Coordination) 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 conditions for the refuge and were 

considered in the preparation of this 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 planning meetings. 

HYDROLOGY 

Drainage. Previous landowners have dug drainage ditches to facilitate crop production and access 

for hunting. The ditches effectively lower the water table draining subsurface water in the vicinity of 

the ditch. They also impound water behind the piles of soil excavated from the ditches and allow 

water from the rivers, bays, and sounds to flow into the wetlands of the refuge more rapidly than it 

would naturally. The drainage affects the plant communities on the refuge by providing habitat for 

species adapted to better drainage close to the ditches and on the tops of spoil piles. The flooding of 

areas behind the spoil piles inhibits plant regeneration and favors species that are better adapted to 

more persistent and frequent flooding than would have occurred naturally. Mackay Island Road and 

North Carolina State Route 615 have also altered historic drainage patterns throughout the marsh. 

GLOBAL WARMING AND SEA LEVEL RISE 

Most of the refuge lies at or within a few feet of sea level. Much of the refuge has a water table within 

a foot of the soil surface. Marshes cover the majority of the refuge. Wetland forest stands cover 

most of the balance 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 marshes that occupy 

the majority of the refuge will lie below sea level and will become open water areas. The marshes will 

expand into areas currently covered by forest trees. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

As the habitats change, the wildlife species that inhabit those habitats will also change. Wading 

birds, waterfowl, and marsh birds that use the marshes for cover, feeding, and nesting will loose that 

kind of habitat. Neotropical migratory songbirds and wood ducks that currently utilize trees will lose 

their feeding and nesting sites as trees die and fall. The species utilizing the areas that are currently 

marsh will move upslope as the marshes replace the trees. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

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. Three threatened or endangered animals are thought to use (or could use) Mackay Island 

National Wildlife Refuge: the bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, and West Indian manatee. 

Threatened bald eagles nest on Mackay Island 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 suitable habitat on the refuge in the coastal fringe evergreen forest. 

As the forest ages and pine trees develop suitable nesting cavities, the refuge could support 

woodpeckers. Sustaining viable populations will require proper understory management. 

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. 

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. The 

Service can provide waterfowl hunting opportunities as the refuge acquires additional land outside the 

proclamation boundary within which the Service prohibits waterfowl hunting. 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 Mackay Island 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. 

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 cited in the Waterfowl section above 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 wildlife observation program as many birders 

visit the refuge to observe nesting, feeding, and loafing birds. 
52 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

HABITATS 

Brackish Marsh and Managed Wetlands. Participants at the public scoping meetings held to solicit 

input to the plan expressed strong support for continued intensive 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). 

Mackay Island River National Wildlife Refuge is 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 water management, prescribed burning, and aquatic weed control. 

Forests. There is public recognition of the role of the refuge’s small forest area in white-tailed deer 

and neotropical migratory bird populations and the public use associated with deer hunting and birdwatching. At the scoping meetings, the public also expressed an appreciation for the function of the 

forest in support of other aspects of the refuge’s public use program. The refuge has not developed a 

management plan for its forestlands, but does treat insect and disease infestations as they occur and 

conducts prescribed burning as opportunities present themselves. The public encouraged the refuge 

staff to make forest management a higher priority. A biological review in 2002 recognized the 

importance of a forest assessment. The review also found that an active forest management 

program would be difficult to maintain due to limited forest areas. 

PUBLIC USE 

Visitor Services and Education. The refuge is in Currituck County, North Carolina (2000 population 

18,190), and Virginia Beach, Virginia (2000 population 425,257), within 27 miles of the Virginia Beach 

business district. There is a need to promote nature-based tourism in northeastern North Carolina in the 

rural counties that have an abundance of natural resources to attract tourists, but are dominated by 

wetlands that limit traditional economic development. Virginia Beach attracts three million tourists per 

year and another 78,000 people drive past the refuge to use the ferry to travel from Knotts Island to 

Currituck, North Carolina. A few commercial interests guide 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’s visitors expect. The 

refuge will require additional staff support to achieve the refuge’s visitor service potential. 

Hunting. Hunting is an integral part of rural North Carolina culture. It is not surprising that there is a 

considerable interest from the state agencies and the 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 additional deer hunts. There may be an opportunity to add additional hunting 

opportunities on the refuge. 

Fishing. Anglers utilize the refuge ditches, impoundments, a boat ramp on Mackay Island Road, and 

the universally accessible fishing pier for fishing opportunities. The public expressed an interest in 

improving access to the refuge for fishing. The refuge has the potential to add a boat ramp and 

expand safe access to bank fishing areas. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Roads and Trails, Exterior and Interior. The Service limits access to the office and Kitchin 

impoundment to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. It limits access to the 

remainder of the refuge to daylight hours from March 15 to October 15. The public expressed an interest 

in more access to the refuge. As the refuge adds staff to work weekends, it can consider increasing 

access to the office area and the remainder of the refuge. The refuge must limit access to areas where 

bald eagles nest and waterfowl rest and feed when the birds are in the areas to minimize disturbance. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Cultural Resources. Local residents, the refuge staff, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 

regional and national offices are all aware of the importance of the Mackay Island National Wildlife 

Refuge as the former home of Joseph P. Knapp, who founded “More Game Birds in America,” which 

later became Ducks Unlimited. Mr. Knapp was a wealthy philanthropist from New York who 

modernized the education system in Currituck County. Historians widely recognize his legacy in 

wildlife management and education reform in the county. The public encouraged the refuge staff to 

continue to interpret Mr. Knapp’s contributions to the area. 

There are thirteen cemetery plots on the refuge. The refuge has noted their locations on maps in the 

refuge office. 

Land Acquisition and Habitat Fragmentation. When it was established, the refuge’s 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. The Service has identified a few private properties in 

an internal land protection plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) that have value as marsh 

habitat and cropland for high-energy foods for migrating waterfowl, but they are outside the refuge 

acquisition boundary. Those properties are important links in protecting areas along Back Bay, North 

Landing River, and 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 important habitat beyond the refuge’s current acquisition boundary. 

Also, acquisition of fee title interest in new lands will provide expanded public use opportunities when 

compatible; 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 Currituck 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 Currituck National Wildlife 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. Other threats to refuge resources require closer monitoring and 

management. Pest plants such as phragmites, animals such as nutria, and wildlife diseases are all 

concerns to which the refuge should be paying closer attention. 
54 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

habitation, and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1) generally appears to have been affected 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 unimpaired condition; 

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, education, scenic, or historic value. 

Summary of Refuge Wilderness Review 

The determination to recommend (or not recommend) a Wilderness Study Area to Congress for 

wilderness designation will be made through the comprehensive conservation plan decisionmaking process. 

The Service inventoried refuge lands within the planning area and found no areas that meet the 

eligibility criteria for a Wilderness Study Area as defined by the Wilderness Act. Therefore, the 

suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not analyzed further in this plan. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

IV. Management Direction

VISION 

The vision for the refuge is as follows: 

The Mackay Island 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 health and diversity of wildlife habitats within the Back Bay and Currituck Sound 

watersheds. 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 its goals and objectives. 

GOALS 

Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Populations: Conserve, protect, and maintain healthy and viable populations 

of birds, wildlife, fish, and plants, including federal and state endangered species and trust species. 

Habitat: Restore, enhance, and maintain the health and biodiversity of brackish marsh, forests, and 

other habitats to ensure optimum ecological productivity and protect the water quality of Currituck 

Sound and Back Bay. 

Public Use: Provide the public with safe, 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, objectives, and strategies addressed below are the Service's response to the issues, 

concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff, and the public. These goals, 

objectives, and strategies reflect the Services' 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 Mackay 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and 

strategies during the next 15 years. 

GOAL 1. FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

Objective 1: Fish 

Manage resources to protect species of fish and other aquatic organisms on the refuge and 

adjacent waters. 
56 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: This alternative 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 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. This alternative provides for 

the inventory of fishery resources. 

Strategies: 

• Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

• Inventory fishery resources and explore management options in consultation with the 

technical assistance office fisheries biologist within five years. 

Objective 2: Invertebrate Species 

Document the diversity and populations of invertebrate species. 

Discussion: This alternative 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. 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 they are identified. 

Strategies: 

• Document presence of invertebrate species as they are identified. 

• Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

Objective 3: Land Birds 

Provide resting, nesting, and foraging habitat for about 115 species of land birds. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for development of an inventory protocol and surveys of 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 115 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 that studies and manages 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Strategies: 

• Monitor bald eagle nest sites. 

• Assist with banding activities as directed. 

• 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. 

Objective 4: Mammals 

Document the diversity and population of mammals. 

Discussion: This alternative only provides for limited surveys of deer and documentation of the 

presence of 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 

and 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 management 

on the species. 

Strategies: 

• Monitor, collect data from, and manage white-tailed deer populations. 

• Conduct abomasal parasite count counts 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. 

Objective 5: Reptiles and Amphibians 

Document the diversity and populations of reptiles and amphibians. 

Discussion: This alternative does not provide for surveys of reptiles and amphibians, but does 

provide for documentation of the presence of reptiles and amphibians. 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. There is no database documenting the 

diversity or population of the species on the refuge, or the effect of management on the species. 
58 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

• Document the presence of reptiles and amphibians as they are identified. 

• Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

Objective 6: Shorebirds 

Document the diversity and populations of shorebirds. 

Discussion: This alternative 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 limited surveys during peak migration months (April, May, July, August) as time 

allows. 

• Assist with studies and investigations as requested. 

• Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

Objective 7: Wading Birds and Marshbirds 

Document the diversity and populations of wading birds and marshbirds. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for systematic surveys of wading birds and marshbirds. 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 in conjunction with shorebird surveys. 

• Note wading bird rookeries as observed. 

• Assist with studies and investigations as requested. 

• Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

Objective 8: Waterfowl 

Document the diversity and populations of waterfowl. Monitor wood duck boxes and band 

wood ducks. 

Discussion: This alternative 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Strategies: 

• Monitor wintering waterfowl populations by conducting six bi-weekly aerial surveys and six biweekly ground 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 120 wood duck boxes for productivity annually. 

• Band 100 wood ducks between July 15 and September 10 and other breeding waterfowl as 

requested. 

• Conduct or assist with the banding of wintering waterfowl when requested. 

• Monitor and conduct banding of resident Canada geese. 

• Assist with studies as requested. 

• Cooperate with other agencies, universities, and organizations performing studies and 

investigations on the refuge. 

GOAL 2. HABITATS 

Objective 1: All Habitats 

Manage habitats to improve conditions for target species using water management techniques and 

prescribed fire. 

Discussion: This alternative 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 of an overall Habitat Management Plan. 

Strategies: 

• Implement Water Management and Fire Management plans. 

• Develop annual Water Management Plan. 

• Revise Fire Management Plan annually. 

• Develop an overall Habitat Management Plan within five years of hiring a biologist. 

Objective 2: Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest 

Protect 1,515 acres of healthy, functional coastal fringe evergreen forest habitat to maintain it as a 

natural community. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for only the protection of the habitat. There would be no 

inventories or management of the habitat. 
60 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

• Control wildfires on the refuge. 

• Monitor populations of southern pine beetle every five years. 

• Monitor gypsy moth populations annually in cooperation with the North Carolina Forest 

Service and USDA Forest Service. 

• Cooperate with other agencies to control outbreaks of pest species. 

Objective 3: Mesic Pine Flatwoods 

Protect 131 acres of healthy, functional mesic pine flatwoods forest habitat to maintain it as a 

natural community. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for the protection and management of the habitat with 

prescribed burning to encourage an herbaceous understory and thinning to manage the canopy. 

Strategies: 

• Control wildfires on the refuge. 

• Conduct prescribed burning according to the Fire Management Plan. 

• Monitor the vegetation and assess effects of fire on vegetation within ten years of hiring a 

biologist. 

• Adapt Fire Management Plan according to results of monitoring. 

• Monitor gypsy moth populations annually in cooperation with the North Carolina Forest 

Service. 

Objective 4: Brackish Marsh/Wet Meadow 

Protect 4,251 acres of healthy, functional brackish marsh/wet meadow habitats to maintain them as 

natural communities. Protect adjacent areas by managing wildfires. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for protection of the habitat and management by using 

prescribed fire. It also provides for monitoring vegetation, geese, and nutria and assessment of the 

effects of fire, geese, and nutria on vegetation. 

Strategies: 

• Control wildfires on the refuge. 

• Conduct prescribed burning according to the Fire Management Plan. 

• Manage to provide breeding habitat for secretive marshbirds. 

• Monitor the vegetation and assess the effects of fire on vegetation within ten years of hiring a 

biologist. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

• Adapt Fire Management Plan according to results of monitoring. 

• Monitor the use of vegetation by geese and nutria within five years of hiring a biologist. 

Objective 5: Roads and Administrative Areas 

Maintain 220 acres (9.2 miles) of roads for public, administrative, and fire access. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for the maintenance of roads and administrative areas to 

service standards. 

Strategies: 

• Provide maintenance of roads to Service standards to assure passable condition. 

• Maintain administrative areas in a functional, environmentally sound manner. 

Objective 6: Moist-Soil Units (Managed Wetlands) 

Protect and manage 955 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 alternative provides for the management of the habitat with a modest monitoring 

frequency and modest mudflat goal in the spring and fall. 

Strategies: 

• Manage units according to the Water Management Plan using natural water sources and a 

well and pump. 

• Manage the units to achieve a 50 percent cover of plants rated as good every year. 

• Monitor moist-soil vegetation once every three years. 

• Manage the units to provide 20 percent of the acreage in mudflats during the peak of spring 

shorebird migration (May). 

• Manage the units to provide 10 percent of the acreage in mudflats during the peak of fall 

shorebird migration (August). 

Objective 7: Wood Duck Boxes 

Maintain up to 120 wood duck boxes annually in the appropriate habitat. 

Discussion: This alternative only provides for the maintenance of 120 wood duck boxes currently 

erected on the refuge. It also provides for adaptive management in response to dump nesting. 

Strategies: 

• Check and repair up to 120 wood duck boxes annually. 
62 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

• Document nesting success of up to 120 wood duck boxes annually. 

• Erect new boxes as nest box use approaches 60 percent. 

Objective 8: Firebreaks 

Maintain 10 acres (3.0 miles) of firebreaks to facilitate wildfire suppression and provide early 

successional habitat for wildlife. 

Discussion: This alternative 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. 

Objective 9: Cropland 

Manage 298 acres of cropland to provide a variety of habitats for wintering waterfowl, migratory 

landbirds, and resident wildlife. 

Discussion: This alternative only provides the maintenance of a variety of habitats in refuge 

croplands. Annual modifications of cropland management will dictate the acreage and location of 

various habitats. In general, these will include 120 acres maintained for crop production, 50 acres for 

winter wheat browse, 120 acres maintained in grasslands, and 10 acres maintained as hardwood 

regeneration. This alternative encourages the development of agreements to provide grain for 

wildlife consumption off refuge lands. 

Strategies: 

• Utilize the cooperative farming program to provide crops for resident wildlife and browse for 

migratory waterfowl. 

• Ensure that the cooperative farmer manages the cropland in accordance with the Cropland 

Management Plan. 

• Reforest selected cropland by planting and managing hardwoods. 

• Maintain grasslands for migratory land birds and resident wildlife. 

• Utilize the cooperative waterfowl sanctuary program on private lands with the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission as available. 

GOAL 3: PUBLIC USE 

Objective 1: Hunting 

Provide 600 annual quality opportunities for hunting deer with shotguns, muzzle-loading shotguns, 

rifles, and bows. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

Discussion: The refuge has a deer hunting program administered by refuge staff. Refuge regulations 

are published in a refuge hunting brochure. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain an area for hunters with disabilities. 

• Revise refuge hunting brochure annually. 

• Host annual hunter safety course conducted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission. 

• Maintain special hunting information exhibit and regulatory signs. 

Objective 2: Fishing 

Provide fishing opportunities for 20,000 visits annually. 

Discussion: Fishing at the refuge occurs on the shorelines of the river, bays, and sounds; the banks 

of canals and impoundments; and a universally accessible fishing pier. This alternative adds a 

National Fishing Week event. 

Strategies: 

• Host a youth fishing rodeo. 

• Maintain a fishing pier accessible to visitors with disabilities. 

• Maintain a boat ramp on Mackay Island Road. 

• Maintain current posted fishing regulations. 

• Host a National Fishing Week Event annually within ten years. 

Objective 3: Environmental Education 

Provide environmental education opportunities for up to 350 people annually. 

Discussion: This alternative 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 eight environmental education programs by request annually. 

• Provide eight planned environmental education programs at an outdoor education facility 

annually. 

• Utilize partners and volunteers to conduct education opportunities. 

• Equip and develop displays for an environmental education center within five years of hiring 

an outdoor recreation planner. 
64 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

• Develop an environmental education plan for the environmental education center within five 

years of hiring an outdoor recreation planner. 

Objective 4: Interpretation 

Provide interpretation opportunities for 10,000 visitors annually. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for an extensive interpretation program. This alternative 

provides for the construction of another kiosk and trail and maintenance of seven kiosks and two 

interpretive trails. The staff would maintain four brochures. The refuge would update panels for the 

kiosks as needed and maintain three exhibits in the visitor contact station. The refuge would conduct 

twenty tours annually. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain seven information kiosks and the exhibits in the kiosks as needed. 

• Design and construct a seventh information kiosk. 

• Develop a cultural resource interpretive site at the former residence of Joseph P. Knapp within 

five years. 

• Revise the refuge brochure every five years. 

• Revise the refuge bird list every five years. 

• Maintain the refuge web site. 

• Update interpretive panels as needed and maintain three existing exhibits in the Joseph P. 

Knapp Visitor Contact Station. 

• Develop a youth wildlife checklist within five years. 

• Develop new interpretative exhibits for the education center within five years. 

• Conduct twenty tours annually. 

Objective 5: Wildlife Observation 

Provide wildlife observation opportunities for 90,000 people annually. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for a slightly improved wildlife observation program. The staff 

would maintain an observation platform on the north side of State Route 615, a new platform at the 

Kitchin Impoundment, one trail on the south side of State Route 615, two trails around the managed 

wetlands (moist-soil areas), and a new trail around the Kitchin Impoundment. The staff would also 

maintain a refuge bird list and a new youth wildlife checklist. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain Kuralt Trail observation platform, Great Marsh Loop Trail, Mackay Island Trail, Live 

Oak Point Trail, and roads to facilitate observation. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

• Develop and maintain a new trail around the Kitchin Impoundment within ten years. 

• Develop and maintain a new observation platform at the Kitchin Impoundment within ten 

years. 

• Revise the refuge bird list every five years. 

• Develop a youth wildlife checklist within ten years. 

Objective 6: Wildlife Photography 

Provide wildlife photography opportunities for 6,000 people annually. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for an improved wildlife photography program. The staff would 

maintain an observation platform on the north side of State Route 615, a new platform at the Kitchin 

Impoundment, one trail on the south side of State Route 615, two trails around the managed 

wetlands (moist-soil areas), and a new trail around the Kitchin Impoundment. The staff would also 

maintain a refuge bird list and a new youth wildlife checklist. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain Kuralt Trail observation platform, Great Marsh Loop Trail, Mackay Island Trail, Live 

Oak Point Trail, and roads to facilitate observation. 

• Develop and maintain a new trail around the Kitchin Impoundment within ten years. 

• Develop and maintain a new observation platform at the Kitchin Impoundment within ten 

years. 

• Revise the refuge bird list every five years. 

• Evaluate special use permits for professional photographers. 

• Install a dedicated wildlife photography blind within five years. 

Objective 7: Access 

Maintain as much public access to the refuge as staffing allows and wildlife tolerates. 

Discussion: This alternative would provide the staffing to expand access to the refuge. The public 

desires more access, particularly on weekends. The refuge manager would schedule staff to provide 

access every Saturday. 

Strategies: 

• Open the refuge during daylight hours from March 15 to October 15. 

• Open the office entrance road and maintain office hours Monday through Friday from 7:30 

a.m. until 4:00 p.m., and every Saturday from March 15 until October 15. 
66 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

• Allow vehicle access on the Mackay Island Road to the dike gate year-round and to the 

fishing pier for disabled anglers from March 15 until October 15. 

• Restrict all access beyond the dike gate and in the marshes and impoundments from October 

16 to March 14. 

Objective 8: Outreach 

Provide outreach designed for 250,000 people annually. 

Discussion: This alternative provides for expanded outreach. The refuge would maintain a web site 

and refuge brochure. The staff would appear at local fairs and festivals as staffing levels allow. The 

refuge would publish a quarterly newsletter and more press releases. The staff would attend more 

outreach events.

Strategies: 

• Participate in Earth Day events, Career Days, Knotts Island Peach Festival, Knotts Island 

Waterfowl Festival, Green Sea, Fun Safety and Education Day, and the North Carolina State Fair. 

• Maintain the refuge web site and the refuge brochure as the program changes. 

• Publish a quarterly newsletter. 

• Develop twelve news releases annually. 

• Make four presentations to local organizations annually on request. 

• Publicize refuge events on local public access television stations. 

Objective 9: Refuge Support 

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 its 

activities. One group, the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society, is a traditional Friends Group that 

supports the refuge, and assists it in seeking grants, financial contributions, and volunteers. The 

others are groups that assist in the management of the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Work with the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society, Knotts Island Ruritan Club, and Ducks 

Unlimited. 

• Develop a Mackay Island Chapter of the Coastal Wildlife Refuge Society. 

• Maintain a sales outlet in the visitor contact station. 

• Expand refuge sales outlet to a gift shop in the Environmental Education Center within five 

years of construction of a new office facility. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Objective 10: Special Events 

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 an expanded array of special events to provide exposure for 

the refuge. 

Strategy: 

• Host a Fishing Rodeo, four open roads events, an open house, and one other special 

event annually. 

GOAL 4: RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Objective 1: Cultural Resources 

Avoid all impacts to cultural resources. 

Discussion: Native Americans once had villages along the North Landing River, Currituck Sound, 

and Back Bay. 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 on on-site 

investigations. The refuge staff patrols identified sites as part of its routine law enforcement efforts. 

Strategies: 

• Evaluate all proposed projects and coordinate with the Regional Historic Preservation Officer 

before beginning a project. 

• Protect identified cultural resource sites. 

Objective 2: Interagency Coordination 

Maintain a functional level of coordination with local, state, and federal public agencies and private 

organizations. 

Discussion: The 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. 

Increased coordination with state biologists, federal biologists, non-governmental organizations, and 

universities would improve management capability. The staff would conduct more deliberate 

coordination in meetings to establish rules and regulations and delegate responsibilities. The refuge 

also maintains close coordination with the Knott’s Island Volunteer Fire Department. 

This alternative 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 70 meetings each year. 

• Review and revise formal cooperative agreements as time allows. 
68 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

• Coordinate management and public use with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 

• Develop a memorandum of understanding with the Currituck County Game Commission on 

waterfowl rest areas. 

Objective 3: Land Protection 

Continue to purchase land within the approved acquisition boundary. 

Discussion: The refuge currently owns 8,219 acres in fee title. The staff is aware of the owners of 

the tracts within the boundary, but not in government ownership. The staff 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 Service’s Realty Office to process the land of willing sellers. 

• Post the boundaries of newly acquired land. 

• Inventory the habitat on newly acquired land. 

Objective 4: Law Enforcement 

Enforce refuge regulations and implement a law enforcement outreach program. 

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 alternative provides for an outreach 

program to make visitors aware of refuge regulations. 

Strategies: 

• Enforce refuge regulations as time permits. 

• Provide assistance to and coordinate with appropriate local, state, and federal law enforcement 

agencies to facilitate compliance with local, state, and federal law as time permits. 

• Develop and install new signs to inform the public of refuge regulations. 

• Develop and publish new brochures to inform the public of refuge regulations. 

Objective 5: Navigable Waters 

Consult with the State of North Carolina, the State of Virginia, and the Currituck County Game 

Commission to establish a cooperative management agreement to regulate certain activities within 

selected waters. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Discussion: This objective pursues the agreement more pro-actively 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 States of North Carolina and Virginia have limited resources to enforce existing 

regulations on those waters. Under this alternative, the Service would actively pursue comanagement 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 the Service’s coordinating refuge manager. 

Objective 6: Permits 

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 the refuge staff must 

monitor. This alternative provides for the development of standardized special use conditions and 

monitoring of compliance with permit conditions. 

Strategies: 

• Evaluate approximately twelve 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. 

Objective 7: Pest Animals 

Limit impacts to refuge resources by monitoring, controlling, or eradicating pest animals according to 

a nuisance animal control plan. 

Discussion: The refuge staff currently only controls pest animals when the impacts of pest animals 

are obvious. Animals, such as 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. This alternative provides 

for development of a nuisance animal control plan, and monitoring and control according to the plan. 

Strategies: 

• Develop an Exotic Plant and Animal Control Plan within five years of hiring a biologist. 
70 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

• Observe damage to refuge resources and note the locations so staff can monitor according to 

the plan. 

• Control pest animals when they reach threshold levels identified in the plan. 

Objective 8: Pest Plants 

Improve plant communities and limit impacts to refuge resources from pest plants. 

Discussion: The staff currently monitors pest plants such as common reed (Phragmites australis), 

alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), fleabane (Erigeron annuus), and johnsongrass (Sorghum 

halpense). Control of pest plants currently depends on the availability of staff and funds. This 

alternative provides for development of an Exotic Plant and Animal Control Plan, and monitoring and 

control according to the plan. 

Strategies: 

• Develop an Exotic Plant and Animal 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 and animals when they reach threshold levels identified in the plan. 

Objective 9: Significant Natural Heritage Areas 

Limit impacts to the area to retain the natural character of the area. 

Discussion: Much of the refuge is a significant 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 state natural heritage program. The refuge Fire Management Plan 

currently prescribes burning the brackish marsh and coastal fringe evergreen forest to maintain plant 

diversity. This alternative 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. 

• Review and update the Fire Management Plan based on the results of prescribed burning on 

the refuge. 

Objective 10: Water Quality 

Monitor water quality to assist the staff to minimize impacts to natural resources on and off the 

refuge. 

Discussion: Permits granted for the construction of the Kitchin Impoundment mandate water quality 

monitoring as mitigation. This alternative provides for additional monitoring on the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Strategies: 

• Monitor water quality in the Kitchin Impoundment until 2008. 

• Monitor water quality in impoundments, canals, and at pump stations quarterly when a 

biologist is hired. 

• Cooperate with other agencies and organizations performing water quality sampling on the 

refuge. 

Objective 11: Wilderness Areas 

There are no candidate or designated wilderness areas on the refuge. 

Discussion: There are no areas on the refuge of over 5,000 acres without roads dissecting the areas. 

Mechanized travel through the marshes is required to provide fire protection and track down fire lines 

for prescribed fire. 

Objective 12. Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention 

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. 

Strategy: 

• Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies as necessary to monitor and control wildlife 

disease. 

GOAL 5: REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Objective 1: Capital Property Management 

Use increased levels of funding and staff to acquire, operate, effectively maintain, and dispose of 

capitalized and non-capitalized property. 

Discussion: Under this alternative, the staff would perform a level of property management required 

for effective utilization of the property. This alternative provides for the acquisition and maintenance 

of record keeping to support the refuge purpose. 

Strategies: 

• Acquire minimum equipment necessary to support refuge programs. 

• Conduct one capital property inventory and one non-capitalized property inventory annually. 

• Maintain adequate administrative records on capital and non-capitalized property. 

• Evaluate the operating condition of capital property. 

• Maintain and upgrade capital and non-capital property to ensure safety of the staff and the 

general public. 
72 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 2: Financial Management 

Manage budget efficiently and provide accountability for funds. 

Discussion: Financial management affects every aspect of refuge operation. 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. 

Objective 3: Office and Visitor Center/Environmental Education Center 

Construct a new office building, renovate the existing office into an environmental education center, 

and operate and maintain the buildings to ensure efficiency of operation, the safety of the staff and 

the public, and an aesthetically pleasing appearance. 

Discussion: The staff performs the minimum level of property management required by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual. This alternative provides for the construction of an environmental education 

center to support the enhanced environmental education and interpretation program. 

Strategy: 

• Cooperate with Regional Office engineering and contracting personnel to design and 

construct a new office and renovate the existing office. 

Objective 4: Personnel Management 

Recruit, hire, and manage staff shared with the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge at adequate levels 

(16 employees and 15 full-time equivalent positions). 

Discussion: The refuge staff performs 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 details 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

Objective 5: Real Property Management 

Use increased levels of funding and staffing to maintain buildings, grounds, roads, structures, and 

public use facilities in a clean and acceptable condition that protects the health and safety of the 

refuge staff and the public. 

Discussion: The staff performs real property management at a level that protects health and safety. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct one real property inventory annually. 

• Acquire adequate buildings and structures to meet refuge program needs. 

• Pursue resolution of boundary disputes. 

• Manage all real property according to Service policy. 

Objective 6: Shop Facilities 

Operate and maintain the existing shop workspace and construct new facilities to ensure efficiency of 

operation, and the comfort and safety of the staff and the public. 

Discussion: The staff performs the minimum level of property management required by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual. 

Strategy: 

• Construct and maintain a new vehicle maintenance shop as funding allows. 

Objective 7: Volunteer Coordination 

Support biological and maintenance programs with 1,000 hours of service from local and college 

intern volunteers annually. 

Discussion: The refuge utilizes volunteers from the community and college interns to support its 

programs. The volunteers assist the staff in all phases of operation from routine maintenance to 

outreach to wildlife and habitat inventories. The staff recruits volunteer interns from colleges, 

provides housing, and a stipend with which to purchase meals. The staff manages volunteers as 

required by the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. This alternative provides for the designation of a 

volunteer coordinator and sets a larger goal for volunteer service. 

Strategies: 

Recruit, train, and coordinate volunteers to donate 1,000 hours of service annually. 

• Expand college intern program. 

• Designate a staff member as part-time volunteer coordinator. 
74 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service will implement the plan utilizing existing staff, facilities, and equipment and acquiring 

additional staff, facilities, and equipment. Tables 18–22 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. The appendix also 

includes the priorities of those projects. The staff will implement the strategies associated with 

specific projects as the Service funds those projects. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Table 18. 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 wildlife biologist (RONS 

97006). 

Administer public hunts to manage 

deer population. 

Utilize existing manager, assistant manager, and law 

enforcement officer. 

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 clerk 

(RONS 99004). 

Apply for flexible fund and other 

grants. 

Utilize existing manager and assistant manager. 

Recruit, hire, and train new wildlife biologist (RONS 

97006). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment to survey and 

protect wildlife. Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 
76 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 19. 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, and train new fire management 

specialist (RONS 00009). 

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 clerk 

(RONS 99004) 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Utilize existing manager and assistant 

manager. 

Recruit, hire, and train new wildlife biologist 

(RONS 97006). 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment to manage habitat. Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Replace facilities to manage habitat. Replace bulkheads, water control structures, 

and pumping stations (various MMS 

projects). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service administers Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge located on Knotts 

Island along the North Landing River. The staff administers 8,219 acres of fee title land of the Mackay 

Island National Wildlife Refuge in Currituck County, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia, and 

4,383 acres of the fee title land and 3,931 acres of conservation easement land at the Currituck National 

Wildlife Refuge on the Outer Banks of Currituck County, North Carolina. 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 refuge is two miles east of the boat ramp. It is 100 miles 

and almost a 3-hour drive to the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge around the Sound by roads (Figure 1). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Table 20. 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 clerk 

(RONS 99004) 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Utilize existing refuge manager and assistant 

manager. 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment to maintain facilities as 

necessary. 

Replace equipment (various MMS projects). 

Facility Projects 

Replace facilities as necessary. Replace and rehabilitate roads, parking lots, 

kiosks, facilities for observation and 

photography, office, shop, garage, and 

residence (various MMS projects). 

The maintenance and operation of the refuge’s administrative facilities will continue, regardless of 

how quickly the Service implements the plan. Periodic upgrading of facilities is necessary for safety 

and accessibility and to support staff and management needs. The staff has identified funding and 

staffing needs for several projects, including additional facilities and equipment to support refuge 

operation and maintenance. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Currently the Service has approved a staff of six (6.0 full-time equivalents) permanent positions for 

the refuge. There is also one (1.0 full-time equivalent) other position funded for fire management 

headquartered at the refuge. The plan proposes to increase the staff to fifteen, of which thirteen 

would be non-fire and two would be fire employees. Two of the positions—an assistant manager and 

a biological technician— would be headquartered at Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, but would be 

supervised by the manager at the Mackay Island Refuge. 
78 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 21. Projects supporting resource protection. 

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. 

Protect cultural resources. Utilize existing refuge manager, assistant 

manager, and law enforcement officer. 

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 clerk (RONS 

99004) 

Apply for flexible fund and other grants. Utilize existing refuge manager and 

assistant manager. 

Equipment Projects 

Replace equipment as necessary. Replace equipment (various MMS 

projects). 

Facility Projects 

Replace facilities as necessary. Replace and rehabilitate roads, parking 

lots, kiosks, water control structures, 

pumps, shop, garage, and office (various 

MMS projects). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

Table 22. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies. 

Personnel Projects 

Strategy Projects 

Manage budget, contracts, personnel, and 

property; process payroll and travel 

vouchers; maintain RONS AND MMS. 

Existing refuge manager, assistant manager, office 

assistant. 

New office assistant (RONS 99004). 

Maintain equipment and facilities. Existing engineering equipment operator and 

maintenance worker. 

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 bulkheads, water control structures, 

pumping stations, parking lots, kiosks, office, shop, 

garage, and residence; rehabilitate roads (various 

MMS projects). 

VOLUNTEERS 

The refuge currently uses 1,000 hours of volunteer service annually. College interns contribute the 

majority of the volunteer service. The interns reside on the refuge and receive a stipend for their meals. 

There are limited opportunities for recruitment from the community. The plan projects to maintain the 

volunteer service of 1,000 hours by recruiting college interns and volunteers from the community. 

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 

Service might establish partnerships with organizations such as the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, North Carolina Division 

of Marine Fisheries, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and National Audubon Society. 
80 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 81

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 upper-most layer, in a forest 

stand. It can be used to refer to mid- or under-story vegetation 

in multi-layered 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. 
82 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 individuals 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 system-wide concepts 

to ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are 

maintained at viable levels in native habitats and basic 

ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely. 
Appendices 83

Environmental Health It is 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. 

Floodplain Woods Bottomland Hardwood Forests. Consists of hardwoods (old 

growth and mid-succession age timber) and cypress tupelo 

stands found on low ridges that drain slowly and subject to 

flooding. Species include overcup, willow, water oaks, 

sweetgum, and green ash. Old growth - typically exceeding 120 

years of age. Red oaks were removed in the 1940s. Midsuccession - logged timber that may need restoration to improve 

wildlife habitat. Missing several key oak species. 
84 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

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 These are 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. 

In-holding 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. 

National Environmental Policy Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the 

planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate 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. 
Appendices 85

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 An objective is 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 planning team prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and 

function. A team generally consists of the a 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 This is the alternative determined by the decision maker to best 

achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

refuge system mission, addresses the significant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. 

Purpose of the Refuge The purpose of the refuge is 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 and refuge unit. 

Refuge Operating Needs System This is 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. 

Refuge Purposes The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation 

document, or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge 

subunit. 
86 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 birth rate is 

generally less than the death rate and 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 birth rate greatly 

exceeds death rate and the excess individuals leave as 

migrants. 

Step-down Management Plans Step-down management plans 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 canopy below or closer to the ground than 

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. 

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 system. 
Appendices 87

Appendix II. References and Literature Cited 

Barick, F.B. and T.S. Critcher. 1975. Wildlife and Land Use Planning with Particular Reference to 

Coastal Counties. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, 

North Carolina. 168 pp. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. 544 pp. 

Carter, M.F., W.C. Hunter, D.N. Pashley and K.V. Rosenberg. 2000. Setting conservation priorities 

for landbirds in the United States: The Partners in Flight approach. The Auk 117(2): 541-548. 

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 82 pp. 

Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, 

FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. 

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). 

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. 

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. 
88 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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. 

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., M.F. Carter, D.N. Pashley and K. Barker. 1993. The Partners in Flight prioritization 

scheme. Pages 109–119 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. 

Hunter, W.C. 2004. Southeastern Coastal Plains – Caribbean Regional Shorebird Plan, U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 

http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/RegionalPlans.htm. 

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. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects, and 

management. In M.K. Laubhan and D. Hamilton, eds., Waterfowl Management Handbook.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow. 2000. The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium.

 Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Division of Archives and History. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 

New York, New York. 722 pp. 

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. 

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2002. Largest Employers by County. 

www.ncesc.com. 
Appendices 89

North Carolina Economic Security Commission. 2002. 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. 

Perry, M.C., P.C. Osenton, G.A. Gough, J.S. Hatfield and E.J. Lohnes. 1999. Moist-soil 

Management of Wetland Impoundments for Plants and Invertebrates. U.S. Geologic Survey, 

Biological Research Division. 

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. 

Ringelman, J.K. 1990. Managing agricultural foods for waterfowl. In M.K. Laubhan and D. Hamilton, 

eds., Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Robison, T.M. 1977. Public water supplies of North Carolina, Northern Coastal Plain. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, pp. 49-50 

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. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 2002. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Census of Agriculture, Virginia, 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. 1982. Soil Survey of Currituck County, 

North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. 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. 
90 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. U.S.A. Counties 2000, General 

Profiles: Currituck County, North Carolina. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates Program. 2000: Model-based Income and Poverty Estimates for Currituck County, 

North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Nature-based Tourism. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Proposed National Wildlife Refuge on the Currituck Outer 

Banks: Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast 

Regional Office, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 364 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Significant Wildlife Resource Areas of North Carolina. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Area Office, Asheville, North Carolina. 139 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Preliminary Project Proposal for the Expansion of National 

Wildlife Refuges in Eastern North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast 

Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. 124 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 1998 Update: 

Expanding the Vision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated 

Recreation - North Carolina. Washington, DC. 

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. 
Appendices 91

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. 

Mackay Island 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/Policies for Plan Implementation 

The Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes and 

illustrates management area projects with standards and guidelines for future decision-making and 

the staff may adjust them 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. The refuge manager has identified and approved 

compatible recreation uses specific to the refuge. 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) 
92 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Authorized the opening of part of a refuge to waterfowl hunting. 

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 refuge was 

established. 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; established 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 flood plain. 
Appendices 93

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986) 

The purpose of the Act is to promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the 

serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential habitat, and for other purposes. 

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 thereunder. 

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 
94 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

required to develop and support environmental programs in consultation with other federal natural 

resource management agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management 

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed 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 flood plain 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 flood plains. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

This act was passed to improve the administration of fish and wildlife programs and amends several 

earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary 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. 

Historic Preservation Acts 

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) 

This law 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 archaeological data. The Act authorized use of appropriated, donated and/or 

transferred funds for the recovery, protection and preservation of such data. 
Appendices 95

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. 

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-inaid 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 was 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. Federal agencies are directed 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 would make grants to States, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and the 

Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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) 
96 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 non-wildlife-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 be 

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. 
Appendices 97

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. The stipulation that payments be used for schools and roads was removed, but counties 

were required 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. 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended in Public Law 104-150 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted on October 27, 1972 to encourage coastal 

States, Great Lake States, and United States Territories and Commonwealths to develop 

comprehensive programs for managing and balancing competing uses of coastal resources. Federal 

Consistency is the CZMA requirement that Federal agency activities with reasonably predictable 

effects on any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be consistent with the 

enforceable policies of a coastal State's federally approved Coastal Management Program (CMP). 

Federal Consistency reviews are the responsibility of the lead State agency that implements or 

coordinates the State's federally approved CMP. At the federal level, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Ocean Service administers the CZMA and oversees 

application of Federal Consistency; provides management and legal assistance to coastal States, 

Federal agencies, Tribes and others; and mediates CZMA related disputes. In 1974, the North 

Carolina General Assembly passed the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 (CAMA). CAMA 

established the Coastal Resources Commission, required local land use planning in 20 coastal 

counties, and provided for a permitting program to regulate development. The North Carolina Coastal 

Management Program was federally approved in 1978. The Virginia Coastal Resources Management 

Program implements the CZMA within Virginia. 
98 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 99

Appendix IV. Public Participation 

PUBLIC SCOPING 

The Service invited agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in four public 

scoping meetings held 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 staff 

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 objectives in the different alternatives 

described in this 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 again published announcements giving the locations, dates, and times for 

these 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 meetings in local post offices, local 

government buildings, and stores. Thirty citizens attended these four meetings. 

The issues raised at the meetings are summarized on the next pages, followed by worksheets that 

were completed by the participants at each workshop. 

Mackay and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Scoping Meetings - June 19, 21, 26, 28, 2001

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge Issues 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Wildlife-General Continue surveys In plan 

Secure funding In plan 

Hire adequate staff In plan 

Coordinate with other agencies In plan 

Use hunters to collect data Inventory step-own plan 

Use hunters to control nutria Pest control step-down plan 

Manage raccoons and fox Inventory step-down plan 
100 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Introduce sika deer Against Service policy 

Habitat-Overall Cooperate with NCWRC In plan 

Hire more staff In plan 

Maintain flexibility in management In plan 

Maintain prescribed fire program In plan 

Increase prescribed fire program In plan 

Improve deer habitat In plan 

Improve shorebird habitat In plan 

Provide wild turkey habitat Not practical 

Provide black bear habitat Not practical 

Habitat-Marsh Install water control structure at 

Corey’s Ditch 

In plan 

Habitat-Cropland Grow crops for wildlife In plan 

Habitat-SAV Restore SAV Beyond refuge boundaries 

Public Use-Overall Hire public use staff In plan 

Continue public use In plan 

Public Use-Access Increase the number of open road 

days 

In plan 

 Decrease parking lot size Inadequate parking now 

 Allow horseback riding Inadequate facilities and parking 

Public Use-Hunting Cooperate with NCWRC In plan 

Continue hunting In plan 

Provide access to handicapped In plan; Details in hunting stepdown plan 

Hunt deer from assigned stands Inadequate staff to maintain and 

monitor 

Expand hunting to new acquisitions Hunting step-down plan 

Expand hunting season during rut 

season 

Hunting step-down plan 

Expand hunting season in 

December 

Hunting step-down plan 

Allow dove and quail hunting Hunting step-down plan 

Allow hunting on Sunday Subject to state law 

Increase the number of hunting 

days 

Hunting step-down plan 
Appendices 101

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Allow resident Canada goose 

hunting 

Hunting step-down plan 

Sponsor youth deer hunts Hunting step-down plan 

Provide access for handicapped 

hunters 

Hunting step-down plan 

Allow drives for deer with hunters Hunting step-down plan 

Sponsor hunter safety course NCWRC program 

Public Use-Fishing Increase access for fishing by the 

disabled 

Plan only maintains existing pier 

 Add boat ramps Plan only maintains existing 

ramp 

 Host youth fishing day In plan 

 Provide bulk-headed area around 

fishing pier for disabled 

In plan 

 Support extension of striped bass 

season 

Beyond refuge jurisdiction 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Public Use – 

Wildlife Observation 

Increase vehicle access In plan 

Provide pedestrian access In plan 

Provide vantage points In plan 

Provide tower In plan 

Provide access beyond office hours In plan 

Increase access to disabled Existing access maintained 

Allow kayak tours In Alternative 3 

Provide tours in vans Number of organized tours 

increased 

Provide view of eagle nest on 

remote video screen 

In Alternative 3 

Public Use 

Environmental 

Education 

Use refuge for education In plan 

Cooperate with agencies In plan 

Increase education In plan 

Educate youth In plan 
102 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Public Use 

Interpretation 

Interpret contributions of Joseph P. 

Knapp 

In plan 

Public Use-Outreach Advertise refuge programs more In plan 

Develop and maintain newsletter In plan 

Public Use-Volunteer 

Program 

Start volunteer program Already in place 

Target volunteers for certain 

activities 

Will be coordinated by 

designated staff member 

Resource Protection 

Cultural Resources 

Cooperate with other 

agencies/organizations 

In plan 

Acknowledge heritage of duck clubs In plan 

 Pick up artifacts in cropland as a 

special event and put in a museum 

Inventory step-down plan 

Resource Protection 

Land Protection 

Acquire land Land Protection Plan 

Acquire land for upland mammals Land Protection Plan 

Do not acquire land Land Protection Plan 

Hire staff to handle land acquisition Land Protection Plan 

Use cooperative agreements Land Protection Plan 

Resource Protection 

Law Enforcement 

Hire more staff In plan 

Provide better guidance on 

regulations 

In plan 

Cooperate better with NCWRC In plan 

Patrol Corey’s Ditch for fishing 

violations 

In plan 

Restrict speedboats in the sound Beyond refuge authority 

Establish rest areas for waterfowl Beyond refuge authority 
Appendices 103

Area of Concern Issue Disposition 

Expand proclamation boundary for 

SAV 

Beyond refuge authority 

Resource ProtectionPest Plants 

Continue Phragmites control In plan 

Control alligatorweed Pest Plant Control Plan 

Track invasive species Pest Plant Control Plan 

Resource Protection 

Water Quality 

Maintain water quality for fish In plan 

 Increase water quality monitoring In plan 

 Monitor water quality in sound 

waters 

Beyond refuge authority 

MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PLANNING ISSUES WORKSHEET 

(5 respondents) 

ACTIVITY WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO ? 

(Options to eliminate the activity or decrease it were presented, but were not selected by anyone.) 

WILDLIFE SURVEYS AND MANAGEMENT Keep the Same Increase 

Waterfowl Survey and Management 100% 0% 

Shorebird Survey and Management 60% 40% 

Land Bird Survey and Management 60% 40% 

Reptile/Amphibian Survey and Management 40% 60% 

Fish Survey and Management 40% 60% 

Endangered Species Survey and Management 40% 60% 

White-tailed Deer Management 60% 40% 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Vegetation Survey 60% 40% 
104 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ACTIVITY WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO ? 

Water Quality Monitoring 40% 60% 

Water Management (Farming, Moist Soil) 60% 40% 

Prescribed Burning 60% 40% 

Forest Thinning 80% 20% 

Mechanical Vegetation Management 80% 20% 

Chemical Vegetation Management 80% 20% 

Shoreline Maintenance 80% 20% 

Planting, Seeding, Clearing for Habitat Improvement 80% 20% 

Habitat Restoration (Hydrology, Reforestation) 80% 20% 

Wildlife Management 80% 20% 

Plant Pest Insect and Disease Management 80% 20% 

Exotic and Invasive Species Eradication 40% 60% 

Special Protection Status (National Wilderness) 60% 40% 

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES Keep the Same Increase 

Fishing 20% 80% 

Hunting 20% 80% 

Environmental Education (School Students) 80% 20% 

Environmental Education (School Teachers) 60% 40% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Formal Programs) 60% 40% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Printed Material) 50% 40% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Walking Trails) 60% 40% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Canoeing Trails) 60% 40% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Buildings, Kiosks) 80% 20% 

Wildlife Interpretation (Interpretative Signs) 60% 40% 

Wildlife Photography Opportunities 40% 60% 

Wildlife Observation Opportunities 40% 60% 

Vehicle Parking Lots 40% 60% 

Access for Fishing, Boating, Canoeing 60% 40% 

RESOURCE PROTECTION ACTIVITIES 

Visitor Protection 80% 20% 
Appendices 105

ACTIVITY WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO ? 

Wildlife Protection 40% 60% 

Proclamation Boundary Enforcement 40% 60% 

Trespass Violations 40% 60% 

Littering/Dumping Violations 40% 60% 

Hunting and Fishing Compliance Checks 40% 60% 

Other Regulations 60% 40% 

Special Protection Status (National Wilderness) 80% 20% 

Land Acquisition 60% 40% 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Canal Maintenance 60% 40% 

Road and Firebreak Maintenance 60% 40% 

Facilities Maintenance (Signs, Buildings) 60% 40% 

Dike and Trail Maintenance 60% 40% 

Water Control Structures, Pump Stations 60% 40% 

Boundary Posting 80% 20% 

MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

PLANNING ALTERNATIVES WORKSHEET (7 respondents) 

ACTIVITY 

WHICH ALTERNATIVE WOULD YOU LIKE 

US TO DO? 

(CAN MIX AND MATCH DIFFERENT 

ALTERNATIVES FOR DIFFERENT 

ACTIVITIES) 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIIES 

Fish 0% 14% 86% 

Invertebrates 0% 43% 57% 

Mammals 0% 14% 86% 

Land Birds 14% 0% 86% 

Reptiles and Amphibians 14% 29% 57% 

Shorebirds (Terns, Gulls) 29% 29% 42% 

Wading Birds (Herons, Egrets) 0% 29% 71% 

Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese) 0% 43% 57% 
106 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ACTIVITY 

WHICH ALTERNATIVE WOULD YOU LIKE 

US TO DO? 

(CAN MIX AND MATCH DIFFERENT 

ALTERNATIVES FOR DIFFERENT 

ACTIVITIES) 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

All Habitats 0% 14% 86% 

Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest (Pines) 14% 14% 72% 

Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Uplands) 0% 0% 100% 

Cypress Gum Swamp 0% 14% 86% 

Open Water 14% 0% 86% 

Brackish Marsh (Grass Dominated Wetlands) 0% 29% 71% 

Roads 57% 14% 29% 

Firebreaks 42% 29% 29% 

Cropland 0% 71% 29% 

Wood Duck Boxes 0% 43% 57% 

Moist Soil Units (Managed Wetlands) 0% 43% 57% 

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES 

Hunting 29% 42% 29% 

Fishing 14% 57% 29% 

Environmental Education (Staffed Programs) 14% 72% 14% 

Environmental Interpretation 0% 57% 43% 

Wildlife Observation 0% 29% 71% 

Wildlife Photography 0% 29% 71% 

Access (to the refuge via roads) 14% 43% 43% 

PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES 

Outreach (Publicity and Public Relations) 29% 42% 29% 

Refuge Support (Friends Group) 0% 57% 43% 

Special Events (Festivals, Field Days) 14% 72% 14% 

RESOURCE PROTECTION ACTIVITIES 

Cultural Resources 14% 43% 43% 

Interagency Coordination 0% 71% 29% 

Law Enforcement 0% 71% 29% 

Permits 14% 72% 14% 

Law Enforcement 0% 71% 29% 

Pest Animals 14% 43% 43% 

Pest Plants 14% 43% 43% 
Appendices 107

ACTIVITY 

WHICH ALTERNATIVE WOULD YOU LIKE 

US TO DO? 

(CAN MIX AND MATCH DIFFERENT 

ALTERNATIVES FOR DIFFERENT 

ACTIVITIES) 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Significant Natural Heritage Areas 72% 14% 14% 

Water Quality 0% 29% 71% 

Wilderness Areas 29% 29% 42% 

Wildlife Disease 29% 29% 42% 
108 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT PLAN AND SERVICE RESPONSES 

This appendix summarizes all comments that were received on the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Public comments on this draft document were accepted from January 17, 2006 to February 16, 2006. 

On January 30, 2006, a request for an extension to the comment period was received from the 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. In response to the request, the comment period was 

extended for twelve days and ended on February 28, 2006. 

A total of eight individuals submitted comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, in writing or in person at the refuge office. Four individuals claimed and 

referenced an affiliation with nongovernmental organizations within their comments, including the 

Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, and The Safari Club International. 

PUBLIC FORUMS 

During the January 17 – February 28, 2006 public review period, the refuge staff hosted a public forum 

and open house on January 21, 2006, at the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge Office. The open 

house began at 10:00 a.m. and closed at 2:00 p.m., with the refuge staff available to discuss the draft 

plan and refuge operations with the attendees. A form was available for individuals to write their 

comments. A total of two individuals offered comments during this public forum. Five other public 

comments were received through e-mail. An additional verbal comment was provided during the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS AND THE SERVICE'S RESPONSES 

The comments received address a total of 21 comments from individuals and agencies by way of verbal 

comments at the open houses or through submission of written or electronic documents. Four people 

called, emailed, or wrote letters requesting paper copies of the plan or additional copies for review. An email response was sent to direct individuals to an electronic copy on the internet. In cases were electronic 

copies were unacceptable, hard copies were mailed within 48 hours of receiving the requests. 

One written comment came from the North Carolina Department of Administration and advised that the 

North Carolina State Clearinghouse had received and distributed the document. A second letter was 

received which consolidated comments from state agencies. Similarly, the Commonwealth of Virginia, 

Department of Environmental Quality coordinated the responses from five state agencies into their 

response document. Responses to these comments are addressed as a separate category in this 

document. 

Many verbal and written comments were not relevant to the Mackay Island CCP and EA and are 

therefore not addressed in this response. Additionally, general regulatory comments that were already 

addressed within the EA did not require a response. Likewise, participants in the open houses 

discussed many topics with the staff; however, most discussions were not related to the document and 

are not included here. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service's responses to each concern are summarized as follows: 

Wildlife

Comment: Two comments were made to ensure that newly proposed public access and activities do 

not cause harm to wildlife values of refuge. 
Appendices 109

Service Response: All uses allowed on the refuge must go through a rigorous compatibility 

determination process that insures minimal impact on wildlife resources. Compatibility 

determinations are also reviewed periodically to ensure that additional protections are not warranted. 

Comment: A comment requested that wildlife inventories be made more readily available to the public. 

Service Response: We are in the process of developing methods of better distribution of 

information. Currently, waterfowl surveys are placed online at 

http://samigbird.fws.gov/sawindex.html. New surveys will also be added for internet access as the 

plan is implemented. 

Visitor Services – Access for Public Use 

Comment: A comment requested that the refuge be open more during the winter season when the 

ducks and geese are present for photography and wildlife observation. 

Service Response: The Service will continue to protect the impoundments and critical wildlife 

locations from public access that would result in harmful impacts to wildlife resources. However, 

access will be improved through the implementation of the plan which will result in limited public 

access improvements to areas that will not conflict with the mission of the refuge. 

Comment: A comment specifically asked for more birding blinds and more birding tours. 

Service Response: The preferred alternative would result in an additional observation deck and a 

dedicated photoblind. 

Funding for CCP Implementation

Comment: One commenter expressed concerns over developing funding sources to implement the 

preferred alternative. The commenter suggested that most of the funding will come from the local 

State and Federal agencies, with donations and user fees to help fund the refuge. 

Service Response: The Service will continue to pursue all methods needed to implement the 

preferred alternative. Partnerships and collaborations with other agencies and Non-governmental 

organizations will offset some of the direct costs of implementation of this CCP. At this time, the 

Service does not believe that a general fee program at Mackay Island NWR would generate 

significant revenue to support the implementation of the CCP. 

Hunting

Comments: Three comments supported maintaining existing hunter opportunities and increasing 

opportunities when prudent. 

Service Response: The Service supports hunting as a priority public use of national wildlife refuges. 

The Service is expecting increased demand for participation in deer hunting opportunities on the refuge in 

the CCP. The Service will continue to evaluate the ability to offer additional quality hunting opportunities. 
110 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Government Agency Comments 

Combined agencies’ comments received from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of 

Environmental Quality: 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

Comment:

“We recommend coordinating the management and public use of this refuge with both the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Similarly, as 

stated on Page 79, we believe there may be opportunities to development partnerships with VDGIF.” 

Service Response: 

The Service concurs that the pursuit of additional opportunities to develop partnerships and 

coordinated efforts between the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission would result in better management of wildlife and fisheries 

resources and public access opportunities on the refuge. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment:

“This document suggests that some activity proposed under the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) has the potential to impact surface waters including wetlands regulated under the VWQP 

regulation, 9 VAC 25-210-10 et seq. The CCP also indicates that all necessary state wetland permits 

will be applied for prior to undertaking any development activity. Provided that these permits are 

obtained and complied with, the proposed activity will be consistent with those portions of our Coastal 

Zone Management program under VWP regulatory purview.” 

Service Response: 

The Service does not have plans for development of the Virginia portion of Mackay Island National 

Wildlife Refuge since it is predominantly wetlands. If proposed activities are going to result in 

development in areas that are going to impact surface waters, state bottoms or areas protected under 

Virginia’s Coastal Resource Management Program, the refuge will coordinate and obtain the required 

permits prior to development or implementation.

Comment:

“Any construction pursuant to the plan, should meet state standards for open burning, fugitive dust 

control, and for fuel burning machinery.” Additional comments were made for the Service to comply 

with proper solid waste disposal and implement solid waste recycling efforts. 

Service Response: 

Activities that would result in significant air emissions would be coordinated with the Department of 

Environmental Quality in Virginia. Permits are currently obtained in Virginia and North Carolina for 

our open burning management activities. Any other actions that require state permits will also be 

submitted for review. We do comply with existing solid waste management requirements and the 

refuge has an ongoing recycling program.

Department of Conservation and Recreation 

Comment:

“The current activity will not affect any documented State listed plants or insects in State Natural Area 

Preserves in area, however there is a need to continue to coordinate activities.” 
Appendices 111

Service Response: 

Comment has been noted and the refuge will coordinate its activities to help protect state-listed plants 

and animals. 

Virginia Marine Resources Commission 

Comment: 

“Please be advised that the Marine Resources Commission pursuant to Section 28.2.1204 of the 

Code of Virginia has jurisdiction over any encroachments in, on, or over any State-owned rivers, 

streams, or creeks in the Commonwealth. Accordingly, if any portion of the subject projects involves 

any encroachments channelward of ordinary high water along natural rivers and steams, or 

channelward of mean low water in tidal waters, a permit may be required from our agency.” 

Service Response: 

The Service does not have plans for development of the Virginia portion of Mackay Island National 

Wildlife Refuge since it is predominantly wetlands. If proposed activities are going to result in 

development in areas that are going to impact surface waters, state bottomlands or areas protected 

under Virginia’s Coastal Resource Management Program, the refuge will coordinate and obtain the 

required permits prior to development or implementation.

Hampton Roads Planning District 

Comment:

“Based on this review, it appears that the proposal is consistent with local and regional plans and 

policies.” 

Service Response:

Comment noted.

Comments received from the State of North Carolina: 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management 

Comment:

“The proposed action will be occurring within Currituck County; a coastal county within the meaning to the 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA). The CZMA requires that Federal 

agencies proposing activities within a State's coastal zone to provide the State, in this case, the NC 

Division of Coastal Management with a consistency determination prior to implementing the activity to 

document that the proposed .activity would comply with the enforceable policies of North Carolina's 

approved coastal management program and would be conducted consistent with the State's coastal 

management program. Conformance of the proposed Federal activity with the enforceable policies of the 

State's certified coastal management program was not evaluated in the Draft Plan.” 

Service Response: 

The refuge is aware of the need to comply with the Coastal Management Act of 1972, as amended, 

and both in Virginia and under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act. Most of the 

projects that would trigger a need for coordination are currently unfunded and will only be done as 

funding becomes available. Management actions covered by the CCP and others that may arise 

would be coordinated with the N.C. Division of Coastal Management for a Consistency Determination 

as they are funded and finalized. Through a separate process a general Consistency Determination 
112 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

will be requested for the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan, recognizing that specific 

determinations will be required when projects are ready to be implemented. 

Comment:

 “. . . Moreover, DCM recommends that Appendix II (Relevant Legal Mandates), the Land Use 

Section, and the Regulatory Effects Section be revised to incorporate a review of the proposed action 

with the Coastal Zone Management Act and North Carolina' s coastal management program.” 

Service Response: 

We have revised Appendix III in the CCP (Relevant Legal Mandates) to include the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972, as amended and the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act. We 

do not have sections entitled “Land Use Section” and “Regulatory Effects Section” in the Mackay 

Island NWR CCP. 

Comment:

“DCM recommends monitoring the effect recommends monitoring the effects of prescribed burns on 

native marsh vegetations and the eradication of Phragmites australis.” 

 

Service Response: 

The Service will continue to work to eradicate invasive species such as Phragmites australis. The 

monitoring of the effects of prescribed fire on marsh vegetation would be possible with the 

implementation of the CCP. Current staffing limitations do not allow for monitoring of the burn 

program at Mackay Island NWR at this time. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health 

Comment:

“The plan does not provide detailed information concerning the existing water system or any 

proposed changes/additions to the water supply. This area of Currituck County does not have a 

county public water supply system.” 

Service Response: 

A site visit determined that Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge does not meet the definition of a 

public water supply system under current regulations. Increased visitation outlined in the plan would 

require increased water testing and compliance. The refuge will continue to work with the state 

agencies to insure that we are protecting the environment and visiting public’s heath and welfare by 

complying with all regulatory requirements. 

Comments received from Internal Review: 

Visitor Services and Outreach Division, Southeast Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Comment: 

The plan shows 90,000 visitors doing wildlife observation which equates to over 240 people per day 

on the refuge. Will you get that volume of use? 

Service Response:

It is likely over the 15-year life of the plan that visitor use will increase to the projected levels based 

solely on the projected growth of Knotts Island, Currituck County, North Carolina and Virginia Beach, 

Virginia. The increased public use facilities and opportunities outlined in the preferred alternative will 

also contribute to increased public use on the refuge. 
Appendices 113

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 

Project Name: Mackay Island 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: Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): Implementation of 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge by adopting 

the preferred alternative that provides guidance, management direction, and operation plans 

for the next 15 years. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

 A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

Bald eagles have nested on the refuge since 1998. 

 B. Complete the following table. 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS 

Bald Eagle Threatened 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered 

West Indian Manatee Endangered 
114 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

VI. Location (attach map): 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear No. 34 

B. County and State: Currituck, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia 

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. One active nest. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker - Record of occurrence more than 20 years old. 

West Indian Manatee - Incidental record of occurrence outside of its 

normal range. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 
Appendices 115

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

DETERMINATION RESPONSE 

REQUESTED1

NE NA AA 

Bald Eagle X 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker X 

West Indian Manatee X 

1

DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively 

impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. 

Response Requested is optional but a Concurrence is recommended for a complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to adversely impact 

any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be beneficial effects to these 

resources. Response Requested is a Concurrence. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely impact any 

listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for listed species is 

Formal Consultation. Response Requested for proposed or candidate species is Conference. 
116 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, trapping of 

selected furbearers for nuisance animal management, forest management program, and refuge 

resource research studies. A description and anticipated biological impacts for each use are 

addressed separately in this compatibility determination. 

Refuge Name: Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: 1960. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: 16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929). 

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of Mackay Island 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, are 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. 

On August 15, 1967, the Secretary of the Interior signed a proclamation prohibiting waterfowl hunting 

on the refuge and the waters to the south of the refuge. 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

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

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

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

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) 
Appendices 117

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year (50 CFR 

Subchapter C; 43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed were considered separately. Although for 

brevity, the preceding sections from Uses through Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and Policies 

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 forest blocks of loblolly 

pine and bottomland hardwoods, and interconnected streams, ditches, and backswamps. The 

forests have a great variety of tree species that includes bald cypress, tupelo gum, oak, red maple, 

black gum, hickory, elm, green ash, and willow. This rich forested wetland provides good habitat for 

a number of game species including white-tailed deer, squirrel, raccoon, woodcock and waterfowl. 

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. The refuge has permitted hunting since 1983, when the Service first approved hunting 

of deer on the refuge. The administration, as well as special regulations for hunting, has changed 

over time but the majority of the program has remained unchanged. 

On August 21, 1963, the Secretary of the Interior signed a proclamation prohibiting waterfowl hunting 

on the refuge and the waters to the south of the refuge. 

The comprehensive conservation plan calls for the continued hunting of deer. All hunts fall within the 

framework of the State’s open seasons and follow state regulations. There are additional refugespecific regulations to supplement State regulations. These refuge-specific regulations are reviewed 
118 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

annually and incorporated into the hunting brochure. The 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 as it 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 

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 refuge was established. 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 an effective wildlife law enforcement program, the deer herd has 

increased substantially in and around the refuge. The refuge’s marsh and forest habitat, combined 

with commercially harvested forests and agricultural fields adjacent to the refuge, provides ideal 

habitat conditions for white-tailed 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 remains dynamic and responsive to an evolving 

management environment (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 migratory birds 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. 

Based on available information, biologists have not documented any threatened or endangered 

species, other than the bald eagle, on Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. 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 would have no effect on listed species. 

The 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 would 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 site-specific refuge regulations and special conditions would 

eliminate most incidental take problems. 
Appendices 119

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 

the State’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. 

• Vehicles are restricted to designated refuge roads and parking lots. 

• 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 known 

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 the staff collects additional data and develops a long-range hunt plan, it could implement 

additional refuge-specific regulations. These regulations could include, but may not be limited to, 

season dates that are more restrictive from 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 (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992).

Justification: Hunting is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It is one of the public use recreational activities that 

the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act specifically identifies as a use to be 

allowed where possible on refuges. The refuge uses deer hunts as management tools to protect the 

diverse ecosystem. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on January 17, 

2006 and ended on February 28, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 
120 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 09/25/21 

Description of Use: Fishing

Sport fishing is a common public use on the State waters of the creeks, rivers, bays, and sounds from 

the shorelines located on the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge and the banks of ditches and 

impoundments on the refuge. Fish creel limits, boating safety, and license requirements are in 

accordance with State of North Carolina and Commonwealth of Virginia regulations. A fishing pier 

accessible to disabled visitors is maintained in the northeastern corner of the East Pool. A public 

boat ramp for small boats is located at the dike gate on Mackay Island Road. Development of more 

public access to the water on the refuge would allow the public to utilize these important fishery 

resources. As identified in the comprehensive conservation plan, the refuge would provide additional 

access to the banks, conduct baseline inventories, develop and implement a management plan, and 

perform water quality analysis in order to provide a quality fishing experience. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. Additional 

fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use as proposed. To improve sport-fishing opportunities, 

the plan includes proposals for additional access and water quality analyses. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Recreational fishing should not adversely affect the fisheries 

resource, wildlife resource, endangered species, or any other natural resource of the refuge. There 

may be some limited disturbance to certain species of wildlife and some trampling of vegetation; 

however, this should be short-lived and relatively minor and would not negatively impact wetland 

values of the refuge (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). If the refuge staff identifies wildlife disturbance 

at these sites as a problem in future years, they would close the areas during sensitive seasons to 

eliminate this concern. 

Improvement of access would create some disturbance to the natural environment during construction 

and lead to increased public use on the State and refuge waters. The staff would carry out all 

construction activities with appropriate permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and after State 

Historic Preservation Officer review of cultural resources. Engineers would incorporate soil stabilization 

features into the design of access points to minimize any future soil erosion potential and contractors 

would use sediment retention barriers during access improvement. Public use of the waters would 

increase as a result of improved access, but the level of use would not be expected to cause detrimental 

wildlife disturbance. Law enforcement activities would control the problems associated with littering and 

illegal take of fish. Providing information to refuge visitors about rules and regulations, along with 

increased law enforcement patrol, would keep these negative impacts to a minimum. 
Appendices 121

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Conflicts between fishermen and hunters or 

other visitors using the refuge for non-consumptive wildlife recreation have not been a problem in the 

past and are not expected to be a problem in the future. A continued law enforcement presence can 

minimize associated violations, such as the taking of under-sized fish, open fires, and littering. 

Following completion of the comprehensive conservation plan, the refuge staff would develop a 

Fishing Plan. The following stipulations would help to ensure that the refuge fishing program is 

compatible with refuge purposes. 

All fishing tackle must be attended at all times. 

Leaving boats on the refuge overnight is prohibited. 

Fishing allowed during daylight hours only. 

Justification: Refuge regulations permit fishing of State and refuge waters under State regulations. 

The goal of recreational fishing is to provide a quality fishing experience on a sustainable basis. The 

1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act lists fishing as a priority public use activity 

that the Service should provide and expand where possible. Improved access facilities would reduce 

bank erosion and habitat disturbance, while providing additional quality fishing opportunities. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on January 17, 

2006 and ended on February 28, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 09/25/21 
122 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography

Nonconsumptive wildlife observation uses, such as birdwatching, auto tour routes, hiking, and nature 

photography, are popular due to the area’s proximity to Virginia Beach and the availability of access 

and facilities. It is estimated that 70,000 visits per year are attributed to wildlife observation and 

related activities. 

The staff anticipates that an increase in nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent uses would occur over the next 

few years as facilities and access are improved and especially as the public and conservation groups 

become more aware of the excellent birding and wildlife viewing opportunities on the refuge. 

There are 9.2 miles of refuge roads maintained for public vehicle travel. The refuge has two trails on 

gravel roads for pedestrians and bicyclists, the 3.8-mile Mackay Island Trail and 6.5-mile Live Oak 

Point Trail. The refuge maintains the 0.3-mile Great Marsh Trail for pedestrians. Proposed road and 

trail upgrades are shown in Figure 7 of the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. The refuge 

needs additional fiscal resources to provide this use as proposed. To provide safe, quality wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities, the Service would improve vehicular road access, 

develop wildlife observation points, and provide directional and interpretive signage. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and wildlife photography activities could result 

in some disturbance to wildlife, especially if visitors venture too close to bald eagle nests, colonial 

nesting bird rookeries, and resting waterfowl in migration. The staff would prohibit visitors from 

traveling in areas around nest, rookeries, and managed wetlands. The refuge would locate refuge 

road systems, foot trails, boardwalks, and wildlife observation platforms, opened to pedestrian use by 

the public, to minimize disturbance that could occur in these sensitive areas (Korschgen and 

Dahlgren 1992). If the staff identifies unacceptable levels of disturbance at any time, they would 

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 would alter 

small portions of the natural environment. Proper planning prior to construction, sediment retention, 

and grade stabilization features would reduce negative impacts to wetlands, threatened and 

endangered species, and species of special concern. Impacts, such as trampling of vegetation and 

wildlife disturbance by refuge visitors, do occur, but are presently not significant. Upgrading refuge 

roads would reduce soil erosion associated with the current dirt roads and trails. Visitors can cause 

other potential negative impacts by violating 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 
Appendices 123

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Prior to construction, the staff would 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 would continue to minimize violations of refuge regulations. The staff would close refuge roads 

to the public during nesting seasons and migratory waterfowl seasons to minimize wildlife 

disturbance. The staff would monitor public use for wildlife observation and wildlife photography to 

document any negative impacts. If any negative impacts become noticeable, the Service would take 

corrective action to reduce or eliminate the effects on wildlife. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are important and preferred public uses 

on Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 1997 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography as priority pubic recreational uses that refuges should facilitate. It is through permitted, 

compatible public uses that the public becomes aware of and provides support for our national wildlife 

refuges. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on January 17, 

2006 and ended on February 28, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 09/25/21 

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. When the comprehensive conservation 

plan is enacted, the refuge would 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 the staff or 

trained volunteers. The staff would develop and provide curriculum and support materials to area 

teachers for use both on and off the refuge. They would also develop informational kiosks and 

interpretive panels at key refuge entrance points, and construct wildlife observation platforms as part 

of the environmental education and interpretation program. 
124 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 would 

be essential to successfully implement the education and visitor use program. The refuge staff would 

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 would alter small portions of the natural environment on the refuge. Proper 

planning and placement of facilities would ensure that wetlands, threatened or endangered species, 

or species of special concern are not negatively impacted. The refuge staff would 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 (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). Educational 

activities held off of the 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 would 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 would 

assess resource impacts. Current staffing will only have be able to provide limited options. A public 

use specialist is needed to expand the program and meet visitor needs. If the refuge staff determines 

that human impacts are detrimental to important natural resources, the staff would take actions to 

reduce or eliminate those impacts. Major portions of the refuge would remain undeveloped, without 

public interpretive facilities. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified interpretation 

and environmental education as activities that refuges should provide and expand. Educating and 

informing the public through structured environmental education courses, interpretive materials, and 

guided tours about migratory birds, endangered species, wildlife management, and ecosystems 

would lead to improved support of the Service’s mission to protect our natural resources. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on January 17, 

2006 and ended on February 28, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 
Appendices 125

This compatibility determination was part of the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 09/25/21 

Description of Use: Trapping of Selected Furbearers for Management

The staff may direct management through trapping of muskrat, 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 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 not 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 muskrat, raccoon and nutria from portions of the 

refuge would reduce the negative impacts these species are having on ecosystem functions. Regulated 

trapping of raccoon populations would reduce the nest predation this species causes to neotropical birds and 

wood ducks. Nutria and muskrat management would 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 staff would require trappers to report the incidental take of other species. 

There would 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 would 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 must be able to modify the program 

as needed to maintain compatibility. Trappers would carry out all trapping activities under a Special Use 

Permit. The staff would limit trappers by number, area, and season in order to target problem areas and 

minimize any negative impacts. The staff would 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. 
126 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Justification: The purposes of Mackay Island 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 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. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on January 17, 

2006 and ended on February 28, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 09/25/16 

Description of Use: Forest Management Program

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge would initiate a forest management program in accordance 

with an approved forest management plan that a contractor would develop when the Service 

allocates the funds for a contract. The staff would direct forest management, as described in the 

comprehensive conservation plan, towards protecting, restoring and managing the functions and 

values of the refuge forest to support viable populations of native flora and fauna consistent with 

sound biological principles. 

The staff would inventory and map the entire refuge forest habitat as part of the development of a forest 

management plan. This plan would provide a comprehensive forest management prescription to achieve 

forest habitat objectives over a 15-year planning cycle. Forest management prescriptions would include 

prescribed fire, timber stand improvement, commercial timber harvest, and reforestation. 

The staff would manipulate forest habitat by prescribed fires conducted by Fish and Wildlife Service 

staff and commercial timber harvests. Contractors would conduct all harvesting by Special Use 

Permit and carry it out in accordance with the Refuge Manual. The staff would carry out the sale and 

disposition of forest products by open market rules and formal bid solicitations. 
Appendices 127

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 current forest management 

program, which consists of prescribed burning, thinning, water management, and fire protection. The 

comprehensive conservation plan proposes a forest management program that would utilize timber 

harvest to promote the enhancement of habitats for both threatened and endangered species, 

migratory birds and resident wildlife; promote habitat restoration; protect cultural resources; and 

provide opportunities for public recreation and environmental education. Managing the forest would 

require additional funding and staffing to inventory forest stands, prepare a forest management plan, 

develop forest prescriptions, and administer timber harvest. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: It is anticipated that forest habitat management would enhance the 

existing forest and help restore the functions and values typically associated with coastal fringe 

evergreen forest and mesic pine flatwood forest, both of which are comprised of mixed pine and 

hardwood trees. The staff would conduct prescribed burning to mimic natural fire frequencies and 

maintain understory conditions for wildlife species (Frost 1995, 1998). It would also direct forest 

management operations at providing more vertical diversity (e.g., understory, midstory, canopy and 

superemergent trees) within each forest block in support of the habitat requirements of forest dwelling 

birds and other resident wildlife. 

Forest management would include the use of prescribed burning that, if not tightly controlled and 

supervised, has the potential to cause adverse impacts on environmental quality. The controls 

placed on prescribed burning minimize possible adverse effects on air quality from smoke and 

particulates and adjoining habitats and houses from fire. However, minimum short-term impacts do 

occur from prescribed burning, such as loss of cover from standing shrub and perennial herbaceous 

cover. Perennial herbaceous plants recover quickly from fire. The herbaceous plants produce 

substantially more palatable browse for wildlife than the shrubs controlled by the burning. Certain 

wildlife species, such as red-cockaded woodpeckers, prefer the open understory in their habitat. The 

shrubs destroyed by fire in the forest stands burned in any given year is small in its extent compared 

to the shrub cover available in other stands on the refuge and unmanaged areas off the refuge. 

Forest management would include the use of commercial timber harvest operations that, if not tightly 

controlled and supervised, have the potential to cause adverse impacts on environmental quality. 

The controls placed on harvesting operations minimize possible adverse effects caused by logging 

equipment, such as excessive defacement and negative impacts on surface water quality. However, 

minimum short-term impacts do occur from harvesting operations, such as actual mechanized 

operation disturbance to wildlife and trampling of the understory vegetation by equipment. The 

understory vegetation usually recovers in one growing season and usually is more beneficial to 

wildlife due to increased density and palatability caused by harvest operations (i.e., decreased 

competition and increased sunlight reaching the forest floor). 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
128 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The refuge would carry out commercial timber 

harvest operations only after the staff has completed a comprehensive forest inventory and prepared a 

Forest Habitat Management Plan. The staff would direct forest management operations at providing a 

desired future condition for the overall refuge forest. They would inventory individual forest stands, 

develop timber harvest prescriptions, and carry out timber harvest operations in a manner that would 

accomplish the refuge’s forest habitat management objectives for migratory birds, threatened and 

endangered species, and resident wildlife. Timber harvest operations would target select trees to be 

sold, and then commercial timber and pulpwood operators would remove the timber. Those same 

operators may also remove trees through a timber stand improvement operation or permittees can 

harvest the trees when commercial sales are not feasible. Operators would only take trees needing to be 

removed in order to improve the forest habitat for wildlife or to restore the integrity of the forested 

wetlands ecosystem. The staff may conduct forest management operations throughout the year, but only 

according to the guidelines detailed in a Forest Habitat Management Plan. 

Justification: The forest management actions proposed in the comprehensive conservation plan 

for Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge are in accordance with Service guidelines for the 

protection, management, and enhancement of habitats for wildlife populations on the refuge. 

Adherence to a Forest Habitat Management Plan promotes the enhancement of habitats for 

threatened and endangered species, migratory birds and resident wildlife species; promotes 

habitat restoration; protects cultural resources; and provides opportunities for public recreation 

and environmental education. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on January 17, 

2006 and ended on February 28, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 09/25/16
Appendices 129

Description of Use: Cropland Management Program

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge manages cropland and grasslands to provide highly nutritious 

annual grain crops and browse for waterfowl, songbirds, and mammals. The crops provide grain for 

geese and swans, wheat browse for geese and white-tailed deer, and food and cover for mammals 

and neotropical migratory songbirds from perennial grasslands. The refuge would conduct a 

cropland management program in accordance with an approved management plan that the refuge 

staff has developed in consultation with biologists in the Service and the USDA, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. The staff would direct cropland management towards providing grain and 

browse while protecting, restoring, and managing the functions and values of other habitats to 

support viable populations of flora and fauna consistent with sound biological principles. 

The staff would evaluate the cropland vegetation on the refuge and adapt the existing management plan 

in response to the data. This plan provides a comprehensive management prescription to achieve 

cropland habitat objectives over a 15-year planning cycle. Cropland management prescriptions include 

crop rotations, tillage systems, nutrient management, and integrated pest management. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is not adequate funding for the staff to evaluate the impacts of the croplands and make 

recommendations for adaptive management. The staff currently relies on biologists from other 

refuges and the Migratory Bird Field Office to evaluate the impacts and recommend changes in 

management. The comprehensive conservation plan proposes a cropland management program 

that would supplement the natural habitats for both migratory birds and resident wildlife, protect 

cultural resources, and provide opportunities for public recreation and environmental education. 

Evaluating the impacts of croplands and adapting management without assistance from other offices 

would require additional funding and staffing. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: It is anticipated that cropland management would supplement the 

natural habitats on the refuge (Ringelman 1990). The staff would direct cropland management 

operations at providing more types of grain and the proper balance of grain to browse from crops that 

meet the food cover requirements of the wildlife species of concern. The staff would monitor 

cooperative farmers’ compliance with the annual cooperative farming agreement that specifies crops 

to be planted, dates of planting, crops to be left in the field unharvested, pesticides to be used, and 

pesticide application techniques to be used.. 

The operations include tillage and the applications of nutrients and pesticides that enhance crop 

production, but that may cause non-point pollution. Tillage performed in accordance with a 

conservation plan developed by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, should not 

cause erosion that would result in sedimentation into aquatic ecosystems or carry nutrients or 

pesticides into those ecosystems. Nutrient management in accordance with soil test reports 

specifying the rates, timing, and formulations of nutrients should not cause runoff or percolation of 

nutrients. Pest management in accordance with an integrated pest management plan should result in 

scouting to assess pest problems and consideration of mechanical, cultural, and chemical techniques 

to control pests. Application of chemical pesticides in accordance with label directions should 

minimize the drift, runoff, and percolation of pesticides into the environment. 

The minimum short-term impacts from cropland management operations include soil disturbance by 

disking, and the loss of standing cover of weed species by mowing, disking, and herbicide 

application. The sown crops quickly cover the soil disturbed by tillage and produce grain and browse 

selected to supplement natural habitats. Rotating crops throughout the cropland acreage minimizes 

the need for fertilizer and pesticides, and alternates the heavy residue-producing crops (e.g., corn) 
130 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

with poor residue-producing crops (e.g., soybeans). The standing herbaceous cover disturbed in the 

cropland is close to the cover available from the perennial cover in field borders and in the 

undisturbed marshes and forests surrounding the cropland. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The refuge would carry out the cropland 

management in accordance with a management plan that specifies crops, crop rotation, tillage, 

nutrient management, and pest management. The staff would direct cropland management 

operations at supplementing natural habitats throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. They 

would revise cropland management agreements, and carry out cropland management operations in a 

manner that would accomplish the refuge’s cropland management objectives for migratory birds and 

resident wildlife. Without additional staffing monitoring the effectiveness of the program would not be 

done. A biologist would allow for a better implementation of the cropland program. 

Justification: The cropland management actions proposed in the comprehensive conservation plan 

for Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge are in accordance with Service guidelines for the 

protection, management, and enhancement of habitats for wildlife populations on the refuge. 

Adherence to the Cropland Management Plan supplements the natural habitats for both migratory 

birds and resident wildlife species; protects cultural resources; and provides opportunities for public 

recreation and environmental education. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on January 17, 

2006 and ended on February 28, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 09/25/16
Appendices 131

Description of Use: Refuge Resource Research Studies

This activity would allow university students and professors, non-governmental researchers and 

governmental scientists, access to the refuge’s natural environment to conduct both short-term and 

long-term research projects. The outcome of this research would result in better knowledge of our 

natural resources and improved methods to manage, monitor, and protect refuge resources. The 

refuge would support Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey research of neotropical 

migratory birds, waterfowl, bottomland hardwood restoration, amphibians and reptiles, forest bats, 

and yellow-crowned night herons. The refuge would make efforts to expand partnerships with North 

Carolina State University and other area universities to conduct research on the refuge associated 

with neotropical migratory songbirds. 

Availability of Resources: The refuge needs no additional fiscal resources to conduct this use if it is 

initiated by the university or agency conducting the research. Existing staff can administer permits and 

monitor use as part of routine management duties. Research initiated by the refuge would require funding 

through the Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS), Flex Fund Grants, or USGS Research Grants. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: There should be no significant negative impacts from scientific 

research on the refuge. The knowledge gained from the research would provide information to 

improve management techniques and better meet the needs of trust resource species. Impacts such 

as trampling vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife would occur, but should not be 

significant. Researchers may collect a small number of individual plants or animals for further study. 

These collections would have an insignificant effect on refuge plant and animal populations. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The staff would examine each request for use of the 

refuge for research on its individual merit. The questions of who, what, when, where, and why to 

determine if the requested research would contribute to the refuge purposes, and if the researchers could 

conduct it on the refuge without significantly affecting the resources, would be asked. If so, the refuge 

would issue a Special Use Permit to the researcher. The staff would monitor the progress and require 

the researcher to submit annual progress reports and copies of all publications derived from the research. 

Justification: The benefits derived from sound research provide a better understanding of species 

and the environmental communities present on the refuge. These benefits far outweigh any shortterm disturbance or loss of individual plant and animals that might occur. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on January 17, 

2006 and ended on February 28, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 
132 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 09/25/16
Appendices 133

Literature Cited 

Bookhout, T.A.. 1994. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth edition. 

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. 740 pp. 

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, ed., 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. 

Ringelman, J.K. 1990. Managing agricultural foods for waterfowl. In Laubhan, M.K., and D. 

Hamilton, Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Fort Collins, CO. 

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. 7 pp. 
134 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Approval of Compatibility Determination 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Mackay Island 

National Wildlife Refuge 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. 
Appendices 135

Appendix VI. Refuge Biota 

Animals - Birds 

A = Abundant, C = Common, U = Uncommon, O = Occasional, R = Rare 

ANIMALS 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS (Total Species - 187, Breeding Species - 60) 

Bittern, American* U U U U 

Bittern, Least* U U U U 

Blackbird, Red-winged* C C C C 

Bluebird, Eastern O O O 

Bobolink O 

Bobwhite, Northern* C C C C 

Bufflehead O U 

Bunting, Indigo U U 

Canvasback O O O 

Catbird, Gray* U U U U 

Cardinal, Northern* C C C C 

Chickadee, Carolina* C C C C 

Chuck-will’s Widow* U U 

Cormorant, Double-crested O O C C 

Coot, American* C R C C 

Cowbird, brown-headed* C C C C 

Creeper, Brown O O 

Crow, common* C C C C 

Crow, Fish U U U 

Cuckoo, black-billed R R 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed* C C C 

Dove, Mourning* C C C C 

Dove, Rock O O O O 

Dowitcher, Short-billed O 
136 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

BIRDS 

Duck, American Black* C O C C 

Duck, Ring-necked U U 

Duck, Ruddy C C 

Duck, Wood* C C C U 

Dunlin O 

Eagle, Bald* (Threatened) O O O 

Eagle, Golden R R 

Egret, Cattle C C O 

Egret, Great C C C C 

Egret, Snowy U U O O 

Falcon, Peregrine O O 

Finch, Purple O O O 

Flicker, Common* C C A C 

Flycatcher, Great Crested* C U 

Gadwall A A 

Gallinule, Purple R R 

Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray R R 

Goldeneye, Common R R 

Goldfinch, American U U 

Goose, Canada* O O U U 

Goose, Snow C R C A 

Grackle, Boat-tailed C C C C 

 Grackle, Common* C C C C 

Grebe, Horned O 

Grebe, Pied-billed O O O O 

Grebe, Red-billed R 

Grosbeak, Blue U U 

Grosbeak, Rose-breasted O O O 
Appendices 137

ANIMALS 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Gull, Bonaparte’s O O 

BIRDS 

Gull, Great Black-backed U U U 

Gull, Herring U U U U 

Gull, Laughing U U C C 

Gull, Ring-billed U U U 

Harrier, Northern C C C 

Hawk, Broad-winged U U 

Hawk, Cooper’s O U U 

Hawk, Red-shouldered O O O O 

Hawk, Red-tailed* U U U U 

Hawk, Rough-legged R 

Hawk, Sharp-shinned U U U 

Heron, Great Blue* C C C C 

Heron, Green* R 

Heron, Green-backed* C U U R 

Heron, Little Blue U U O 

Heron, Black-crowned Night O O O 

Heron, Tri-colored O O O 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night R R R 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated* U U 

Ibis, Glossy U U O O 

Ibis, White R 

Jay, Blue* U U C U 

Junco, Dark-eyed U U U 

Kestrel, American C C C 

Killdeer U U U O 

Kingbird, Eastern* U C U 

Kingfisher, Belted* C C C C 
138 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned O O O 

Loon, Common O O 

BIRDS 

Loon, Red-throated R R 

Mallard* C U C C 

Martin, Purple* U C 

Meadowlark, Eastern* C C C C 

Merganser, Hooded* R R U U 

Merganser, Red-breasted R R U U 

Merlin O O 

Mockingbird, Northern* C C C C 

Moorhen, Common* C C C U 

Nighthawk, Common* R R 

Nuthatch, White-breasted U U 

Oriole, Northern O 

Oriole, Orchard* U U 

Osprey* C C C 

Ovenbird O 

Owl, Barred R R 

Owl, Common Barn R R R R 

Owl, Eastern Screech C C C C 

Owl, Great Horned* U U U U 

Owl, Short-eared* R R R R 

Owl, Snowy R R 

Phoebe, Eastern C 

Pintail, Northern O C C 

Plover, Black-bellied R 

Plover, Semipalmated O 

Rail, Black* R R R R 
Appendices 139

ANIMALS 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Rail, King* C C C C 

Rail, Virginia* U U U U 

Redhead U U 

BIRDS 

Redstart, American U 

Robin, American* O U U O 

Sandpiper, Least O O O 

Sandpiper, Semipalmated U U O 

Sandpiper, Solitary R 

Sandpiper, Spotted U O U O 

Sandpiper, Western R 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied O O O O 

Scaup, Greater R R 

Scaup, Lesser O U U 

Shoveler, Northern U U U 

Sora* O O O O 

Snipe, Common U U U 

Sparrow, Chipping O C 

Sparrow, Field C C 

Sparrow, Fox U 

Sparrow, Savannah* C C C C 

Sparrow, Sharp-tailed R 

Sparrow, Song* C C C 

Sparrow, Swamp C C 

Sparrow, White-crowned O 

Sparrow, White-throated C C C 

Starling, European* C C C U 

Stilt, Black-necked R 

Swallow, Barn C C C 
140 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Swallow, Northern Rough-winged R R R 

Swallow, Tree C C A O 

Teal, American Green-winged C C C 

Teal, Blue-winged C C C 

BIRDS 

Tern, Black U 

Tern, Caspian O O O 

Tern, Common U C U 

Tern, Forster’s R O O 

Tern, Least O O 

Tern, Royal R R 

Tern, Sooty R 

Thrasher, Brown* C C C C 

Thrush, Hermit U 

Titmouse, Tufted* U C C 

Towhee, Rufous-sided* C C 

Turnstone, Ruddy R 

Vireo, Red-eyed* O O 

Vireo, White-eyed* U C 

Vulture, Black R R O O 

Vulture, Turkey C C A A 

Warbler, Black-and-white R 

Warbler, Black-throated Green O 

Warbler, Blackpoll O 

Warbler, Hooded O 

Warbler, Magnolia O 

Warbler, Northern Parula R 

Warbler, Palm C 

Warbler, Pine R 
Appendices 141

ANIMALS 

SPECIES SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER 

Warbler, Prairie* C C 

Warbler, Prothonotary* C C O 

Warbler, Yellow O 

Warbler, Yellow-rumped C A A 

Warbler, Yellow-throated O R 

BIRDS 

Waxwing, Cedar O O O 

Wigeon, American U C C 

Wigeon, Eurasian R R 

Willet R 

Woodcock, American O R O R 

Woodpecker, Downy U U U U 

Woodpecker, Hairy U R R R 

Woodpecker, Pileated* U U U U 

Woodpecker, Red-bellied U U U O 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded* R R 

Woodpecker, Red-headed R R R R 

Wood-pewee, Eastern* C O 

Wren, Carolina* C C C C 

Wren, House* U U O 

Wren, Marsh* U U U U 

Yellow-throat, Common* C C O 

Yellowlegs, Greater O O 

Yellowlegs, Lesser O O R 

*species with confirmed breeding records 
142 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS (continued) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

MAMMALS 

Cottontail, Eastern Sylvilagus floridanus 

Deer, White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus 

Fox, Grey Urocyon cinereogrenteus 

Fox, Red Vulpes fulva 

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 

TURTLES 

Cooter, Florida Chrysemys floridana floridana
Appendices 143

ANIMALS (continued) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

TURTLES 

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 

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 
144 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS (continued) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

SNAKES 

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 

SALAMANDERS 

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 

Anole, Green (Carolina Anole) Anolis carolinensis 
Appendices 145

ANIMALS (continued) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Lizard, Fence Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus 

LIZARDS 

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 

FROGS AND TOADS 

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 
146 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS (continued) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Toad, Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Gastrophryne carolinensis 

FROGS AND TOADS 

Toad, Fowlers Bufo woodhousei fowleri 

Toad, Oak Bufo quercicus 

Toad, Southern Bufo terrestris 

FISH 

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 
Appendices 147

ANIMALS (continued) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Flounder, Southern Paralichthys lethostigma 

FISH 

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 

Snapper, Gray Lutjanus griseus 
148 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ANIMALS (continued) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Spot Leiotomus xanthurus 

FISH 

Sunfish, Bluespotted Enneacarthus gloriosus 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

INSECTS 

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. 
Appendices 149

ANIMALS (continued) 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Waterscorpions 

Paracymus nanus 

Prodladius sp. 

Tendipes riparius 

Tendipes sp. 

Triaenodes sp. 

Uvarus sp. 

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

TREES 

Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 

Bay, Sweet Magnolia virginiana 

Cedar, Eastern Red Juniperus virginiana 

Cherry, Black Prunus serotina 

Chinaberry (Exotic) Melia azedarach 

Dogwood, Flowering Cornus florida 

Holly, American Ilex opaca 

Locust, Black Robinia pseudo-acacia 

Maple, Red Acer rubrum 

Maple, Silver Acer saccharinum 

Mulberry, Red Morus rubra 

Oak, Laurel Quercus laurifolia 

Oak, Water Quercus nigra 

Oak, Willow Quercus phellos 

Pecan Carya illinoensis 

Persimmon, Common Diospyros virginiana 
150 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Pine, Loblolly Pinus taeda 

TREES 

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 

Tree, Toothache Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 

Tupelo, Swamp Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora 

Willow, Black Salix nigra 

Wilow, Coastal Plain, Ward’s, Swamp Salix caroliniana 

Wilow, Sandbar Salix exigua 

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 

Butterflybush (Exotic) Buddelja davidii 

Dewberry, Prickly Rubus flagellaris 

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 

Juniper, Chinese (Exotic) Juniperus chinense 

Juniper, Shore (Exotic) Juniperus conferta 

Maple, Japanese Red (Exotic) Acer palmatum 
Appendices 151

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Oak, Dwarf Quercus prinoides 

SHRUBS 

Oak, Scrub Quercus marilandica 

Olive, Autumn (Exotic) Eleaegnus umbellata 

Privet, Chinese (Exotic) Ligustrum chinense 

Rose, Swamp Rosa palustris 

Shadbush, Serviceberry Amelanchier candensis 

Sumac, Winged Rhus copallina 

Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera 

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 

Honeysuckle, Japanese (Exotic)l Lonicera japonica 

Ivy, Poison Rhus radicans 

Trumpetcreeper Campsis radicans 

Vine, Pepper Ampelopsis arborea 

Wisteria (Exotic) Wisteria chinensis 

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Alligatorweed (Exotic) Alternanthera philoxeroides 

Arrowhead, Awl-leaf Sagittaria subulata 
152 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Arrowhead, Broadleaf Sagittaria latifolia 

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Arrowhead, Bulltongue Sagittaria lancifolia 

Aster, Bushy Aster dumosus 

Aster, Slender Aster tenuifolius 

Beach Heath Hudsonia tomentosa 

Bean, Wild Strophostyles helvola 

Bedstraw, Catchweed Galium aparine 

Beggarticks, Smooth Bidens laevis 

Bladderwort Utricularia spp. 

Buttercup, Celery-Leaf Ranunculus sceleratus 

Buttonweed Diodia spp. 

Cactus Opuntia compressa 

Camphor Weed Pluchea purpurascens 

Centella Centella asiatica 

Cherry, Ground Physalis visocosa ssp. maritima 

Chickweed, Mouse-Ear Cerastium vicosum 

Clover, Crimson (Exotic) Trifolium incarnatum 

Clover, White (Exotic) Trifolium repens 

Cocklebur, Rough Xanthium strumarium 

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum 

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 
Appendices 153

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Dandelion, Dwarf Krigia virginica 

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Dock, Curly Rumex crispa 

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 

Fleabane Pluchea pupurascens 

Frogbit Limnobium spongia 

Frogfruit Lippia lanceolata 

Goldenrod, Anisescented Solidago odora 

Goldenrod, Rough-leaved Solidago rugosa 

Goldentop, Slender Euthamia tenuifolia 

Goldenrod, Sweet Euthamia graminifolia 

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 

Ironweed, Tall Vernonia gigantea 

Jessamine, Yellow Gelsemium sempervirens 
154 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Jimsonweed (Exotic) Datura stramonium 

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Lespedeza, Sericea (Exotic) Lespedeza cuneata 

Lettuce, Wild Lactuca canadensis 

Lobelia, Downy Lobelia puberula 

Loosestrife, False Ludwigia alternifolia 

Mallow, Seashore Kosteletzkya virginica 

Marigold, Nodding Bur Bidens cernua 

Medic, Black (Exotic) Medicago lupalina 

Milfoil, Eurasian (Exotic) Myriophyllum spicatum 

Milfoil, Water Myriophyllum exalbescens 

Monarda, Dotted Monarda punctata 

Morningglory, Saltmarsh Ipomoea sagittata 

Mudflower, Shade Micranthemum umbrosum 

Mudwort, Awl-leaf Limosella subulata 

Nettle, Horse Solanum carolinense 

Niad Najas quadalupensis 

Pea, Partridge Cassia fasciculata 

Pearlwort, Trailing Sagina decumbens 

Pennywort, Water 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 
Appendices 155

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Plantain, Pale Seed Plantago virginica 

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

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 

Skullcap, Hyssop Scutellaria integrifolia 

Smartweed, Dotted Polygonum punctatum 

Sorrel, Sheep Rumex hastatulus 

Soybean (Exotic) Glycine max 

St. Andrews Cross Hypericum stragalum 

Starwort, Water Callitriche heterophylla 

Sweetclover, White Melilotus alba 

Tea, Mexican Chenopodium ambrosioides 

Thistle, Russian Salsola kali 
156 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Thistle, Yellow Cirsium horridulum 

FORBS (BROADLEAF HERBACEOUS PLANTS) 

Thoroughwort, Late-flowering Eupatorium hyssopifolium 

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 

GRASSES 

Bahiagrass (Exotic) Paspalum notatum 

Barnyardgrass (Exotic) Echinochloa crusgalli 

Bermudagrass (Exotic) Cynodon dactylon 

Bluegrass, Annual Poa annua 

Bluestem, Bushybeard Andropogon glomeratus 

Bluestem, Little Schizachyrium scoparium 

Bluestem, Splitbeard Andropogon ternarius 

Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus 

Cordgrass, Big Spartina cynosuroides 

Cordgrass, Saltmeadow Spartina patens 

Cordgrass, Smooth Spartina alterniflora 

Corn Zea mays 

Crabgrass (Exotic) Digitaria spp. 

Cutgrass, Rice Leersia oryzoides 
Appendices 157

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Dallisgrass (Exotic) Paspalum dilatatum 

GRASSES 

Deertongue Dichanthelium clandestinum 

Eelgrass Vallisneria americana 

Fescue, Tall (Exotic)l Lolium arundinaceum 

Foxtail Setaria virdis 

Grass, American Cupscale Sacciolepis striata 

Grass, Blue-eyed Sisyrinchium mucronatum 

Grass, Widgeon Ruppia maritima 

Grass, Yellow-eyed Xyris difformis 

Grass, Yellow-eyed Xyris jupicai 

Johnsongrass (Exotic) Sorghum halpense 

Knotgrass Paspalum distichum 

Maidencane Panicum hemitomom 

Millet (Exotic) Setaria spp. 

Orangegrass Hypericum gentianoides 

Orchardgrass (Exotic) Dactylis glomerata 

Panicgrass, Beaked Panicum anceps 

Panicgrass, Velvet Dichanthelium scoparium 

Panicum, Fall Panicum dichotomiflorum 

Plumegrass, Sugarcane Saccharum giganteum 

Reed, Common (Exotic) Phragmites australis 

Ryegrass, Annual (Exotic) Lolium multiflorum 

Saltgrass, Seashore Distichlis spicata 

Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense 

Sorghum Sorghum bicolor 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 
158 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Watergrass Hydrochloa spp. 

GRASSES 

Wheat (Exotic) Triticum aestivum 

Woodoats, Slender Chasmanthium laxum 

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 

Flatsedge, Strawcolored Cyperus strigosus 

Iris, Virginia Iris virginica 

Rush, Canada Juncus canadensis 

Rush, Turnflower Juncus biflorus 

Rush, Black Needle Juncus roemerianus 

Rush, Leathery Juncus coriaceus 

Rush, Soft Juncus effusus 

Sedge, Egg-bracted Carex ovalis 

Spikerush, Blunt Eleocharis obtusa 

Spikeruch, Dwarf Eleocharis parvula 

Spikerush, Foursquare Elocharis quadrangulata 

Spikerush, Small-Fruit Elocharis microcarpa 

Spikerush, Yellow Eleocharis flavescens 

Threesquare, Common Scirpus pungens 

Threesquare, Olney Scirpus olneyi 
Appendices 159

FLORA 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus 

FERN 

Fern, Cinnamon Osmunda cinnamomea 

Fern, Netted Chain Woodwardia areolata 

MOSS 

Moss, Spanish Tillandsia usneoides 
160 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 161

Appendix VII. Priority Bird Species and their 

Habitats 

Species/Feature Status1

Habitat 

Brackish 

Marsh 

Coastal Fringe 

Evergreen 

Forest 

Managed 

Wetlands 

(Moist Soil 

Units) 

Bald Eagle FL X X 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker FL X 

West Indian Manatee FL X 

Sharp-tailed Sparrow SC X 

Prairie Warbler SC X 

Hooded Warbler SC X 

Prothonotary Warbler SC X 

Black-throated Green Warbler SC X 

Yellow-throated Warbler SC X 

Northern Parula SC X X 

King Rail SC X 

Snow Goose SC X 

Tundra Swan SC X 

Wood Duck SC X 

American Black Duck SC X 

Mallard SC X 

American Wigeon SC X 

Blue-winged Teal SC X 

Green-winged Teal SC X 

Ruddy duck SC X 

Northern Pintail SC X 

1

 FL=Federally-Listed, SC=Species of Management Concern 
162 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 163

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 the 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. Since both 

refuges are managed as one administrative unit, many projects listed as Currituck Refuge projects 

would benefit Mackay Island Refuge equally. 

Project 97004 Habitat Improvement for Waterfowl and Shorebirds 

First Time Request $130,000, Recurring Request $56,000 

Station Rank - 6 (Currituck Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to improve management on a 150-acre natural impoundment 

(flats) on Currituck Refuge and initiate and force account farming program on 250 acres of cropland 

on the Mackay Island Refuge. The refuge would 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 would 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 would also provide a maintenance worker to convert the cooperative farming program at 

Mackay Island Refuge to a force account program. There is currently only one farmer available to 

enroll in the cooperative agreement and it is possible that he may discontinue his participation. At 

that time, the refuge would initiate a force account program. The primary purpose of this program 

would 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 Refuge 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 Mackay Island and 

Currituck Refuges. The biologist would 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 biologically is currently gathered 

sporadically or not at all. This project would 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 Refuge Tier 2) 
164 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

This project would provide the funding for a contract to conduct comprehensive archaeological 

resource surveys on Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges. The surveys would document historical 

use by Native Americans, European colonists, and other groups. The area of the refuges and the 

area surrounding the refuges have a rich history, primarily due to proximity to water and abundant 

natural resources. The survey would focus on Native American, early colonial, Revolutionary War, 

and Civil War cultural resources. The refuges need this survey to develop resource and public use 

plans and comprehensive conservation plans. 

Project 97011 Fire Management Program Improvements 

First Year Request $81,000, Recurring Request $2,000 

Station Rank - 4 (Mackay Island Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding for a contract a multi-year (3-5 year) study on Mackay 

Island Refuge 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 3-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 Refuge Tier 1) 

This project would 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 interpretive materials, programs, and displays at Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges. The 

position would 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 area with more than one million residents. Requests for environmental education and 

interpretive 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 Refuge Tier 1) 

This project would provide the funding to control exotic phragmites on Mackay Island and Currituck 

Refuges. This species quickly spreads in wetland habitats, forms dense stands, and essentially 

eliminates native plant species where these dense stands form. This weed has limited value for 

native wildlife. It currently covers approximately 200 acres of the refuges. This exotic plant would 

continue to expand in the refuges’ extensive wetlands unless control measures are implemented. 

Ducks Unlimited partnered with the Service 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to inventory existing forest resources and contract for the 

development of forest management plans for Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges. The refuges have 

more than 2,750 acres of forest habitat that the staff has neither inventoried nor managed. The habitat is 

beginning to deteriorate due to lack of management (i.e., frequent disease outbreaks, wind damage). 
Appendices 165

Project 99004 Administrative Management Improvement 

First Year Request $77,500, Recurring Request $44,000 

Station Rank - 2 (Mackay Island Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to employ a full-time office assistant to improve administrative 

operation and outreach for Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges. The staff for both refuges is six 

permanent and two seasonal employees. As the biological and public use programs expand, the 

workload would be more than one office assistant could 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 Refuge Tier 1) 

This project would 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 Mackay Island 

and Currituck Refuges. The technician would 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, and monitoring and mapping submerged aquatic 

vegetation in refuge impoundments. Much of this information is currently not being gathered and is 

impacting management’s ability to make compatibility determinations and other management decisions. 

Project 00002 Outreach from Visitor Contact Station 

First Year Request $70,000, Recurring Request $16,000 

Station Rank - 3 (Mackay Island Refuge Tier 1) 

This project would provide the funding to develop new outreach tools to include displays, interpretive 

materials, and signs for the Visitor Contact Station. The project would 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding for a college graduate student to research and evaluate the 

changes in marsh habitat beginning in the 1920s to the present. The student would compare current 

aerial photographs of the Middle Marsh area of 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 would 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, it may become significant and restoration may become difficult or unlikely due to 

loss of soil. 

Project 00005 Water Quality Monitoring 

First Year Request $15,500, Recurring Request $6,500 

Station Rank - 6 (Mackay Island Refuge Tier 1) 

Combined Station Tier 1 Rank - 8 (Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges) 

Combined Station Rank - 19 (Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges) 
166 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

This project would provide the funding to purchase water quality monitoring equipment and fund 

water testing in refuge impoundments and mitigation area on the Mackay Island Refuge. The 

monitoring would 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 Refuge Tier 1) 

This project would 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 and Currituck Refuges. The project would add six waterfowl 

surveys and six shorebird surveys that the refuge had discontinued due to rising costs. The surveys 

would contribute valuable information to regional and national databases. Little is known about the 

neotropical birds on Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges. This information would allow the staff to 

make sound management decisions. The project would fund two habitat surveys annually. It would 

allow an annual survey of the Swan Island Impoundment on Currituck Refuge to help make 

management decisions. The staff has not completed the survey in five years. The project would also 

fund habitat enclosures to monitor the impacts of wild horses on Currituck Refuge. 

Project 00009 Fire Management Program Expansion 

First Year Request $85,000, Recurring Request $69,000 

Station Rank - 3 (Mackay Island Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to employ a fire management specialist and purchase 

equipment to facilitate an expanded fire management program. The project would allow the Mackay 

Island and Currituck Refuges to increase the area of prescribed fire by 3,500 acres and respond to 

wildfires. Current 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 administer 

prescribed burns on a 3-year rotation. 

Project 00010 Fisheries Survey 

One Time Request $20,000 

Station Rank - 10 (Mackay Island Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding for a comprehensive survey of existing fisheries on Mackay 

Island Refuge. The survey would sample impoundments, bays, creeks, and canals on the refuge. 

There is little information on 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to employ an assistant manager for Currituck Refuge. The 

assistant manager would 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 Refuge currently manage the Currituck Refuge office on Knotts Island, North Carolina. 

As the Currituck Refuge grows, it would become more and more difficult to manage the refuge from 

across the sound. When acquisition is complete, the refuge would span 25 miles from the North 

Carolina/Virginia 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. 
Appendices 167

Project 00012 Fisheries Survey 

One Time Request $20,000 

Station Rank - 8 (Currituck Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding for a comprehensive survey of existing fisheries on Currituck 

Refuge. The survey would sample impoundments, bays, creeks, and canals on the refuge. There is 

little information on 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to employ a biological technician to establish a program to monitor 

and control the rapidly increasing nutria population on Mackay Island Refuge. The nutria is an exotic 

animal 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 would 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 Refuge Tier 1) 

This project would 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding for two studies on the impacts of feral horses on the habitat of 

Currituck Refuge. One would be an enclosure study to evaluate the habitat impacts resulting from 

the feral horses. The second would be a movement study to determine animal movements on a 

seasonal basis. Each would be an extensive 3-year research study. Currently a small herd of feral 

horses roam the outer bank areas north of Corolla, North Carolina. An intensive evaluation is needed 

to determine impacts and to 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding for a research study of the history of the Corolla Navy Gunnery 

Site on the Monkey Island Unit of Currituck Refuge. Nobody knows much about this historic use. 

Some unexploded ordnance is present and occasional passing storms uncover additional ordnance. 

There is a need for research into the extent of ordnance on the refuge to help determine the level of 

cleanup necessary and the level of public use that can currently occur in this area. Without this 

research, the refuge cannot plan development on this unit. 
168 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 00018 Weekend Public Access Improvement 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $49,000 

Station Rank - 7 (Mackay Island Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to hire a public use specialist (outdoor recreation planner) to 

staff the Mackay Island Refuge 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 would allow that area and the Kitchin Impoundment to 

be open for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, environmental education, and 

outreach. The public use specialist would also manage the Currituck Refuge waterfowl hunts. 

Demand for public use activities is increasing every year. The demand would increase even more 

when the refuge develops the recreation facilities at the Kitchin Impoundment. The demand for 

weekend activity on the refuge is growing more than the demand for activity during the week. Failure 

to staff the headquarters on the weekend would 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to employ an additional maintenance worker to maintain 

vehicles and equipment. As the staff and refuges increase in size, there would be additional needs 

for maintenance work. Currently, the two employees perform all the maintenance on the 12,000 

acres of both Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges. They struggle at keeping up with the current 

workload. This position would 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 would limit the proper maintenance of vehicles and equipment. 

Project 00020 Newly Acquired Tract Posting 

One Time Request $20,000 

Station Rank - 9 (Currituck Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to post the boundaries of three newly acquired tracts on 

Currituck Refuge with signs. The tracts are: Currituck Marsh, Station Landing, and Ocean 

Associates. The project would fund signs, posts, and hardware. Currently, the staff has only posted a 

few signs in the more visible areas. Failure to post these areas would 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to employ a half-time office assistant to improve administrative 

operation and outreach for Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges. The staff for both refuges is six 

permanent and two seasonal employees. As the biological and public use programs expand, the 

workload would be more than one office assistant could handle. The current position handles 

budgeting, purchasing, time-keeping, and personnel, as well as all other clerical duties. 
Appendices 169

Project 03000 Refuge Officer 

First Year Request $65,000, Recurring Request $71,000 

Station Rank - 1 (Currituck Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to employ a law enforcement officer. With the Department of 

Interior’s mandated reduction in dual function officers, this refuge would have a lack of law 

enforcement presence. By providing an additional refuge officer to fill the void, the safety of the 

visiting public would be increased, as well as the refuge’s ability to provide much needed protection 

for refuge natural resources and facilities. The addition of a full-time officer would 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would 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 Refuge Tier 2) 

This project would provide the funding to plan and implement a big game hunting program. 
170 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 
Appendices 171

Currituck 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 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 
172 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MMS) PROJECTS 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost Station Rank 

Station 

Name 

94001 Mackay Island Road 

Resurfacing 2011+ $342,000 25+ Mackay Island 

95004 Bulls Bay Bulkhead 

Replacement 2009 $129,000 12 Mackay Island 

95005 Bellows Bay Bulkhead 

Replacement 2008 $169,000 13 Mackay Island 

96003 Long Dike 

Resurfacing 2011+ $1,082,000 20 Mackay Island 

96005 Fire Cache 

Rehabilitation 2005 $51,000 1 Mackay Island 

96008 Mackay Island Road 

Resurfacing 2011+ $514,000 21 Mackay Island 

97003 

Old RONS 

Observation Platform 

and Fishing Pier 

Construction 

2011+ $31,000 6 Mackay Island 

97006 Office Bulkhead 

Replacement 2009 $37,000 7 Mackay Island 

97007 

Old RONS 

Observation/ 

Photography Blind 

Construction 

2011+ $31,000 8 Mackay Island 

97007 East Pool Parallel 

Dike Rehabilitation 2007 $32,000 8 Mackay Island 

97008 

Old RONS 

Electric Fence 

Construction 2011+ $70,000 25+ Currituck 

97033 Astro Van 

Replacement 2004 $31,000 25+ Mackay Island 

99002 Long Dike Repair 2006 $135,000 3 Mackay Island 

99004 

Old RONS 

Satellite Headquarters 

Construction 2011+ $204,000 9 Currituck 

00003 

1989 Blue Dodge 

Pickup Truck 

Replacement 

2004 $28,000 25+ Mackay Island 

00004 

Monkey Island 

Bulkhead 

Replacement 

2011+ $1,200,000 1 Currituck 

00008 

Old RONS 

Fire Management 

Facility Expansion 2011+ $80,000 25+ Mackay Island 

00011 Office Entrance Road 

Rehabilitation 2011+ $131,000 25+ Mackay Island 
Appendices 173

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost Station Rank 

Station 

Name 

00015 

Old RONS 

Additional Shop Bay 

Construction 2011+ $78,000 10 Mackay Island 

00016 Office Parking Lot 

Rehabilitation 2011+ $62,000 25+ Mackay Island 

00017 Office Entrance 

Road Rehabilitation 2011+ $274,000 25 Mackay Island 

00018 

Refuge 

Headquarters 

Expansion 

2010 $334,000 4 Mackay Island 

01001 

Mackay Island 

Bulkhead 

Replacement 

2011 $814,000 2 Mackay Island 

01002 1998 Airboat 

Replacement 2011+ $27,000 17 Mackay Island 

01003 D-4 Dozer 

Replacement 2011+ $159,000 24 Mackay Island 

01004 Heavy Duty Disc 

Replacement 2011+ $10,000 25+ Mackay Island 

01005 Backhoe 

Replacement 2011+ $90,000 25+ Mackay Island 

01006 

Tracked Marsh 

Vehicle 

Replacement 

2011+ $94,000 16 Mackay Island 

01007 14-Foot Rotary 

Mower Replacement 2011+ $14,000 4 Mackay Island 

01008 

16-Inch High 

Volume Lift Pump 

Replacement 

2011+ $8,000 10 Mackay Island 

01010 

1996 4X4 Ford 

Tractor 

Replacement 

2011+ $87,000 25+ Mackay Island 

01011 

1988 Case 585 

Tractor 

Replacement 

2011+ $47,000 14 Mackay Island 

01012 1991 15 Ton Tilt Bed 

Trailer Replacement 2011+ $16,000 23 Mackay Island 

01013 1998 Tilt Bed Trailer 

Replacement 2011+ $9,000 25+ Mackay Island 

01014 

1996 4X4 Dodge 

Dakota 

Replacement 

2011+ $33,000 5 Mackay Island 

01016 2001 Chevrolet 

Tahoe Replacement 2011+ $37,000 25+ Mackay Island 
174 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost Station Rank 

Station 

Name 

01017 

1999 Ford F-250 

4X4 Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $26,000 22 Mackay Island 

01018 

1999 Ford F-250 

4X4 Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $26,000 19 Mackay Island 

01019 

1995 Ford F-250 

4X4 Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $26,000 11 Mackay Island 

01020 

1995 Ford F-150 

4X4 Extended Cab 

Truck Replacement 

2011+ $29,000 9 Mackay Island 

01022 East Pool Pump 

Replacement 2004 $40,000 25+ Mackay Island 

02001 New Office Building 

Construction 2011 $972,000 12 Mackay Island 

02002 

Great Marsh Natural 

Hydrology 

Restoration 

2011 $577,000 25+ Mackay Island 

02003 

Visitor Contact 

Station/Research 

Facility Construction 

2011 $313,000 5 Currituck 

02004 

18-Foot Boat, 60-HP 

Motor, and Trailer 

Replacement 

2011+ $13,000 25+ Mackay Island 

02005 

2001 John Deere 

670CH Motor 

Grader Replacement 

2011+ $157,000 25+ Mackay Island 

02006 2001 Kubota M8200 

Replacement 2011+ $47,000 25+ Mackay Island 

02007 2001 Alamo Side 

Mower Replacement 2011+ $8,000 25+ Mackay Island 

02008 

2001 Ingersoll-Rand 

RT 706H Forklift 

Replacement 

2011+ $42,000 25+ Mackay Island 

02009 1991 Chevrolet Fire 

Engine Replacement 2011+ $84,000 6 Mackay Island 

02010 Refuge Parking Lot 

Resurfacing 2011+ $42,000 25+ Mackay Island 

02011 

20-Foot Boat, 70-HP 

Motor, and Trailer 

Replacement 

2011+ $16,000 25+ Mackay Island 
Appendices 175

Project 

Number Project Name Year Planned Cost Station Rank 

Station 

Name 

02012 

Proclamation 

Boundary 

Re-Survey and 

Posting 

2006 $26,000 2 Mackay Island 

03001 Shop Entrance Road 

Rehabilitation 2011+ $95,000 25+ Mackay Island 

03002 Live Oak Point Road 

Rehabilitation 2011+ $435,000 25+ Mackay Island 

03003 Hog Pen Point Road 

Rehabilitation 2011+ $568,000 25+ Mackay Island 

03004 Cross Dike Road 

Rehabilitation 2011+ $317,000 25+ Mackay Island 

03005 Office Entrance 

Road Rehabilitation 2011+ $430,000 25+ Mackay Island 

03006 Five Refuge Parking 

Lots Rehabilitation 2011+ $57,000 25+ Mackay Island 

03007 

Storage 

Building/Garage 

Construction 

2010 $77,000 11 Mackay Island 

04001 

2003 Ford F250 

Extended Bed Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $28,000 25+ Mackay Island 

04002 

2003 Freightliner 

6X4 Stake Bed 

Dump Truck 

Replacement 

2011+ $70,000 25+ Mackay Island 

04003 

30-Inch Pump and 

Bulkhead 

Replacement 

2011+ $60,000 15 Mackay Island 

04004 Bunkhouse 

Replacement 2011+ $38,000 18 Mackay Island 

04005 Fire Cache/ Quarters 

Replacement 2011+ $400,000 7 Mackay Island 

04005 Residence Entrance 

Road Rehabilitation 2011+ $60,000 25+ Mackay Island 

04006 Shop Building 

Replacement 2011+ $600,000 3 Mackay Island 
176 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 177

Appendix IX. Biological Review 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Biological Review of 

National Wildlife Refuges 

of the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem, 

in Northeastern North Carolina and Southeastern Virginia 

July 2002 

MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge should utilize the existing 800 acres and develop additional 

managed wetlands, to eventually provide 1,025 to 1,225 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. 

Using sound professional judgment, consider providing as much open mudflat in impoundments as 

considered practical from mid-July to early-October for shorebirds. Conduct alternate drawdowns 

among impoundments as necessary within and among seasons. 

As soon as possible, see that the 125-acre Kitchen Impoundment is restored, operational, and 

coordinated with the water management plans of the other impoundments. 

In the long term (3 to 10 years), an additional 100 to 300 acres of managed wetlands (1 to 3 units) 

should be developed. Any ditched and drained wetlands or “prior converted” croplands that are 

acquired should be considered for meeting this objective. 

Cooperative farming or contract/force account farming should be employed to ensure at least 75 to 

100 acres of refuge share hot foods (corn preferred) are available for waterfowl. 

Utilize USDA, NRCS-approved rotation of crops, focusing on corn, beans, and wheat. Ensure crop 

fields are open enough (wide enough) to attract geese and swans. 

Support the North Carolina Sanctuary Areas. Work with ecosystem teams to give high priority to the 

hot foods, private landowners sanctuary program. 

Work with adjacent landowners who have hunt sites surrounding the refuge to knock down their hot 

foods (corn) once the hunting seasons are over. Judge the possibility for refuge to help achieve this 

using refuge personnel and equipment. 

Maintain the fields at Live Oak Point for goose browse production. 

Spot surveys of submerged aquatic vegetation for affected open water areas and coordination with 

other State and Federal agencies on submerged aquatic vegetation monitoring programs. 
178 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Research is needed on the effects of boating disturbance (recreational and commercial) on wintering 

waterfowl and other seabirds. 

No obvious changes from present management of emergent wetlands appear necessary. However, 

an extensive network of secretive marshbird survey routes should be established to help determine 

both status and response to habitat management across the refuge. 

Monitor fire effects on the marsh vegetation. 

A more detailed assessment (cruise) of forest resources is needed, but it appeared to the Team that 

it would be difficult to justify an active forestry program (i.e., administrating timber sales) at this time. 

Emphasis should be on improving stand structure and increasing hardwood component (while 

maintaining loblolly pine as a co-dominant). 

Consider reforestation if co-op cropland comes out of production. Emphasize hardwood and 

particularly oaks in the plantings. 

Section 1. Summary of Recommendations by Habitat Type 

MARINE/SOUND/BAY WATERS

In Virginia, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge comprise an 

estimated 25 percent of the Back Bay water area, and comprise about one-third of the Back Bay 

watershed. Salinity in Back Bay is “borderline fresh-brackish,” with salt concentrations of 1 to 3 parts-perthousand (Data from Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge during 2001 indicate range of 2 to 5 ppt, 

average of 3.4). This is the result of no nearby saltwater/ocean inlet, and the influence of numerous 

freshwater creeks emptying into Back Bay. Average bay depths range from 2 to 6 feet. Occasional “wind 

tides” are the only tidal influence in Back Bay. Strong, steady north winds will “blow out the bay,” leaving 

mud/sand flats; while strong, steady south winds will fill and flood the bay, adjacent wetlands, and 

connecting waterways and ditches. The nearest ocean inlet is Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, 50 miles 

south of the Virginia-North Carolina border. Therefore, there is no lunar tidal influence in Back Bay. The 

predominant submerged aquatic vegetation species of Back Bay are Milfoils (Myriophyllum spp.), Sago 

pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) and Widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima). 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge Sound Waters 

Waters in Buck Island Bay, Little Bellows Bay, and Minger’s Cove (portions of Currituck Sound), totaling 

approximately 185 acres, are included in the refuge boundary as a result of condemnation proceedings. 

A Presidential Proclamation Area of approximately 1,025 acres exists around the southern and western 

portions of the refuge in Currituck Sound and Back Bay. This area is closed to all waterfowl hunting. 

Key management species are: 

• American black duck 

• Black scoter 

• Atlantic brant 

• Lesser scaup 

• Canvasback 

• Red-throated loon 

• Common loon 
Appendices 179

Specific management recommendations are: 

• Beached bird surveys are needed for exposed beaches on affected refuges and possible 

coordination with private landowners of adjacent beach properties. 

• Research is needed on the effects of boating disturbance (recreational and commercial) on 

wintering waterfowl and other seabirds. 

• Spot surveys of submerged aquatic vegetation for affected open-water areas and coordination 

with other State and Federal agencies on long-term submerged aquatic vegetation monitoring 

programs. 

FRESHWATER POOLS/PONDS/LAKES

The following community types fall under this habitat type and should be identified as potential 

“Natural Communities” where they occur on refuge lands. Many of these will not be delineated in 

acreage figures at end of this document. 

• Interdune Ponds 

• Vernal Pools 

• Oxbow Lakes 

• Coastal Plain Semi-permanent Impoundment 

This habitat type is a prominent habitat feature of the refuge and is characterized by shallow lake 

basins ranging from 0.5 to 6 feet deep. The source of water for these lakes is rainfall and surface 

runoff. Water pH ranges from neutral to slightly acidic. Submerged aquatic vegetation is an 

important habitat component. The most common type of submerged aquatic vegetation is wild 

celery, redhead grass, and musk grass. Slightly acidic lakes have little or no submerged aquatic 

vegetation. 

Key management species are: 

• American black duck 

• Tundra swan 

• Canada geese (migrant Atlantic population) 

• Northern pintail 

• Bald eagle 

MARSHES/GRASSLANDS

The following community types fall under this category and should be identified as potential “Natural 

Communities” where they occur on refuge lands. Many of these will not be delineated in acreage 

figures at end of this document. 

• Salt marsh 

• Brackish marsh 

• Freshwater marsh 

• Tidal freshwater marsh 

• Natural shoreline 
180 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Marsh - This category of habitat types includes brackish and freshwater marsh and associated 

high marsh, as well as moist-soil management areas and impoundments. The majority of marsh 

lies adjacent to the sounds at the refuge. Much of the natural brackish marsh has a natural fire 

frequency of 1-3 years, but has endured fire exclusion during the past half century or longer. As a 

result, much of the natural brackish marsh is suffering from a lack of species diversity as only one 

to three species of marsh grasses dominate the wetter or lower marshes, and encroaching brush 

has now dominated the high marshes. Large mats of thatch and storm debris have drifted up in 

long wide tide lines, suffocating large strips of marsh. Dead grass makes up a large component 

of the remaining marsh stands, limiting plant productivity and nutrient availability and adversely 

affecting wildlife habitat. Notable exceptions are the Mackay Island Refuge marshes that have 

been managed with fire for the past 30+ years. Invasion of phragmites has been a major problem 

in many of the marshes, with management of cattails being an issue primarily in some freshwater 

waterfowl impoundments. Control of these invasive species requires a combination of fire, 

mowing, flooding, and herbicide applications. 

Key management species include the following: 

• Red wolf z Yellow rail 

• American alligator z Seaside sparrow 

• Diamondback terrapin z King rail 

• Peregrine falcon z Clapper rail 

• Black rail z American bittern 

• Black duck and other waterfowl z Least bittern 

• Black bear z Northern harrier 

• Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow z Nesting and migratory shorebirds 

Marshes are also vital nursery areas and habitats for many saltwater species, as well as some 

species of freshwater fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. 

Specific management recommendations are: 

• Burn 14,000 acres annually on a 1-4 year fire frequency to maintain or improve species 

diversity, improve plant productivity, and restore the high marshes to grasses. 

• Explore alternate firing techniques to mimic natural wildfires in marshes (i.e., single point 

ignitions). 

• Perform phragmite and cattail control where needed. 

• 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. 

• 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.) 
Appendices 181

Mackay Island Refuge was established in 1960 and currently contains 8,138 acres. The primary purpose 

of the refuge is to provide sanctuary for wintering waterfowl. About 1/3 (30,000 to 36,000) of all snow 

geese (mostly greater), and up to half of the remaining 600 or so migratory Canada geese wintering in 

northeast North Carolina are supported in the vicinity of Mackay Island Refuge. About 1,000 tundra 

swans winter in the area. The vast majority of the refuge is in emergent wetlands, including some 

marshes with dead and dying trees, and open water supporting important beds of submerged aquatic 

vegetation. More than 300 acres are cooperatively farmed. Scattered small forest patches exist within 

the refuge, most along the eastern edge (Knotts Island), with some stands along the western edge 

(Currituck Sound, most notably Live Oak Point and the forested wetlands north of Middle Pool). The 

biggest threats include the rapidly developing private lands along the eastern edge of the refuge (Knotts 

Island) and the associated potential decline of water quality. Management priorities include restoration of 

sheet flow through the marsh into Currituck Sound that requires consideration of culverts under State 

Highway 615 and additional water control structures to increase water movement among pools. Major 

communities discussed were emergent wetlands, open water, and forests. 

Emergent wetlands. Marshes range from good mixes of plant species to some areas dominated by 

phragmites and/or cattail. Despite the latter, most of the emergent wetlands appear to be in good to 

excellent structural condition and should support a good diversity of marsh-dependent species. Most 

emergent wetlands are burned on a 3-year cycle, or are managed by rising water levels. Description of 

firing protocols emphasized single-source ignition during late winter and early spring. This approach 

would seem to avoid unnecessary problems for bird species that may be vulnerable to multiple-ignition 

fires as conducted elsewhere. Document the results of fire by establishing vegetation monitoring 

transects and obtaining plant species, composition, and height data before and after fires on the 

marshes. 

Specific management recommendations are: 

• No obvious changes from present management appear necessary. However, an extensive 

network of secretive marshbird survey routes should be established to help determine both 

status and response to habitat management across the refuge. 

• Monitor fire affects on the marsh vegetation. 

• Explore opportunities with the States of Virginia and North Carolina to control certain 

navigable waters through a Memorandum of Agreement. 

Managed wetlands. (Impoundments with canals and dikes that may include open water, moist soil, 

exposed flat, trees (greentree reservoirs) and emergent vegetation with varying amounts and 

management regimes) 
182 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Background 

(Focus on Waterfowl in Roanoke-Tar-NeuseCape Fear Ecosystem) 

It is important to recognize from a landscape and flyway aspect the 

importance and role of the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear

Ecosystem for waterfowl (especially the refuges and State lands 

along and near the Atlantic Coast). Most of the data below will focus 

on North Carolina since Atlantic Flyway data is organized by states. 

However the point being made applies to the entire Roanoke-TarNeuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem, especially northeastern North 

Carolina and southeastern Virginia. 

It is not uncommon for North Carolina (based on the Service/State midwinter waterfowl survey) - to rank #2 and sometimes #1 regarding the 

total index of “dabbling” ducks within the entire Atlantic Flyway (a group 

of 17 States). Additionally, the Atlantic Flyway index to “pintails” 

demonstrates that North Carolina habitats overwinter at least 30,000 - 

40,000 pintails that will approach 50-65 percent of the Flyway winter 

census total. North Carolina’s wetland/open land habitats regularly 

have the highest pintail populations within the entire flyway. 

Nowhere else in the Atlantic Flyway, nor other parts of the United States, does any one State 

overwinter so many tundra swans. North Carolina regularly provides wintering habitat for 63,000 to 

83,000 swans, which has averaged 65-80 percent of the wintering Atlantic Flyway total. 

Regarding migratory Canada geese, it is critical to recognize that in the southeastern states (North 

Carolina to Florida) the 500,000+ “migrant” Canada geese that once occurred in the Southeast are 

now practically gone in every State except North Carolina (a few hundred still occur in South 

Carolina). Currently, there are Flyway, Regional, and Ecosystem goals/objectives to try and reverse 

the loss of “migrant” Canada geese that traditionally overwinter in the southeastern United States. 

Presently, North Carolina hosts over 95 percent of such Atlantic Flyway migrant Canada geese 

(around 14,000) that occur below 37° latitude. It is important that these migrant geese do not 

decrease, but instead increase in numbers (or at least assure habitats “that are available” to 

accommodate larger numbers of migrant Canada geese). 

Flyway-wide, snow/blue geese (i.e., white geese) are generally on the upswing and on some arctic 

habitats are exceeding population capacities. However, within this ecosystem area (North Carolina 

and other southeastern states) snow geese are not overly abundant, and if a flyway-wide attempt is 

made to drastically reduce the overall population, white geese numbers in the Southeast could easily 

go-the-route of the once numerous migrant Canada geese. Therefore, it is important that we 

consider an objective of accommodating approximately 60,000-70,000 snow geese, with the caveat 

that State densities exceeding 70,000 could trigger actions (i.e., special hunting seasons, modified 

agricultural practices) to reduce numbers in North Carolina landscape areas. 

Additionally, other species of waterfowl occurring in North Carolina that are of concern on a flyway basis 

are black ducks and lesser scaup. Canvasbacks often bounce off/on waterfowl species-of-concern 

discussions, and wood ducks (due to lack of a nationwide survey index technique) are of high 

management interest. Some important roles of the refuges regarding these species need to be identified. 

North Carolina's Rank Among 

Atlantic Flyway States for 

Most Dabbling Ducks In 

Midwinter Inventory 

 

 Number NC 

 Dabblers Flyway 

 Year MWI Rank

1991 81419 4 

1992 70285 4 

1993 107400 1 

1994 143143 1 

1995 110059 2 

1996 85002 3 

1997 66828 3 

1998 90346 2 

1999 134000 2 

2000 87840 3
Appendices 183

Impoundments. Vegetation structure and composition in the impoundments were good. Excellent 

waterfowl food was present and there was a good interspersion of open water. The present habitat 

management and water-level manipulation, as called for in the water management plans, should be 

followed. Continue with aggressive treatment of phragmites where they occur in the impoundments. 

Try to maintain a mix of moist-soil and submerged aquatic vegetation impoundments. This will be 

easier when the Kitchen Impoundment (125 acres) is refurbished, since there will be more options. 

Based on discussions, good-quality northbound shorebird management should be available during 

peak migration periods from mid April to late May. The refuge should keep the need for bare to 

sparsely vegetated mudflats and shallow water (1 to 5 inches) in mind during this time period, as 

future water management plans are developed. Water levels were too high to observe shorebird use 

at the time of the Team’s visit (true across the area). However, the Team felt that with “normal” water 

levels good shorebird habitat could be provided by late-summer drawdowns with little risk to 

waterfowl food production. For the East pool, the group recommended that a lower water level would 

have provided better growing conditions for moist-soil plants while they were in their seed producing 

stage, good shorebird foraging habitat, and an opportunity for emergent plant growth, such as 

bacopa, on some of the areas where the water was too deep for moist-soil plants, yet too shallow for 

submerged aquatic vegetation to thrive. 

The refuge should utilize the existing 800 acres and develop additional managed wetlands to eventually 

provide 1025 to 1225 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. 

Specific management recommendations are: 

• Using sound professional judgment, consider providing as much open mudflat in 

impoundments as considered practical from mid-July to early-October. Conduct alternate 

drawdowns among impoundments as necessary within and among seasons. 

• As soon as possible, the 125-acre Kitchen Impoundment should be restored, operational, and 

coordinated with the water management plans of the other impoundments. 

• In the long term (3 to 10 years), an additional 100 to 300 acres of managed wetlands (1 to 3 

units) should be developed. Any ditched and drained wetlands or “prior converted” croplands 

that are acquired should be considered for meeting this objective. 

Farmland. (May include moist soil, flooded cropland, mudflats, shallowly flooded crop residue, old 

field vegetation, and emergent vegetation) 

It is best to have a mixture of hot foods (e.g., grains) grazing areas (e.g., browse) and moist-soil sites 

available in a relatively close area (with minimal daily disturbance) to truly meet the needs of ducks 

and geese. In North Carolina, the availability of high caloric foods (e.g., corn and milo) is severely 

reduced during critical periods (December, January, February) due to the practice of harvesting such 

crops in September or earlier (to reduce potential loss to hurricanes). A potential limiting factor for 

geese, swans, and to some extent, ducks, is this lack of hot foods in North Carolina during critical 

weather events. Additionally, the reliability of private landowners to provide water and sufficient 

sanctuary during hunting seasons is unknown. Private lands can and do play an important role in 

supplying life-history needs of migratory birds, but public lands (State/Federal) can and should 

provide a sufficient margin of reliable and long-term habitat/sanctuary needs to support waterfowl 

during critical periods and abnormally severe fall/winter seasons. 
184 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Woodcock have decreased nationally for the past decade and are still below flyway goals. Refuges 

need to determine whether they have woodcock present and, if so, initiate appropriate habitat 

management procedures to help meet the goals and objectives of the North American Woodcock 

Management Plan. Indication of woodcock presence and refuge use can be determined by 

counting/observing crepuscular flights during key months in fields. 

At least twice during December, January, and February, conduct late evening or nocturnal (night 

lighting) surveys in the farmed field areas (FY 2002, 2003, 2004), to determine woodcock presence 

and use (repeat every 3 to 5 years). 

Specific management recommendations are: 

• The more open/pasture-like fields should be surveyed in late evening by placing several 

people around perimeter (especially fields near wood edges). Late evening (sunset to dark) 

flights (#of woodcock) should be recorded. Other preferred techniques are some night 

lighting in fields (count red-eyed contacts with woodcock). 

• If woodcock are using fields for nocturnal usage, consider keeping some fields in an open-like, 

low-pasture or semi-plowed condition every year. 

Maintaining winter browse and corn or other hot foods is important for geese and swans. The fields at 

Live Oak Point should be maintained for goose browse production. One suggestion is to sow Virginia 

wildrye, a native cool season grass, at Live Oak Point to provide browse. The cropland near the 

Headquarters is productive and also very accessible to geese/swan/ducks. That area is very important 

for providing corn/browse for wintering geese and swans. Every effort should be made to maintain a 

viable farming program that will allow continued production for geese and swans in these fields. 

Specific management recommendations are: 

• Cooperative farming or contract/force account farming should be employed to ensure at least 

75 to 100 acres of refuge share hot foods (corn preferred) are available for waterfowl. 

• Consider the following alternatives to ensure needed hot food acreages: 

Force-account some acreage; 

Contract farm some acreage; 

Use some combination of all the above; 

It may be possible for the refuge to supply fertilizer, approved herbicides, etc., and 

even execute first ground or site disking or plowing, and the cooperative farmer 

actually planting, maintaining, and harvesting the crop. 

• Utilize NRCS-approved rotation of crops, focusing on corn, beans, and wheat. Ensure crop 

fields are open enough (wide enough) to attract geese and swans. 

• Support the North Carolina Sanctuary Areas. Work with ecosystem teams to give high priority 

to the hot foods, private landowners sanctuary program. 
Appendices 185

• Work with adjacent landowners who have hunt sites surrounding the refuge to knock down 

their hot foods (corn) once the hunting seasons are over. Judge the possibility for the refuge 

to help achieve this using refuge personnel and equipment. 

• The fields at Live Oak Point should be maintained for goose browse production. 

NON-MARITIME PINE/HARDWOOD/MIXED FOREST/HABITATS

These community types fall under this category and should be identified as potential “Natural 

Communities” where they occur on refuge lands. Many of these will not be delineated in acreage 

figures at end of this document. 

Forested habitats generally consisted of coastal fringe evergreen forest (1,329 acres) and a mixed 

loblolly pine and hardwood stand (131 acres). They consist of scattered patches in marsh areas that 

are dominated by loblolly pines and hardwoods consisting mostly of sweetgum. Most stands visited 

were in poor structural or compositional condition. Most stands (such as near the headquarters) had 

good understory development but little canopy (possibly due to water stress). The stands of loblollyhardwood mix are limited to those areas between the marsh and the farm fields. Some stands visited 

(on east edge) had dense stands of tall loblolly pine alternating with dense understory of mostly 

exotic species. Some stands were clearcut based on southern pine beetle outbreak and are about 5 

to 10 years away from any recommended silvicultural activity. Yet other stands dominated by 

merchantable loblolly were devoid of understory, but had some sweetgum as sub-canopy dominants. 

 In almost all cases loblolly pine was the dominant species, but all stands probably could support a 

higher stocking of hardwoods. Given the small size and surrounding fragmented landscape, 

emphasis on landbird migrants would lead to emphasis on open stands with high abundance of 

fleshy-fruit bearing species, freshwater, and cover. 

A more detailed assessment (cruise) of forest resources is needed, but it appeared to the Team that 

it would be difficult to justify an active forestry program (i.e., administrating timber sales) at this time. 

Emphasis should be on improving stand structure and increasing hardwood component (while 

maintaining loblolly pine as a co-dominant). 

If existing co-op cropland becomes no longer necessary, reforestation would make now small patches 

into bigger patches, possibly large enough to support some of the higher priority forest songbirds. 

Specific management recommendations are: 

• Consider reforestation if cooperative cropland comes out of production. 

• Emphasize hardwood and particularly oaks in the plantings. 

Section 2. Biological Goals and Objectives for National Wildlife Refuges in the Roanoke-Tar-NeuseCape Ecosystem (covering northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia) 

MARINE/SOUND/BAY WATERS (185 fee title; 1,025 Proclamation Boundary) 

Goal - Maintain the health of diamondback terrapin populations, migratory bird populations and 

habitat (submerged aquatic vegetation) quality in the bays, sounds, marine waters adjacent to refuge 

lands, especially within Presidential Proclamation boundaries. 
186 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective - Spot surveys of submerged aquatic vegetation for affected open water areas on refuges 

and coordination on large-scale and long-term submerged aquatic vegetation monitoring and water 

quality monitoring programs with other State and Federal agencies 

Objective - Maintain existing submerged aquatic vegetation and work to restore submerged aquatic 

vegetation to areas where they have been lost in bays and sounds. 

Objective - Within the framework of open hunting areas and navigable waterways, continue to 

enforce closed areas for waterfowl sanctuaries as much as possible. 

Objective - Research needed on the effects of boating disturbance (e.g., recreational and 

commercial) on wintering waterfowl and other seabirds. 

Objective - Beached bird surveys are needed along exposed beaches on refuges, which may include 

possible coordination with private landowners of adjacent beach properties to track possible linkages 

to contaminant spills, gill-net use, or other sources of mortality (including weather events), especially 

for loons, scaup, redheads, and scoters. 

Objective - Develop monitoring protocol to track diamondback terrapin populations, including 

checking of crab-pots as sources of mortality. 

FRESHWATER POOLS/PONDS/LAKES (770 acres) 

Goal - Maintain and manage the health of migratory bird populations and habitat (submerged aquatic 

vegetation) quality in freshwater pools, ponds, and lake waters on refuge lands. 

Objective - Monitor water quality on a periodic basis. 

Objective - Spot surveys of submerged aquatic vegetation for affected open water areas and 

manage appropriately to maintain suitable to optimal conditions for wintering waterfowl and other 

waterbirds. 

Objective - Control phragmites encroachment and other exotic pest invasions. 

Objective - Conduct aerial waterfowl surveys and where possible count other waterbirds using a 

standardized approach (to be determined). 

Strategy - Migratory Bird Field Office/Migratory Bird Committee: Develop standard protocol for aerial 

waterfowl surveys. 

MARSHES (predominantly Brackish and Fresh Water) (4,774 acres, mostly fresh) 

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. 
Appendices 187

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 the following: 

• American bittern 

• least bittern 

• yellow rail 

• black rail 

• clapper rail 

• king rail 

• saltmarsh seaside sparrow 

• seaside sparrow 

Objective - Burn marshlands annually on a 1- to 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 phragmite 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, and emergent vegetation with varying amounts and management 

regimes, as well as management of vegetation on dikes and levees; 876 acres)

Goal - Manage and maintain impoundments to achieve habitat and migratory bird objectives for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, marshbirds, colonial waterbirds, other waterbirds, and associated landbirds. 

Objective - Monitor water quality on a periodic basis. 

Objective - Spot surveys of submerged aquatic vegetation for affected open-water areas and 

manage appropriately to maintain suitable to optimal conditions for wintering waterfowl and 

other waterbirds. 

Objective - The refuge should utilize the existing 800 acres and develop additional managed 

wetlands, to eventually provide 1,025 to 1,225 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 - Using sound professional judgment, consider providing as much open mudflat in 

impoundments as considered practical from mid-July to early-October. Conduct alternate drawdowns 

among impoundments as necessary within and among seasons. 
188 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategy - As soon as possible, the Kitchen Impoundment should be restored, operational, and 

coordinated with the water management plans of the other impoundments. 

Strategy - In the long term (3 to10 years) an additional 100 to 300 acres of managed wetlands (1 to 3 

units) should be developed. Any ditched and drained wetlands or “prior converted” croplands that are 

acquired should be considered for meeting this objective. 

Objective - Control invasive, non-desirable plant communities (alligator weed, phragmites, etc.), so 

they do not impact more than 10 percent coverage of any impoundment. 

Strategy - Utilize chemical, fire, disking, water control, etc., to reduce impact of invasive/nondesirable plants. 

Strategy - As appropriate, farmer cooperative rent should be used to control invasive plants. 

Strategy - If poor quality waterfowl foods or invasive plants equal or exceed 50 percent 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 percent of the adjacent 

landowners currently managing wetlands/forests, etc., for migratory birds and provide technical aid. 

Strategy - Promote, encourage only 3 one-half days of hunting (or less) on private sites. 

Strategy - Encourage landowners to keep holding water until mid-March or at least late-February for 

waterfowl and conduct slow drawdown. Where possible, hold water and draw it down slowly through 

April-early May for migrating wading birds 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 earlySeptember periods and age/sex quotas. Record results in annual narrative. 

Strategy - Each month (mid-October through early-March) help band and/or observe collared swans 

(FY 2001-2002). 

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. 
Appendices 189

Strategy - If use of present boxes exceeds 60 percent, 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 inventorying/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 through mid-March) and twice a month conduct ground surveys of 

impoundments (early-October through late-March). Continue coordinating these surveys through 

Roanoke-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 during the same week as the 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 mid-winter survey. 

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 

website maintained by the Manteo Migratory Bird Office and 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-p 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 the Migratory Bird 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 Biologist Group to standardize survey methods and data analysis. 

Strategy - Consult with Migratory Bird Office biologist to conduct standardized sampling of plant 

communities (record data in repeatable format). 

Strategy - Present results in next year’s water management plan and in annual narrative. 
190 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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 the following:

• American bittern 

• least bittern 

• yellow rail 

• black rail 

• clapper rail 

• king rail 

• saltmarsh seaside sparrow 

• seaside sparrow 

Objective - Burn marshlands annually on a 1- to 4-year fire frequency to maintain or improve species 

diversity, improve plant productivity, and restore the upland marshes to grasses. 

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 in April and May and July through 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 webpage). 

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 Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem Biologist Group to 

standardize survey methods and data analysis. 

Objective - Manage vegetation along dikes as necessary for maintenance, but maintain flexibility for 

maintaining quality landbird habitat during migration as much as possible).

Objective - For wooded areas/edges along dikes, track use of habitat during landbird migration using 

standardized migration monitoring protocol.
Appendices 191

FARMLAND (258 acres)

Goal - Manage and maintain farmland, including fallow weeds, flooded crops, and moist soil, to 

achieve habitat and migratory bird objectives for waterfowl, shorebirds, marshbirds, colonial 

waterbirds, other waterbirds, and associated landbirds. 

Objective - Woodcock. At least twice during December, January, and February, conduct late 

evening or nocturnal (night lighting) surveys in the farmed field areas (FY 2002, 2003, 2004) to 

determine woodcock presence and repeat every 3-to-5 years after 2004). 

Strategy - The more open/pasture-like fields should be surveyed in late evening by placing several 

people around perimeter (especially fields near wood edges). Late evening (sunset to dark) flights of 

woodcock should be recorded. Other preferred techniques are some night lighting in fields (count 

red-eyed contacts with woodcock). 

Strategy - If woodcock are using fields for nocturnal usage, annually consider keeping some fields in 

an open-like, low pasture or semi-plowed condition. 

Objective - Employ cooperative farming or contract or force account farming to ensure at least 75 

to100 acres of refuge share hot foods (corn preferred) are available for waterfowl. 

Strategy - Consider the following alternatives to ensure needed hot food acreages: 

• Force-account some acreage 

• Contract farm some acreage 

• Utilize some combination of all the above 

Strategy - Utilize NRCS-approved rotation of crops, focusing on corn, beans, and wheat. Ensure 

crop fields are open enough (wide enough) to attract geese and swans. 

Strategy - Support the North Carolina Sanctuary Areas. Work with ecosystem teams to give high 

priority to the hot foods, private landowners sanctuary program. 

Strategy - Work with adjacent landowners who have hunt sites surrounding the refuge to knock down 

their hot foods (corn) once the hunting seasons are over. Judge the possibility for the refuge to help 

achieve this using refuge personnel and equipment. 

Strategy - The fields at Live Oak Point should be maintained for goose browse production. 

Objective - Conduct aerial waterfowl surveys and where possible count other waterbirds using a 

standardized approach (to be developed by Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Biologist group). 

Objective - Review existing refuge farmland acreage, determine what is necessary to achieve 

waterbird objectives and consider reforesting the acreage determined no longer necessary to achieve 

waterbird objectives. 

Objective - Continue and expand North Carolina Partners Program in support of making seasonal 

habitat available for waterfowl. 
192 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective - Survey using secretive marshbird and/or Project Prairie Bird protocols for occurrence of 

priority species to identify habitat conditions that should be provided and maintained, as well as sites 

in need of improvement through management, principally for the following: 

• American bittern 

• least bittern 

• northern harrier 

• yellow rail 

• black rail 

• clapper rail 

• king rail 

• short-eared owl 

• sedge wren 

• sparrows (swamp, song, savannah) 

Objective - Flood and disk vegetation as needed to maintain or improve species diversity and 

improve plant productivity for waterfowl and shorebirds, all the while maintaining rank vegetation that 

may be important for rails, wrens, and sparrows. 

Objective - Monitor vegetation response to disking and flooding and that of the biotic community at 

large to adapt management techniques. (Issues: timing, frequency, prescriptive criteria of burns, etc.) 

Objective - Monitor effects of various flooding and disking 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-May and July-October. 

Objective - Survey for foraging and roosting shorebirds during migration and winter using 

International Shorebird Survey protocol.

COASTAL FRINGE EVERGREEN FOREST (1,329 acres) 

Goal - Consolidate stands as much as possible and improve stand conditions by favoring hardwoods 

(while maintaining loblolly pine as a co-dominate) for a variety of species associated typically with 

hardwood forests. 

Objective - Conduct a complete inventory of this habitat type and describe condition. 

Objective - Where needed, improve structure by thinning canopy and allowing some level of 

understory and midstory development (i.e., de-emphasize fire unless hazard conditions dictate 

otherwise). 

Objective - Monitor the biotic community response to thinning with emphasis on forest canopy 

species like yellow-throated warbler and understory species such as prothonotary and worm-eating 

warblers by using point counts. 
Appendices 193

LOBLOLLY PINE/HARDWOOD MIX (131 acres)

Goal - Consolidate stands as much as possible and improve stand conditions, by favoring hardwoods 

(while maintaining loblolly pine as a co-dominate) for a variety of species associated typically with 

hardwood forests. 

Objective - Conduct a complete inventory of this habitat type and describe condition. 

Objective - Consider reforestation of unneeded farmland and consolidate blocks of forest as much as possible.

Objective - Where needed, improve structure by thinning canopy and allowing some level of understory 

and midstory development (i.e., de-emphasize fire unless hazard conditions dictate otherwise). 

Objective - Monitor the biotic community response to thinning with emphasis on forest canopy 

species like yellow-throated warbler and understory species, such as prothonotary and worm-eating 

warblers by using point counts. 

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, there may be a reduced need for maintaining 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. 
194 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 195

Appendix X. Consultation and Coordination 

The Service formed a planning core team composed of representatives from various Service 

divisions to prepare the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

(Table 37). Initially, the team focused on identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to refuge 

management. The team met on several occasions from December 2000 to June 2002. A biological 

review team (Table 38) 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. 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge core team members. 

Name and Title Station, Agency, and Location 

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 

Knott’s Island, North Carolina 

Robert Glennon, Natural Resource Planner 

David Brown, Former Habitat Protection Biologist 

Ecosystem Planning Office 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

The planning team met in January 2001. Shortly thereafter, on June 19, 21, 26, and 28, 2001, the 

planning team held a series of public meetings to gain the insights of local citizens and their 

perceptions of the issues and concerns facing the refuge. The issues and alternatives generated 

from these meetings, coupled with the input of the planning team, were summarized in Chapters I 

and III of the environmental assessment in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge biological review team members. 

Name and Title Station, Agency, and Location 

Bob Noffsinger, Former Supervisory Wildlife 

Management Biologist 

Migratory Bird Field Office, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Frank Bowers, Former Migratory Bird Coordinator Southeast Regional Office, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Chuck Hunter, Former Nongame Migratory Bird 

Coordinator 

Southeast Regional Office, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia 
196 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Name and Title Station, Agency, and Location 

Ronnie Smith, Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Assistance Office 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Edenton, North Carolina 

John Stanton, Wildlife Biologist Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Swan Quarter, North Carolina 

Wendy Stanton, Wildlife Biologist Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Columbia, North Carolina 

Dennis Stewart, Wildlife Biologist Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manteo, North Carolina 

Ralph Keel, Former Wildlife Biologist Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Suffolk, Virginia 

John Gallegos, Wildlife Biologist Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

David Allen, Nongame Wildlife Biologist North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission 

New Bern, North Carolina 

Jeff Horton, Site Manager The Nature Conservancy 

Windsor, North Carolina 

Expert contributors to the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and their area(s) of expertise. 

Name, Title, Agency, Location Area of Expertise 

Bill Grabill, Former Refuge Supervisor, 

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 
Appendices 197

Name, Title, Agency, Location Area of Expertise 

Kevin Moody, Former NEPA Specialist 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia 

National Environmental Policy Act 

John Ann Shearer, Private Lands Biologist, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

Wetland Management, 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

Richard Kanaski, Regional Archaeologist, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Savannah, Georgia 

Cultural Resources 

The planning team formulated three alternatives for the environmental assessment 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 staff 

held public meetings on November 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2002 to get public reaction to the alternatives. 
198 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 199

Appendix XI. Finding of No Significant Impact 

 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Currituck County, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

in Currituck County, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia through the Mackay Island National 

Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). An Environmental Assessment has been prepared to inform the public of 

the possible environmental consequences of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. A description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting 

the preferred alternative, the environmental effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse 

effects of the action, and a declaration concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, 

in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting 

information can be found in the Environmental Assessment. 

Alternatives 

In developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated three alternatives: Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

The Service adopted Alternative 2, the “Preferred Alternative,” as the plan for guiding the direction of 

the refuge for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in this plan is that wildlife 

conservation assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependant recreational uses are 

allowed if they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) will 

be emphasized and encouraged. 

Alternative 1. Current Management 

Alternative 1 represents no change from current management of the refuge. Under this alternative, 

8,219 acres of refuge lands would be protected, maintained, restored, and enhanced for resident 

wildlife, waterfowl, Neotropical migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Refuge 

management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with baseline biological 

information only on waterbird populations and moist soil vegetation. All refuge management actions 

would be directed toward achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (preserving wintering habitat for 

waterfowl, and wood ducks; providing production habitat for wood ducks; 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 migratory bird populations. 

Cooperative farming would continue to be used to manage and maintain approximately 298 acres of 

cropland; the refuge would manage 876 acres of moist soil habitats. The refuge would manage 

marshes with prescribed fire. The current level of wildlife-dependent recreation activities (hunting, 

fishing, and wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) 

opportunities would be maintained to serve 90,000 visitors. Outreach efforts would target a 

population of 90,000. There would be no access to the office area and the Kitchin impoundment on 

weekends. Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all willing seller 

properties within the present acquisition boundary. 
200 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative 2. 

The preferred alternative, Alternative 2, addresses the refuges highest priority needs. Under this 

alternative, 8,219 acres of refuge lands would be protected, maintained, restored, and enhanced for 

resident wildlife, waterfowl, Neotropical migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. 

The refuge would develop a habitat management plan. Refuge management programs would be 

developed and implemented baseline biological information on selected wildlife species and habitats. 

 All refuge management actions would be directed toward achieving the refuge’s primary purposes 

(preserving wintering habitat for mallards, pintails, and wood ducks; providing production habitat for 

wood ducks; 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 migratory bird populations. Cooperative farming would continue to be used to manage and 

maintain approximately 298 acres of cropland; the refuge would manage 876 acres of moist soil 

habitats. The refuge would manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire. The refuge would 

also manage the canopy in forests. The level of wildlife-dependent recreation activities (hunting, 

fishing, and wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) 

opportunities would be increased to serve 120,000 visitors. Outreach efforts would target a 

population of 250,000. There would be access to the office area and the Kitchin impoundment on 

Saturdays. Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all willing seller 

properties within the present acquisition boundary. The refuge would add more staff, equipment, and 

facilities in order to survey wildlife and habitat manage habitat, and provide public use opportunities. 

Alternative 3. 

Alternative 3 addresses the all of the refuge’s needs. Under this alternative, 8,219 acres of refuge 

lands would be protected, maintained, restored, and enhanced for resident wildlife, waterfowl, 

Neotropical migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. The refuge would develop a 

habitat management plan. Refuge management programs would be developed and implemented 

baseline biological information on all wildlife species and habitats. All refuge management actions 

would be directed toward achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (preserving wintering habitat for 

mallards, pintails, and wood ducks; providing production habitat for wood ducks; 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 migratory bird 

populations. Cooperative farming would continue to be used to manage and maintain approximately 

298 acres of cropland; the refuge would manage 876 acres of moist soil habitats. The refuge would 

manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed fire. The refuge would also manage the canopy in 

forests. The level of wildlife-dependent recreation activities (hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education and interpretation) opportunities would be increased to 

serve 140,000 visitors. Outreach efforts would target a population of 500,000. There would be 

access to the office area and the Kitchin impoundment on all weekends. Under this alternative, the 

refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all willing seller properties within the present acquisition 

boundary. The refuge would add more staff, equipment, and facilities in order to survey wildlife and 

habitat manage habitat, and provide public use opportunities. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative 2 is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes the management of the highest priority habitats; 

collects data on high priority habitats and wildlife species; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge 

and Service objectives. At the same time, these management actions provide balanced levels of 

compatible public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological 

principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 
Appendices 201

Under Alternatives 2, all lands within the approved 9,503-acre acquisition boundary will be protected 

and managed. A land protection plan will be developed and lands outside the boundary will be 

prioritized for land protection best achieving national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses 

significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 

Environmental Effects 

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. Habitat management, 

population management, land conservation, and visitor service management activities on Mackay 

Island National Wildlife Refuge would result in increased migratory bird utilization and production; 

increased protection for threatened and endangered species; enhanced wildlife populations; 

improved habitat conditions; and enhanced opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education. These effects are detailed as follows: 

1. Waterfowl, marsh bird shorebird, and wading bird use of the refuge would improve 

substantially as intensive water management efforts would provide dependable flooded 

habitats with high quality food to match the migration chronologies of these species. Forest 

breeding birds would benefit from refuge land acquisition and forest management actions. 

Woodcock population numbers and habitat use would be monitored and managed and 

woodcock use of the refuge would be expected to increase. 

2. Migratory bird production would increase by enhancing forest habitat quality for Neotropical 

migratory birds, habitat and food availability for wintering waterfowl, and through forest 

management. Forest management practices such as prescribed burning, thinning, selective 

harvests, and preservation of mature stand components would benefit nesting and feeding 

habitat for Neotropical migratory birds. 

3. Refuge land acquisition, habitat management, and habitat and wildlife protection would benefit 

the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Bald eagles have historically nested on 

the refuge. The pine forests have the potential to provide habitat for red-cockaded 

woodpecker. 

4. The refuge’s habitat mix of cropland, moist soil, marsh, and pine forest, as well as habitat 

management, would improve food and cover for resident wildlife species and enhance 

wetland communities within the refuge. 

5. Habitat management, along with a focus on accessibility and facility developments, would 

result in improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. While public use would result 

in some minimal, short-term adverse effects on wildlife, and user conflicts may occur at 

certain times of the year, these effects are minimized by site design, time zoning, and 

implementing refuge regulations. Anticipated long-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats 

of implementing the management action are positive. In the long run, wildlife habitat and 

increased opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities could result in an 

increase in economic benefits to the local community. 
202 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

6. Implementing the comprehensive conservation plan is not expected to have any significant 

adverse effects on wetlands and floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, 

as actions would not result in development of buildings and/or structures within floodplain 

areas, nor would they result in irrevocable, long-term adverse impacts. In fact, a major thrust 

of the management action is to implement pine forest and open wetland management within 

the wildlife communities of the refuge that has been severely impacted by actions of previous 

landowners. Implementing the management action would result in substantial enhancement 

of forest and wetland communities and net increases to the Nation’s estuarine fringe loblolly 

pine forest and wetland acreage and quality. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Wildlife Disturbance 

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. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action are 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 

present in the area. Implementation of the public use program would take place through carefully 

controlled time and space zoning such as establishment of protection zones around key sites, such 

as rookeries and eagle nests (if necessary), and routing of roads and trails to avoid direct contact with 

sensitive areas, such as nesting bird habitat. All hunting activities (season lengths, bag limits, 

number of hunters) would be conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles and 

refuge-specific regulations established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring 

activities through wildlife inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities would be 

utilized, and public use programs would be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts 

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs 

would be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, 

such as establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are 

effective tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action would not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property would be allowed through issuance of special use permits. 

Future land acquisition would occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values within the 

approved acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title purchases 

and/or donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, cooperative 

agreements) from willing sellers. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition 

boundary would likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. The management action contains neither provisions nor proposals to pursue 

off-refuge stream bank riparian zone protection measures (e.g., fencing) other than on a 

volunteer/partnership basis. 

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Proposed acquisition efforts by the Service 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. 
Appendices 203

Potential development of access roads, dikes, control structures, and visitor parking areas could lead 

to minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site 

development activities are proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act consideration during pre-construction planning. At that time, any required 

mitigation activities will be incorporated 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 littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. While funding and personnel resources 

will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these resources unavailable for 

other programs. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Coordination 

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

• All affected landowners 

• Congressional representatives 

• Governor of North Carolina 

• Governor of Virginia 

• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

• Virginia Department of Game and inland Fisheries 

• North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer 

• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal 

Management 

• Local community officials 

• Interested citizens 

• Conservation organizations 

Findings 

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Draft Environmental Assessment, 

pages 85-145). 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Draft 

Environmental Assessment, pages 142). 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area 

such as proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

critical areas. (Draft Environmental Assessment, pages 135-143). 
204 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

 (Draft Environmental Assessment, page 145). 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the 

human environment. (Draft Environmental Assessment, pages 142-145). 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do 

they represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Draft Environmental 

Assessment, pages 85-145). 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts 

have been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past 

action, and in foreseeable future actions. (Draft Environmental Assessment, page 142). 

8 . The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, 

cultural, or historic resources. (Draft Environmental Assessment, pages 143). 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their 

habitats. (Draft Environmental Assessment, pages 135-136). 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the 

protection of the environment. (Draft Environmental Assessment, pages 85-147). 

Supporting References 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge, Currituck County, North Carolina, and 

Virginia Beach, Virginia. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 

Document Availability 

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in January 2006. Additional copies 

are available by writing: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345.