Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
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
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
December 2005
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need For The Plan..................................................................................................1
Fish and Wildlife Service ..............................................................................................................2
The National Wildlife Refuge System ...........................................................................................2
Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................3
National Conservation Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................4
Relationship To State Partners.....................................................................................................5
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................................7
Introduction and History................................................................................................................7
Refuge History and Purposes.......................................................................................................7
Special Designations ....................................................................................................................9
Ecosystem Context.....................................................................................................................10
Overview ...........................................................................................................................10
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................10
Threats and Problems ................................................................................................................12
Forest and Fragmentation.................................................................................................12
Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................14
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................14
Proliferation of Invasion Aquatic Plants.............................................................................14
Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................15
Challenges ........................................................................................................................16
Physical Resources ....................................................................................................................16
Climate ..............................................................................................................................16
Geology............................................................................................................................17
Minerals............................................................................................................................17
Soils .................................................................................................................................17
Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................19
Air Quality.........................................................................................................................22
Visual Resources ..............................................................................................................22
Biological Environment ...............................................................................................................22
Habitat..............................................................................................................................22
Wildlife..............................................................................................................................28
Insects and Diseases ........................................................................................................30
Exotic Organisms ..............................................................................................................31
Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................31
Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................................31
Socioeconomic Environment ......................................................................................................31
History ...............................................................................................................................32
Land Use...........................................................................................................................34
Demographics...................................................................................................................37
Employment ......................................................................................................................38
ii Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Forestry............................................................................................................................38
Outdoor Recreation ..........................................................................................................40
Outdoor Recreation Economics........................................................................................40
Tourism............................................................................................................................41
Transportation..................................................................................................................42
Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................42
Refuge Administration and Management...................................................................................42
Visitor Services ..........................................................................................................................43
Hunting .............................................................................................................................43
Fishing ..............................................................................................................................43
Environmental Education..................................................................................................43
Interpretation....................................................................................................................45
Wildlife Observation..........................................................................................................45
Wildlife Photography.........................................................................................................45
Personel, Operations and Maintenance.....................................................................................45
Refuge Infrastructure .................................................................................................................47
Roads and Trails...............................................................................................................47
Utility Corridors and Distribution .......................................................................................47
Communication System....................................................................................................47
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal ................................................................................47
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................49
The Planning Process and Associated Issues ...........................................................................49
Plan Review and Revision ................................................................................................49
Planning Issues and Concerns .........................................................................................49
Global Warming and Sea Level Rise................................................................................50
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................55
Vision ........................................................................................................................................55
Goals.........................................................................................................................................55
Objectives And Strategies..........................................................................................................55
Goal 1. Fish and Wildlife Populations ..............................................................................55
Goal 2. Habitats ...............................................................................................................59
Goal 2: Public Use ...........................................................................................................63
Goal 4: Resource Protection............................................................................................67
Goal 5: Refuge Administration.........................................................................................71
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................................75
Refuge Administraion.................................................................................................................76
Funding and Personnel ..............................................................................................................77
Volunteers .................................................................................................................................79
Partnership Opportunities ..........................................................................................................79
Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................81
Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................83
SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................85
Purpose and Need For Action....................................................................................................85
Table of Contents iii
Decisions Framework .................................................................................................................85
Planning Study Area...................................................................................................................85
Authority, Legal Compliance and Compatibility ..........................................................................86
Planning Process And Associated Issues ..................................................................................86
Plan Review and Revision ................................................................................................87
Planning Issues and Concerns .........................................................................................87
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................93
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................................95
Formulation Of Alternatives ........................................................................................................95
Description Of Alternatives .........................................................................................................95
Alternative 1 – No Action...................................................................................................95
Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................................96
Alternative 3 ......................................................................................................................98
Features Common to All Alternatives .........................................................................................99
Land Acquisition................................................................................................................99
Refuge Revenue Sharing..................................................................................................99
Education and Visitor Services .......................................................................................131
Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................131
Compatible Secondary Uses...........................................................................................132
Other Management .........................................................................................................133
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................135
Comparison Of Effects Among Alternatives .............................................................................135
Overview .........................................................................................................................135
Biological Environment....................................................................................................135
Physical Environment......................................................................................................137
Social Environment .........................................................................................................137
Economic Environment ...................................................................................................138
Effects Common To All Alternatives .........................................................................................142
Health and Safety Effects................................................................................................142
Regulatory Effects...........................................................................................................142
Uncertainty of Future Action Effects................................................................................142
Cumulative Effects ..........................................................................................................142
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................143
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................144
Wildlife Disturbances.......................................................................................................144
User Group Conflicts.......................................................................................................145
Effects on Adjacent Landowners.....................................................................................145
Land Ownership and Site Development..........................................................................145
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................................147
SECTION C. APPENDICES
I. GLOSSARY.............................................................................................................................151
II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................159
iv Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES.............................................................................................163
IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION........................................................................................................171
V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ..............................................................................................181
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation .................................................................181
Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................184
VI. REFUGE BIOTA.......................................................................................................................203
VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS ...............................................................229
VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS..............................................................................................................231
IX. BIOLOGICAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................245
Table of Contents v
List of Figures
Figure 1. The 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 soil of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. ...............................20
Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge ...................................24
Figure 5. Approved acquisition boundary at the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge ..................44
Figure 6. Current visitor facilities at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge .....................................46
Figure 7. Proposed visitor facilities at the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge under Alternative 2.
..........................................................................................................................................................100
vi Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
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......................................19
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. ...............................25
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.....................29
Table 10. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge shorebird/wading bird survey results, spring 2003............29
Table 11. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge shorebird/wading bird survey results, fall 2002.................30
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. .............36
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.............................45
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
Table 23. Proposed staff of Mackay Island and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges – 2005. ............80
Table 24. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans. ...........................81
Table 25. Summary of wildlife objectives and strategies. .................................................................101
Table 26. Summary of habitat objectives and strategies. .................................................................103
Table 27. Summary of public use objectives and strategies.............................................................104
Table 28. Summary of resource protection objectives and strategies. .............................................108
Table 29. Summary of administration objectives and strategies. .....................................................110
Table 30. Summary of projects proposed in each alternative...........................................................112
Table 31. Summary of costs of projects proposed in all alternatives................................................116
Table 33. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 2........................................................................121
Table 34. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 3........................................................................126
Table 35. North Carolina present use value calculation. ..................................................................139
Table 36. A comparison of the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1. ...............................140
Table 37. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge core team members. .........................................147
Table 38. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge biological review team members. ......................148
Table 39. Expert contributors to the Mackay Island National Wildlife RefugeComprehensive
Conservation Plan and their area(s) of expertise.............................................................149
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment to guide the management of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge in
Currituck County, North Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. The plan outlines programs and
corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat
management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion on the issues
the plan should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from federal and
state agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The staff
held the public scoping meetings at four locations on four evenings. Another round of public
meetings was held 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 Mackay Island Refuge. They spend 415
full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years on Mackay Island Refuge and 2.85 FTE staff years at Currituck
National Wildlife Refuge.
Alternative 2 proposed moderate program increases. 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 the number 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 - eleven stationed at Mackay Island Refuge and four stationed at
Currituck Refuge. They would spend 7.8 FTE staff years at Mackay Island Refuge and 7.2 FTE at
Currituck Refuge. The staff would include a biologist and public use specialist.
Alternative 3 proposed substantial program increases. 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 Mackay Island
Refuge and seven stationed at Currituck Refuge. They would spend 11.25 FTE staff years at Mackay
Island Refuge and 12.75 FTE at Currituck Refuge. The staff would include separate law enforcement
officers and public use specialists for Mackay Island and Currituck Refuges.
The 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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The Fish and Wildlife Service developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment 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
is a guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years.
The plan was 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 staff complied with this act
through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of an environmental assessment in this
document, with a description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental
consequences of the alternatives (see Chapters III and IV). When fully implemented, this 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, made up of representatives from various Service programs, including Refuges,
Fisheries, Ecological Services, Realty, and Migratory Birds, developed the plan. In developing this
plan, the team and staff have incorporated the input of state agencies, non-governmental
organizations, local citizens, and the general public through a series of stakeholder and public
scoping meetings. This public involvement and the planning process itself are described in the Plan
Development chapter.
The plan represents the Service’s proposed alternative, which is being presented after considering
three other alternatives as described in the environmental assessment. After reviewing a wide range
of public comments and management needs, the planning team developed these alternatives in an
attempt to determine how to best meet the goals and objectives of Mackay Island National Wildlife
Refuge. The proposed alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for the
management of the refuge, and is the basis of 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 management programs and activities for the next 15 years. The
plan is needed to:
Provide a clear statement of direction for 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 draft 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.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The 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.
THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997, is:
... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
mission of wildlife conservation for the 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;
Draft 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.
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 and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 and National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges).
4 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the
development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop and coordinate
planning initiatives involving federal, state, and local agencies; local communities; non-governmental
organizations; and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on and off public lands.
The Service is initiating cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend in biological
diversity. Biological planning for species groups targeted in this plan reflects the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 brings
together international teams of biologists from private and 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 mid-continental wood duck and colonial bird populations.
The Partners-in-Flight Plan emphasizes land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the
priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified 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 United States Department of Agriculture provide cost-share
funding and technical assistance to private landowners to install and manage conservation
practices on working farms and forests and restore cropland to natural habitats. The programs
provide opportunities for landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage their land
better as wildlife habitat or protect it with easements.
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, numerous planning activities directly influence
the development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Other federal, state, and local agencies;
local communities; and non-governmental organizations develop and coordinate planning initiatives.
These initiatives involve land owned by the agencies, 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 the species groups targeted in this plan reflects the Partners-in-
Flight Plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation
Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration habitat for migratory songbirds
returning from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migration habitat
for mid-continental wood duck and colonial bird populations. Restoration of migratory songbird
populations is a high priority of the Partners-in-Flight Plan.
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
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
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.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and management
of fish and wildlife throughout the United States.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 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 state’s 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 state’s wildlife conservation program and provide
public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several game
lands and from several boat ramps located near Mackay Island Refuge. The agencies’ participation
and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process have been valuable,
and they are continuing its work with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open
dialogue with the public to improve the condition of fish and wildlife populations in North Carolina and
Virginia. Not only have the agencies participated in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and
field reviews as part of the planning process, they also are active partners in annual hunt coordination
planning, and various wildlife and habitat surveys. Mackay Island Refuge provided hunting
opportunities for deer and waterfowl in cooperation with the agencies. A key part of the
comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of common mission objectives
between the Service and the state agencies, where appropriate.
6 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge is in Currituck County, North Carolina and Virginia Beach,
Virginia. 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 approved acquisition boundary lies in Currituck County,
North Carolina (population 18,190) and the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The southern end of the city
of Virginia Beach, Virginia (population 425,257), lies at the northern end of the refuge; the closest
developed area of the city lies 18 miles north of the refuge; the center of the city lies 27 miles north of the
refuge. The center of the city of Chesapeake, Virginia (population 199,184), lies 27 miles northwest of
the refuge and the center of the city of Norfolk, Virginia (population 234,403), lies 31 miles northwest of
the refuge (Figure 1). The refuge covers a total of 8,219 acres and 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 administrative ecosystem known as the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES
Congress established the 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. 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).
The refuge’s complete acquisition history is in Table 1.
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. The location of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge in Currituck County,
North Carolina and Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Draft 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
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
OVERVIEW
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, 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 the comprehensive conservation plan. Various groups and agencies develop and coordinate
planning initiatives involving regional, state, and local agencies; local communities; non-governmental
organizations; and private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on and off public lands.
The Service is initiating cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend in biological
diversity. Biological planning for species groups targeted in this plan reflect the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the Joint Venture
between North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners-in-
Flight Plan, and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative.
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focus is that of the middle- and upper-Atlantic coast. Within the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture was the joint venture formed between the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Fish and Wildlife Service, and private conservation organizations.
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration habitat for migratory songbirds returning
from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migration habitat for mid-continental
wood duck and colonial bird populations. Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a
high priority of the Partners-in-Flight Plan for the South Atlantic Physiographic Region.
Draft 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, conservation organizations, such as Audubon Society and The
Nature Conservancy, have identified focal species for each habitat type from which they will
determine population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of focal species,
objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge.
The Farm Bill Programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture each have state level
plans and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. The Service also utilizes those
programs to assist private landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage habitat for
wildlife or protect their land with easements.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has its own Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy to help direct the state’s allocation of funds from the federally funded State Working Grants
Program. The Service has provided input to the development and execution of the strategy.
THREATS AND PROBLEMS
FOREST AND FRAGMENTATION
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread
throughout the area. It has been estimated that 40 percent of the natural vegetation has been lost to
land conversion. The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for
agriculture and urban development (Hunter et al., 2001).
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain. Development has reduced vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests to
forest fragments ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas
that have maintained many or the original functions and values of forested values. Severe
fragmentation has resulted in a substantial decline in biological diversity and integrity. Animal
species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become 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 are found in the region. Some of these
species, including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and
cerulean warbler, have declined substantially and need the benefits of large forested blocks to
recover and sustain their existence.
Fragmentation has also brought the forest edge and brown-headed cowbird (a seed-eating bird
common in agricultural areas) closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting birds.
The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds, rather than
building a nest of its own. Nestling cowbirds are typically bigger and more aggressive and out-compete
the young of the species building the nest. This results in poor reproductive success and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
declining populations of forest interior-nesting species that are forced to nest near forest edges.
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
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts
surrounded by a sea of agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested
corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of connectivity between
the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts and reduces the
functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also result in a loss of
gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel corridors is
particularly important for some wide-ranging species such as the black bear.
14 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
In addition to the loss of vast acreage of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been substantial alterations
in the region’s hydrology due to managed stream flows from flood control and hydroelectric power generation
reservoirs, drainage ditches, river channel modification, flood control levees, deforestation, and degradation to
aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation 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 since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of
hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Siltation from deforestation and hydrologic alteration has degraded aquatic systems, including lakes,
rivers, sloughs, and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated
accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Sediment now fills many water
bodies, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. It also reduces light penetration in shallow
water and the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation growing in the water. Concurrently, the non-point
source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic
resources. Six species of federally threatened aquatic organisms and twelve species of federally
endangered aquatic species occur in North Carolina and Virginia.
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created oxbow
lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration
of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with
flood control and navigation.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASION AQUATIC PLANTS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding, and reduced water depths
resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for the establishment and
proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic (non-native)
vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of aquatic systems.
These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems,
and choke waterways to a degree that limits biodiversity and often prevents recreational use.
Draft 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 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 the management and restoration efforts underway in the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain, and one that affects refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term
management objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs, including those of wintering
migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, large mammals, and other wide-ranging
species. Often, management for one species or species group conflicts with the management
objectives for another species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term priorities that
frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources shift. 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 Mackay Island National Wildlife 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.
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
16 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
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.
CHALLENGES
In order for Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge to meet its multiple objectives of national,
regional, and local scope - ranging from marsh and forest management to reducing habitat
fragmentation to providing for public use, the Service must fund and staff it well above current levels.
Securing adequate funding and personnel and then implementing a variety of programs to achieve
the best balance of all objectives, through a system of coordinated planning, is the refuge’s biggest
challenge. In the interim, as the needed funding and personnel become available, the refuge must
concentrate on its highest priorities without committing irreversible actions that would preclude future
implementation of the desired management programs.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
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 falls in April through September.
The growing season for most crops falls within this period.
The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 60 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and
the average at dawn is about 85 percent. The sun shines 65 percent of the time 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
18 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
‘Hydric Soils of the United States’ (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985) (Figure 3) (Table 4).
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.
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 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.
Draft 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
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 (T.M. Robison 1977).
20 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Hydric and non-hydric soil of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
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 the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge.
The State of North Carolina and Commonwealth of Virginia have classified the water bodies around
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge for minimum water quality standards (Table 5). All water
bodies and streams meet the standards established for the best uses.
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
22 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
AIR QUALITY
In North Carolina, state 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.
Section 0.0520 (7) indicates that fires purposely set to forest lands for forest management practices
acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the Environmental Management
Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and regulations of governmental entities
having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses certain potential
liabilities of burning even though permissible.
The area closest to the refuge that an environmental agency monitors is the Virginia Beach-Norfolk
metropolitan area. The Environmental Protection Agency monitors carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide and particulates in Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News,
Suffolk, and Chesapeake. Despite the large population with the industry, traffic, and power plants,
the area has exceeded only ozone level standards in 2002. Monitoring has indicated unhealthy
levels twice and unhealthy levels for sensitive groups thirteen times. The air quality is due to the
breezes blowing through the area from the ocean.
VISUAL RESOURCES
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
The 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 from the Federal Endangered Species List known to occur on the refuge. The
National Wetlands Inventory described the refuge as an estuarine emergent herbaceous or
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
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.
Mesic Pine Flatwoods. The refuge includes 131 acres of this community. It is found on the well-drained
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 (2 miles) acres 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. They survey the vegetation to monitor
the effectiveness of their management (Tables 6, 7, and 8).
24 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Vegetative habitat types of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
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.
Table 6. Vegetative composition of the Mackay Island east pool moist-soil unit.
Percent Composition
Common Name Scientific Name Food By Year
Value
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.
Percent Composition
Common Name Scientific Name Food By Year
Value
2002 1999 1996 1994 1989
Niad Najas quadalupensis Good 48.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Soft Rush Juncus effusus 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
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Table 8. Vegetative composition of the Mackay Island west pool moist-soil unit.
Percent Composition
Common Name Scientific Name Food By Year
Value
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
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 occasion, with the most recent sighting more than 20 years ago. At least 187 species of birds,
including 60 breeding species, utilize the refuge (Appendix V!).
Wintering and migrating waterfowl make extensive use of the Refuge's wetlands. Principle species
include the snow goose, tundra swan, mallard, wood duck, American black duck, and 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.
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 at the Mackay Island Refuge. The refuge staff adapted the list of reptiles and amphibians
in Appendix IV from the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Currituck National Wildlife
Refuge in 1980.
Fish. The Service has not performed a comprehensive survey of fish at Mackay Island Refuge. The
refuge staff adapted the list of fish in Appendix IV from the Environmental Impact Statement prepared
for the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in 1980.
Invertebrates. The Service has not performed a comprehensive survey of invertebrates at Mackay
Island Refuge. The list of invertebrates in Appendix IV is from the Environmental Impact Statement
prepared for the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge in 1980.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
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
30 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
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
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 that can no longer serve as a check on the populations of the forest tent
caterpillar. This may account for the large outbreaks resource managers have been observing over
the last decade on the coastal plain.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
The gypsy moth is now well established as far south as northeastern North Carolina. The North
Carolina Division of Plant Industry and United States Forest Service closely monitor gypsy moth
populations. They utilize pheromone traps located throughout the state including refuge lands.
When they detect large-scale outbreaks, they use integrated pest management techniques to
suppress the outbreak, but not necessarily eliminate the species from the area.
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.
EXOTIC ORGANISMS
There are four exotic animals present within the area and thus are presently impacting or have the
potential to impact 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, and thirteen other
cemeteries on the refuge. 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 these counties more than any other area. The staff must consider the social and
economic conditions of the counties in planning and implementing refuge activities. The land
use in the communities influences the water and air quality in the water bodies surrounding the
refuge and on the refuge. The relative availability of open space will affect the availability of
land for wildlife habitat and the habitat off the refuge that wildlife use. The land protection step-
32 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
down plan will also consider land in Currituck County and Virginia Beach.
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.
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.
Unemployment and poverty rates are much lower than the state average.
Currituck County is still predominantly rural, and 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. 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 and farming, commercial fishing, and forestry
are still important elements of the economy.
HISTORY
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, hunting, and gathering close to the village.
The farmsteads were occupied by extended families. The Coastal Algonkians grew corn, squash,
sunflowers, beans, and native plants on sandy ridges. They traded extensively with the Tuscarora
that inhabited the area west of the Tidewater region (Mathis, M.A. and J.J. Crow 2000). The
Algonkian 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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
The first attraction to settlement was the abundant fish and game, which gave the county a
reputation as a “Sportsmen’s Paradise.” John Mackie purchased Orphan’s Island, on which the
refuge is located, in 1761. The island became known as Mackie Island after his purchase and as
Mackay Island after his death. In the early twentieth century, wealthy sportsmen established
lavish hunting clubs in the county. These included the 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.
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 that
inhabited the area west of the Tidewater region.
The first English colonists landed at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay on April 26, 1607. They
spent three days at the site of their first landing, erecting a cross and naming the spot Cape
Henry. They later settled in Jamestown. In1635, 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.
34 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
The proximity of Virginia Beach to water also gave the area a role in the revolutionary war. The
French cut off Cornwallis’ British troops retreat route 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 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.
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 seventy-seven 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 (29,592acres).
From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms decreased 12 percent from 39,571 acres to 34,802; the average
size of farms decreased slightly, full-time farm operators increased 15 percent from 54 farms to 62 farms;
total market value of agricultural products sold decreased 38 percent to $9,208,000; and 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)(USDA
2002).
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 well-drained
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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Today, Virginia Beach is 39 (71,557 acres) percent developed, 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 acres to 28,382 acres; the
average size of farms decreased 20 percent from 204 acres to 164 acres; full-time farm operators
decreased 10 percent from 71 farms to 64 farms; total market value of agricultural products sold
decreased 29 percent from $13,638,000 to $9,661,000 and 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).
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%
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
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
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
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).
The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years old is 77.6 percent;
the percentage of college graduates is 13.3 percent. The state averages are 78.1 percent for high
school and 22.5 percent for college (U.S. 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
unemployment rate of 3.7 percent (Virginia Employment Commission 2004).
38 Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
The percentage of high school graduates in the population older than 25 years old is 90.4 percent;
the percentage of college graduates is 28.1 percent. The commonwealth averages are 81.5 percent
for high school and 29.5 percent for college (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Home ownership rate is
65.6 percent, below the state average rate of 68.1 percent. There are 2.70 persons per household in
Virginia Beach, slightly above the commonwealth average of 2.54.
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 oak-gum-
cypress, 33 percent is in pine, 18 percent is in oak-pine, and 16 percent is in oak-hickory (USDA
Forest Service 1991).
In 1990, private landowners 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.
Draft 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
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).
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 preserve 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 that revol