Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MATTAMUSKEET NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Hyde County, North Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
July 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 7
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 7
History ................................................................................................................................ 7
Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 10
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 11
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 11
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 12
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 13
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 16
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems and Water Quality Impacts ............................................. 17
Invasive Species Introduction and Proliferation ................................................................ 17
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 18
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 18
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 18
Minerals ............................................................................................................................. 19
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 19
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 21
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 21
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 22
Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. 23
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 24
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 24
Invasive and Non-native Plants (Exotics) .......................................................................... 29
Threatened and Endangered Plants ................................................................................. 29
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 30
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 34
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 36
Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 37
Demographics ................................................................................................................... 38
Employment ...................................................................................................................... 40
Forestry ............................................................................................................................. 40
Outdoor Recreation in the Area ........................................................................................ 40
Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 41
Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 42
Transportation ................................................................................................................... 43
Cultural Setting .................................................................................................................. 43
ii Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 44
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 44
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 46
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 48
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 51
Planning Process and Public Involvement ................................................................................. 51
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 51
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 53
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 53
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 55
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 55
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 57
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 57
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 59
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 59
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 59
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 59
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 60
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 66
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 70
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 75
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 89
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 95
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 95
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 95
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 95
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 97
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 98
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 99
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 99
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 99
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ...................................................................................... 100
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 102
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 104
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 104
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 105
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 105
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 105
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 106
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 106
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 106
Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 106
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 107
Table of Contents iii
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 109
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 111
Formulation of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 111
Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 111
Alternative A - Current Management (No Action) ............................................................ 111
Alternative B - Proposed Alternative ............................................................................... 113
Alternative C – Moderately Expanded Program .............................................................. 115
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 116
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ............................................... 117
Moderate Program Increases and Buffer Land Protection .............................................. 117
Optimum Program Increases and Buffer and Landscape Level Land Protection ........... 118
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 119
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 127
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 127
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 127
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 127
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 127
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 128
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 128
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 128
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 129
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 129
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 129
Alternative A - Current Management (No Action) ............................................................ 129
Alternative B - Proposed Alternative ............................................................................... 131
Alternative C – Moderately Expanded Program .............................................................. 133
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 135
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 136
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 136
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 136
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 137
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 137
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 137
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 137
Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 138
Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Programs, Facilities, Cultural Resources,
Environmental Justice, Environmental Resources, and Surrounding Communities ....... 146
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 148
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 149
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 151
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 151
SECTION C. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 153
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 163
iv Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 169
APPENDIX D. DRAFT COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION ............................... 183
APPENDIX E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 189
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 189
APPENDIX F. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 195
APPENDIX G. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 211
APPENDIX H. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 233
APPENDIX I. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................. 237
APPENDIX J. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 239
APPENDIX K. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 253
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 253
Maintenance Management System Needs .............................................................................. 258
APPENDIX L. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 277
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Mattamuskeet NWR and other nearby national wildlife refuges ............................................. 8
Figure 2. Refuge vicinity map ................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 3. Unit 34: Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear Ecosystem .................................................. 12
Figure 4. Habitats and land use at Mattamuskeet NWR ...................................................................... 26
Figure 5. Visitor service facilities on Mattamuskeet Refuge ................................................................ 77
Figure 6. Current staffing chart of Mattamuskeet Refuge .................................................................. 101
Figure 7. Proposed future staffing chart of Mattamuskeet Refuge .................................................... 101
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Acquisition History of Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge.............................................. 10
Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Mattamuskeet Refuge ........ 11
Table 3. Threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina ............ 15
Table 4. Soil characteristics at Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge .............................................. 20
Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding Mattamuskeet Refuge .................. 22
Table 6. Annual emissions (tons) of select criteria pollutants in Hyde County, North Carolina ........... 23
Table 7. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Mattamuskeet Refuge ............. 24
Table 8. Examples of vegetation in moist soil units with different levels of management .................... 28
Table 9. Waterfowl survey results, 2006 – 2007 ................................................................................. 31
Table 10. Hyde County agricultural statistics ....................................................................................... 37
Table 11. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 ................................................... 38
Table 12. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties ............................ 39
Table 13. Staff of Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island Refuges, 2005 .............................. 49
Table 14. Summary of projects ........................................................................................................... 96
Table 15. Refuge National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans ...................................... 102
Table 16. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Mattamuskeet Refuge ................ 119
Table 17. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Mattamuskeet Refuge ........................ 139
vi Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge (Mattamuskeet NWR) was prepared to guide management
actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge
management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible
with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and
their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state and federal
government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment.
Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge
System mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with
sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the
Commission of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was
renamed the Bureau of Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through federal programs
relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and
inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to
complete CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are completed with full public involvement, help
guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and recreation/education
programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved CCPs will serve as the guidelines for
refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be
managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the refuge system;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system; and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges
established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie
wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes
protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to
120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana) – the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation
expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs are to be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal,
state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure active
public involvement in their preparation and revision (every 15 years).
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be
consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including Service
compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
4 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System), congressional legislation, rresidential executive orders, and
international treaties. Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by
administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines
established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and
laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System and management of the Mattamuskeet NWR
are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between Mattamuskeet NWR and other partners, such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and private landowners.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow
while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the
consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found
on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management
direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their
refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple
landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of
refuge resources, role of refuge within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available
science, including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure
the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to
bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives
include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation
for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s’ levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan projects are international in
scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and
wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird
conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land
birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
6 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Ac, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of North Carolina.
In North Carolina, the Service partners with the NCWRC. The NCWRC is charged with enforcement
responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural
resources. It also manages approximately 1.8 million acres of game lands in North Carolina.
The NCWRC coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several game lands and from
several boat ramps located in Hyde County. NCWRC’s participation and contribution throughout this
comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable, and it is continuing its work with
the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to improve the
condition of fish and wildlife populations in coastal North Carolina. Not only has NCWRC participated
in biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field reviews as part of the CCP process, it is also an
active partner in the coordination, planning, and execution of various wildlife and habitat surveys.
The NCWRC also assists refuge staff in providing special wildlife observation opportunities. A key
part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of common mission
objectives between the Service and the NCWRC, where appropriate.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of North Carolina. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Mattamuskeet NWR sits at the southern end of a broad, flat, and swampy peninsula in northeastern North
Carolina. One of several national wildlife refuges in the area (Figures 1 and 2), it protects and manages
50,180 acres of wildlife habitat in Hyde County. The Service named the refuge after North Carolina’s
largest natural lake, 40,000-acre Lake Mattamuskeet, which comprises almost 80 percent of the refuge’s
area. This lake averages only two feet in depth, but is 18 miles long and five to six miles wide. In addition
to the lake, the refuge’s other main habitats are wet pine flatwoods, moist-soil units, natural lake shoreline,
and cypress-gum swamp. The refuge is surrounded by cropland, marsh, and timber. The village of
Fairfield (2000 population 1,215) lies at the northern edge of the refuge and the village of Engelhard (2000
population 1,561) lies three miles southeast of the eastern edge of the refuge, and the village of Swan
Quarter, the county seat, (2000 population 958) lies four miles southwest of the western edge of the
refuge. Pamlico Sound, separating the mainland of North Carolina from the Outer Banks to the east, lies
seven miles south of the refuge.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
HISTORY
Settlers cleared and drained the area around Lake Mattamuskeet for agriculture early in the
nineteenth century. The organic soil was productive cropland. A canal drained the lake to half its
original size in 1830. New Holland Farms drained the shallow Lake Mattamuskeet beginning in 1914,
with the construction of 130 miles of canals and the world’s largest pumping plant at the time. The
bottom of the lake provided productive cropland, but maintaining the drained condition was
impractical and too expensive and the company abandoned the operation in 1932.
The U.S. Government acquired the land in 1934 under the authority of the National Industrial
Recovery Act (48 Statute 195). Mattamuskeet NWR was established that same year under Executive
Order No. 6924. Table 1 shows the refuge’s land acquisition history. The Civilian Conservation
Corps converted the pumping plant into a hunting lodge (Mattamuskeet Lodge) with ten rooms that
operated from 1937 until 1974. The Fish and Wildlife Service constructed impoundments to provide
feeding and resting habitat for migrating and wintering wildlife.
Following the refuge’s establishment, the numbers of puddle ducks and geese drawn to Lake
Mattamuskeet appeared endless and peaked in 1960 when more than 100,000 Canada geese and
200,000 ducks wintered there. A drastic decline in their numbers began soon after and continued
until the mid-1980s.
In the mid-1960s, the refuge initiated a long-term habitat enhancement project to optimize wintering
waterfowl habitat. The project's focus was on refuge areas historically used by Canada geese and
puddle ducks. Between 1967 and 1981, over 2,500 acres of low-quality marsh were impounded and
restored to conditions that favored the production of waterfowl foods, in what are called moist-soil
units. Currently, manipulation of water levels and mechanical vegetation control in the moist-soil units
produce impressive stands of natural waterfowl foods, such as wild millet, panic grasses and
spikerushes. In addition, dense beds of submerged vegetation desired by swans, diving ducks, and
some puddle ducks, are produced naturally in Lake Mattamuskeet.
8 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Mattamuskeet NWR and other nearby national wildlife refuges
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 2. Refuge vicinity map
10 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Acquisition history of Mattamuskeet NWR
DATE TRACTS ACRES COST COST
ACRE
TOTAL
ACREAGE
TOTAL
COST
1934 1 49,514.71 $311,942.67 $6.30 49,514.71 $311,942.67
1935 1 410.34 $2,585.14 $6.30 49,925.05 $314,527.81
1939 4 219.02 $4,072.70 $18.60 50,144.07 $318,600.51
1943 3* 8.57 $3.00 $0.35 50,152.64 $318,603.51
1944 4* 7.69 $3.00 $0.39 50,160.33 $318,606.51
1945 1* 16.1 $1.00 $0.06 50,176.43 $318,607.51
1946 1* 0.66 $1.00 $1.52 50,177.09 $318,608.51
1973 1# 1.0 -0- -0- 50,178.09 $318,608.51
1976 1# 0.37 -0- -0- 50,178.46 $318,608.51
1980 1# 1.72 -0- -0- 50,180.18 $318,608.51
*Easement
#Lease
Mattamuskeet Lodge was placed on the National Register of historic Places in 1980. Nevertheless, the
lodge fell into poor condition and the Friends of Mattamuskeet Lodge formed in 1990 to restore it. In
1993, the Partnership for the Sounds joined the restoration efforts with the goal of using the lodge for
wildlife education and research. In 1996, East Carolina University established the Field Station for
Coastal Studies at Mattamuskeet in the lodge. The university restored six rooms with sixteen beds and a
laboratory. Despite restoration efforts, severe structural problems were discovered in 1999, and the lodge
was closed in 2000. A bill (H.R. 5094) passed by Congress and signed into law in 2006, authorized the
transfer of the Mattamuskeet Lodge to the State of North Carolina.
PURPOSE
The purpose of Mattamuskeet NWR is to protect and conserve migratory birds and other wildlife
resources through the protection of wetlands, in accordance with the following:
... as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and wild animals, and (2) that such portion as the
Secretary of Agriculture [Interior] may deem proper be reserved for use as a shooting area, to
be operated under a cooperative agreement or lease .... With regard to the waters ... the
Secretary of Agriculture [Interior] ... may enter into a cooperative agreement or lease ... said
waters may be used for fishing purposes ... Executive Order 6924, dated Dec. 18, 1934
... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.
16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources ... 16 U.S.C. §742f(a)(4) ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to
the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ... 16 U.S.C. §
742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
In 1979, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program designated most of the refuge, with the
exception of cropland, moist-soil areas, and the shop area, as a Significant Natural Heritage Area.
The Nature Conservancy ranks certain vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 2).
Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Mattamuskeet NWR
Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank
Cypress – Gum Swamp S3 G4
Mesic Pine Flatwoods S3 G5
S3 = Rare or uncommon in North Carolina
G4 = Apparently secure globally
G5 = Demonstrably secure globally
The National Park Service designated a 153-acre area known as Sayler’s Ridge as a National
Natural Landmark in 1983. The stand of wet pine flatwoods forest in the southwest corner of the
refuge is a mature loblolly pine that has not been manipulated since the Service established the
refuge in 1934. The stand is unique in that it has not been harvested for timber and is mature enough
to be undergoing natural succession from loblolly pine to sweetgum and red maple.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has designated several water bodies in the vicinity of
Mattamuskeet NWR as outstanding resource waters or high-quality waters.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Mattamuskeet NWR lies within a physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The
South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 25-million-hectare (62-million-acre) complex of forested
wetlands and uplands, dunes, and marshes that extended from Florida to North Carolina.
Historically, the extent and duration of seasonal flooding along the ecosystem’s rivers fluctuated
annually recharging the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s aquatic systems and creating a rich diversity of
dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources.
The refuge is one of the ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those ten
refuges, Alligator River, Pea Island, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, Mackay
Island, Mattamuskeet, Roanoke River, Pocosin Lakes, Swanquarter, and the Back Bay NWR in
Virginia, are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and Cape Fear Rivers.
These have been designated as Ecosystem Unit # 34, the Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear
Ecosystem, by the Service (Figure 3).
12 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the
development of the CCP. Various groups and agencies develop and coordinate planning initiatives
involving regional, state, and local agencies; local communities; non-governmental organizations; and
private individuals to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on and off public lands.
The Service is initiating cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend in biological
diversity. Biological planning for species groups targeted in this CCP reflect the North American
Figure 3. Unit 34: Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear Ecosystem
Waterfowl Management Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the Joint Venture
between NCWRC and the Service, Partners-in-Flight Plan, and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird
Initiative (SAMBI).
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focuses on the middle and upper Atlantic Coast. Within the Atlantic
Coast Joint Venture is the joint venture formed between the NCWRC, the Service, and private
conservation organizations.
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration habitat for migratory songbirds returning
from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migrating habitat for 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 13
The Partners-in-Flight Plan emphasizes land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the
priority ranking of species. Further, biologists from local offices of the Service, the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, and conservation organizations, such as Audubon Society and The
Nature Conservancy, have identified focal species for each habitat type from which they will
determine population and habitat objectives and conservation actions. This list of focal species,
objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge.
The Farm Bill programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture each has state level
plans and priority ranking systems to which the Service has input. The Service also utilizes those
programs to assist private landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage habitat for
wildlife or to protect their land with easements.
In 2001, Congress, recognizing the need for funding and planning to support the conservation,
protection, and restoration of the full gamut of wildlife species, especially those not covered by
traditional funding sources, including more than 1,000 federally threatened or endangered species,
began providing annual funding allocations to supplement existing state fish and wildlife conservation
programs. The new funding required each state and territory to develop a Wildlife Action Plan. The
North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan was submitted in 2005 to meet this obligation. The action plan
provides a conservation blueprint for agencies, organizations, industries, and academics across the
state to advance the sound management of the state’s fish and wildlife resources into the future. It
identifies critical fish and wildlife resources and priority conservation needs and promotes proactive
conservation measures to ensure cost-effective solutions (keeping common species common)
instead of reactive measures enacted in the face of imminent losses (NCWRC 2005).
The action plan has five goals: (1) to improve understanding of the species diversity in North Carolina
and enhance the state’s ability to make conservation or management decisions for all species; (2) to
conserve and enhance habitats and the communities they support; (3) to foster partnerships and
cooperative efforts among natural resource agencies, organizations, academia and private industry;
(4) to support educational efforts to improve understanding of wildlife resources among the general
public and conservation stakeholders; and (5) to support and improve existing regulations and
programs aimed at conserving habitats and communities (NCWRC 2005).
Mattamuskeet NWR lies entirely within North Carolina’s coastal zone, as designated by the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. The CZMA requires federal agencies proposing activities
within a state’s coastal zone to provide the relevant state authority (in this case, the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) with
a consistency determination prior to implementing the activity. This consistency determination is
intended to document that the proposed activity, such as Mattamuskeet NWR’s proposed CCP,
complies with the enforceable policies of North Carolina’s approved coastal management program
and would be conducted consistent with this program. Appendix D contains this determination.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
Habitat loss and degradation due to development associated with human population growth are among
the greatest threats to wildlife, fish, and overall biodiversity in North Carolina. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, the state’s population grew by 15 percent from 1990 to 1999, and growth has continued
unabated in the new century. The National Resources Inventory conducted by the USDA’s Natural
Resources Conservation Service found that North Carolina ranked fourth in the country for total acres of
14 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
land developed between 1982 and 1997 – and second in the country for the percentage increase in
developed land (NRCS 2000). As the population grows and land is developed to provide homes, schools,
roads, workplaces, and shopping centers for the new residents, fish and wildlife habitats have been
modified, fragmented, degraded, and destroyed (NCWRC 2005).
Direct habitat destruction is widely acknowledged as the greatest threat to biodiversity at the species and
ecosystem levels (Noss and Peters 1995). Throughout the southeast, less than three percent of pre-
Euro-American settlement upland longleaf pine communities (Frost 1993) and only one percent of pre-settlement
canebreak and Atlantic white cedar communities remain (Frost 1987). An estimated half of
North Carolina’s original wetlands have been lost due to development and conversion to cropland (Mitsch
and Gosselink 1993). Widespread wildland fire suppression over the past century has contributed
significantly to the alteration, changed structure (greater density), and succession of ecologically fire-dependent
systems, such as longleaf pine forest and other early successional habitats. Land
fragmentation due to highway development, land-use conversion (e.g., from forests to plantations, farms,
golf courses, ball fields, and subdivisions), and alterations of landforms, such as beach renourishment
and spoil deposition banks, are also significant threats (TNC 2000; TNC and NatureServe 2001). The
USDA Forest Service estimates that forest acreage in North Carolina has fallen by one million acres (5.6
percent) since 1990, primarily due to development (Brown 2004).
Primarily as a result of the loss and degradation of habitat, there are more than 40 federally listed
threatened and endangered animal species and 60 state listed threatened or endangered animal
species in North Carolina. In addition, there are 115 state species of special concern, and many
more at risk of being added to that list. North Carolina contains eight of the top twenty-one most
endangered ecosystems in the country, based on extent of decline, present area (rarity),
imminence of threat, and number of federally listed threatened and endangered species
associated with each type (Noss and Peters 1995):
􀁹􇤠 Southern Appalachian spruce-fir forest
􀁹􇤠 Longleaf pine and savanna
􀁹􇤠 Eastern grasslands, savanna, and barrens
􀁹􇤠 Coastal communities in the lower 48 states
􀁹􇤠 Large streams and rivers in the lower 48 states
􀁹􇤠 Cave and karst systems
􀁹􇤠 Ancient eastern deciduous forest
􀁹􇤠 Southern forested wetlands
Beyond the borders of North Carolina, the South Atlantic Coastal Plain in general has changed
markedly over the last two centuries as civilization spread throughout the area. Scientists have
estimated that land conversion has cleared 40 percent of the natural vegetation. The greatest
changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for urban development and
agriculture (Hunter et al., 2001).
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous negative effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The changes have reduced vast areas of forests, pocosins, marshes,
and coastal dunes to fragments ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a
few large areas that have maintained many of the original functions and values of forested habitat.
Severe fragmentation has resulted in a substantial decline in biological diversity and integrity.
Species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, threatened, or
endangered, include the piping plover, sea turtle, red wolf, Bachman’s sparrow, Carolina parakeet
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
and passenger pigeon. The black rail and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat are federal species of concern.
A complete list of threatened and endangered animals in North Carolina is in Table 3.
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in number of species and species populations. The
avian species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive
(dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors;
those that depend on special habitat requirements such as mature forests or a particular food source;
Table 3. Threatened and endangered animal species of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina
Status Common Name Scientific Name
Endangered Manatee, West Indian** Trichechus manatus
Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill** Eretmochelys imbricata
Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley** Lepidochelys kempii
Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback** Dermochelys coriacea
Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana
Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum
Endangered Tern, Roseate** Sterna dougallii
Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus
Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae
Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis
Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis
Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon
Endangered Wolf, Red* Canis rufus
Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded** Picoides borealis
Threatened*** Alligator, American* Alligator mississippiensis
Threatened Plover, Piping** Charadrius melodus
Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas
Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead** Caretta caretta
Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa
* Presence Documented on Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
** Other Species Listed in Hyde County, North Carolina
*** Listed by Similarity of Appearance
and/or those that depend on good water quality. Habitat loss has also affected species dependent on
coastal marshes and exposed sandy areas on beaches and sandbars and within dune ecosystems.
More than 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds occupy the region. Some of the inland
species, including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and
cerulean warbler, have declined substantially and need the benefits of large forested blocks to
16 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
recover and sustain their existence. On the Outer Coastal Plain, songbirds such as seaside sparrow,
saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow, and Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow depend on declining marsh
habitat. The secretive marshbirds black rail and yellow rail require brackish marsh. The threatened
piping plovers, red knots, least terns, black skimmers, and American oystercatchers are shorebirds
that nest on the dwindling acreage of unvegetated sand along beaches and among coastal dunes.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests in the interior areas of the coastal plain has left many
of the remaining forested tracts surrounded by agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts
and reduces the functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also
result in a loss of gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablishing travel
corridors are particularly important for some wide-ranging species, such as the black bear.
Habitat loss on the Outer Coastal Plain is more permanent than in the interior. Conversion of
marshes for commercial development is virtually irreversible. Conversion of pocosins and non-riverine
hardwood forests to agriculture results in the oxidation of the organic soils on which those
plant communities evolved.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
Destruction and degradation of habitat are widely regarded as the greatest threats to aquatic species in
the United States. Physical modifications, such as channelization and dredging, aquifer depletion,
impoundment and dam construction, and flow modification, have contributed directly to the decline of
aquatic species in the south (Walsh et al., 1995; Etnier 1997). Increases in the area of impervious
surfaces within rapidly urbanizing watersheds, and subsequently increased peak stormwater flows, have
caused changes in streambank erosion, sediment transport and stream energy, which in turn have led to
limitations in the amount of suitable aquatic habitat and stream bed material. The Nature
Conservancy identifies altered surface hydrology (e.g., flood control and hydroelectric dams, inter-basin
transfers of water, drainage ditches, breached levees, artificial levees, dredged inlets and river channels),
and a receding water table as among the most significant sources of biological and ecological stress,
especially in the Coastal Plain (TNC 2000; TNC and NatureServe 2001; NCWRC 2005).
In addition to the loss of vast acreage of wetlands, there have been substantial alterations in the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain’s hydrology. The changes are a result of channel dredging for navigation and
access to marshes, drainage ditches, degradation of aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation and
contaminants, urban development, managed stream flows from flood control and hydroelectric power
generation reservoirs, river channel modification, flood control levees, and deforestation.
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of wetlands and
indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on topography
and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to wetlands
and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988).
Instead of natural hydrology, large-scale man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial
and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire South Atlantic Coastal Plain. In addition,
these alterations have modified both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding, as well as
daily flooding. The alteration of the annual flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the
interior forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species. Changes in daily flooding
regimes by drainage ditches and closing inlets through coastal barrier islands accelerates erosion on
ditch banks and throughout marshes and decreases the exposure of intertidal areas that would be
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
available with normal lunar tidal cycles. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993), restoration of
wetland functions is especially difficult since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic
regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
The dredging of navigation channels also generates a spoil material that must be disposed of in a
compatible manner. The material is not always compatible for placement on the closest potential site,
such as beaches where the material must be a suitable substrate for invertebrate populations and
shorebird and turtle nesting.
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created
sandbars, oxbow lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection,
conservation, and restoration of the aquatic resources are of added importance in light of the
alterations associated with navigation and flood control.
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Related to the problem of hydrological alterations above is another threat – siltation or sedimentation
of aquatic ecosystems. Deforestation and hydrologic alteration have degraded aquatic systems,
including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an
accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in aquatic systems. Sediment now fills
many water bodies, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point
source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic
resources. The Service lists six species of aquatic organisms as threatened and twelve species as
endangered in North Carolina (Table 4).
Point and non-point sources of pollutants compound threats to aquatic systems. Point source
pollution is delivered primarily in the form of municipal wastewater, industrial effluent, and industrial
stormwater discharges. Most water quality problems in North Carolina, however, arise from non-point
source pollution associated with land use activities such as development projects, forestry and
agricultural practices, and road construction (NCDWQ 2000; SAMAB1996).
INVASIVE SPECIES INTRODUCTION AND PROLIFERATION
Non-native and invasive species introductions of both plants and animals threaten native wildlife in
North Carolina, as elsewhere. Introductions have occurred in a number of different ways, ranging
from intended stockings, to range expansions, to the pet trade, to accidental releases. Impacts on
native species are equally varied; some non-natives out compete native species (e.g., kudzu and
Japanese stiltgrass), while others cause hybridization (e.g., red-eared sliders breeding with native
yellow-eared sliders). Still others cause direct mortality to native resources (e.g., red imported fire
ants, hemlock wooly adelgid).
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems (discussed in the previous two sections) is the
growing threat from invasive aquatic vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual
flooding and reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions
favorable for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants.
Additionally, the introduction of exotic (non-native) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further
threatening viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic
vegetation important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often interferes with
or precludes recreational use. Common reed (Phragmites australis) is the most dominant of these
plants on the Outer Banks and the refuge and has a negative impact on the marshes in the area. In
recent years, feral swine have become established in a number of places on the Albermarle-Pamlico
18 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Peninsula and will quite likely become established throughout the entire peninsula. This will have
severe negative impacts to virtually all habitats and wildlife.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Habitat at Mattamuskeet NWR results largely from wetland community development following the
Wisconsin Ice Age about 15,000 years ago. Lower sea level during this time period resulted in large,
fast flowing river systems cutting through the coastal plain terrace. As ice caps began melting, sea
level rose and it is believed that river flows slowed, depositing organic and silt sediments in the areas
between streams. As shallow water areas developed, aquatic vegetation invaded thereby increasing
organic deposition. With a warming trend at the end of the ice age, boreal forests began to be
gradually replaced with swamps, bogs, marsh, and pocosin habitats. Logging and land clearing
activities over the last 300 years have greatly altered all habitat types.
CLIMATE
Mattamuskeet NWR’s climate is characterized by hot, humid summers with temperatures
occasionally climbing above 95 degrees Fahrenheit, and moderate winters with temperatures seldom
going below 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The annual average precipitation is 52 inches, with a period of
heavy rainfall from July through September. Every few years, a hurricane or tropical storm crosses
the county, bringing 1 to 3 days of intensive rainfall. Snowfall is rare and seldom exceeds two inches;
average annual snowfall is 0.7 inch. On rare occasions, portions of the lake freeze, but never for a
long period. Marsh areas frequently freeze in January and February.
Since the flow of air over North Carolina is predominantly from west to east, the continental influence
is much greater than the ocean or marine influence. Therefore, the state experiences a fairly large
variation in temperature from winter to summer.
Lows sometimes reform along the coast as "Cape Hatteras lows" and then move north along the
coast. Winter's low-pressure storms are usually more intense because of the large north-to-south
contrasts. Winter storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the
winter precipitation. The forms of precipitation in spring begin to change from these steady rains to
occasional thunderstorms. The Gulf of Mexico's warm, moist air produces warm, humid weather
throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn, North Carolina's
driest season, is to many people the most pleasant with its many clear, warm days and cool nights,
with little rain. This weather usually lasts until November. Winter is cool and has brief occasional
cold spells, but snowfall is uncommon.
The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 65 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and
the average at dawn is about 80 percent. The sun shines 65 percent of the time in summer and 50
percent of the time in winter. The prevailing wind is from the north to northeast. Average wind speed
is highest, 12 miles per hour, in winter.
The average last freezing temperature in spring is March 24. The average first freezing temperature
in the fall is November 21. The average growing season is 241 days.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Mattamuskeet NWR is the product of wetland community development following the Wisconsin Ice
Age 15,000 years ago, the last of the Ice Ages during the Pleistocene Epoch. Prior to this Ice
Age, the level of the Atlantic Ocean in the southeast was higher than it is presently. During the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Wisconsin Ice Age, the sea level dropped to its current level and exposed large areas of the
continental shelf. As a result, fast-flowing rivers cut through the coastal plain terrace to the
Atlantic Ocean. During the next several thousand years, as the ice receded, sea levels gradually
raised. As this occurred, river flows were slowed and organic sediment loads were deposited in
the inter-stream areas as flowing systems shifted to slow-moving streams. Aquatic plants began
to grow in these shallow bodies of water, adding to the accumulation of sediment and aquatic
debris. Simultaneously, a climatic warming trend accompanied the end of the Ice Age. This
warming trend helped to eliminate the cooler climate boreal forests and replace them with
swamps, bogs, marshes, and pocosin habitats.
The refuge lies on the Pamlico Terrace, an extensive low flat plain lying east of the Suffolk Scarp, a
prehistoric Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The terrace slopes from 10-16 foot elevations (above mean sea
level) at the base of the scarp gently eastward to 1-2 feet elevation at the end of the land peninsulas.
The Suffolk Scarp separates the Pamlico Terrace of the main estuarine region from the higher Inland
Coastal Plain around the western-most segment of the Albemarle Sound system.
Streams in this area have relatively small sediment loading. Suspended sediments are mixed with
organic sediments from swamp forests and marshes. This mixture of sediments produces the
dominant bottom sediment of the area sounds. This sediment contains up to 15 percent organic
matter and is deposited within the standing waters of the estuaries.
Brown to black, organic-rich muds predominate in the surrounding sounds, but grade laterally into a
thin apron of fine sand in the shallow waters around the perimeter of the estuaries. The sand apron
usually occurs landward of the main break in the bottom slope at a depth of about three feet, and
extends to the shoreline. The sediments in front of the marshes generally have little sand. They are
characterized by high organic contents and contain peat blocks, logs, and stumps.
MINERALS
Sand is the only mineral resource occurring locally in economic quantities. There are no sand pits in
the vicinity of the refuge.
SOILS
Soil types identified on the refuge are: Belhaven muck*, Ponzer muck*, Conaby muck*, Engelhard
very fine sand*, Weeksville loam*, New Holland mucky loamy sand*, Udorthents, Fortescue silt
loam*, Hydeland silt loam*, Portsmouth mucky sandy loam*, Wysocking very fine sandy loam*, and
Acredale silt loam* (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 2001) (Table 4). Soils with an asterisk are
listed as hydric in ‘Hydric Soils of the United States’ (USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1985). Hydric
soils are those, "…that in their undrained condition are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic (water loving) vegetation" (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985). These soils have
seasonally high water tables within a foot of the surface of the soil.
The wetlands typical of the area are characterized by deep organic soils known as mucks or peats.
The depth of organic soil over mineral soil, though not evident at the surface, has a tremendous
influence on the potential uses of the land. Typically, the deeper the muck surface layer, the shorter
the vegetation in the native plant community growing on the soil. The dominant species in the plant
communities are dense shrubs tolerant of the wet, acidic soils. Tall trees are unable to establish their
deep root systems in the deep organic soils. Wind easily topples trees that do grow on the deep
20 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
organic soils. Over the years, evolution has selected trees that are shorter. Formation of peat is an
ongoing process in areas sufficiently wet to prevent oxidation of organic matter deposited by plants.
There are no soils with more than 51 inches of muck over mineral soil identified on the refuge.
The following soils have surface layers of 16 to 51 inches of muck: Belhaven (1,130 acres; 13 percent
of the land area of the refuge), and Ponzer (30 acres: 0.3 percent). These soils are excessively wet,
but rarely flood. They are characterized by layers of peat over mineral soil, and are mostly unsuitable
for agriculture (Skaggs et al., 1980; Lilly 1981). The productivity of the maple, gum, and bald cypress
forests is lower on these soils, compared to mineral soils with less than 16 inches of organic soil.
With appropriate drainage and bedding, productivity can be increased. However, the refuge would
not likely engage extensively in such practices on these deep organic soils owing to accelerated
oxidation of peat and release of nitrogen and mercury – a negative impact on water quality.
Table 4. Soil characteristics at Mattamuskeet NWR
Series Approximate
Acreage
Surface
Texture
Muck
Depth
Water Table
Depth
Flooding
Frequency
Belhaven* 1,130 Muck 40” 0-1’ Rare
Ponzer* 30 Muck 21” 0-1’ Rare
Conaby* 80 Muck 13” 0-1’ Rare
Engelhard* 3,125 Very Fine
Sand None 0-1’ Rare
Weeksville* 1,430 Loam None 0-1’ Rare
New Holland* 1,245 Mucky Loamy
Sand None 0-1’ Rare
Udorthents* 645 Sand None 0-6’ Rare
Fortescue* 290 Silt Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Hydeland* 210 Silt Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Portsmouth* 195 Mucky Sandy
Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Wysocking* 40 Very Fine
Sandy Loam None 0-1’ Rare
Acredale* 5 Silt Loam None >6’ Rare
Total Land 8,425
Impoundment
s 2,755
Water 40,000
Total 51,180
*Hydric soil
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Conaby soil (80 acres, 1.0 percent) has less than 16 inches of muck over mineral soil. The native
vegetation on these soils is the maple, gum, and baldcypress forest typical of that on wet mineral
soils and the productivity of the soils are similar to mineral soils. When drained, these soils are
among the most productive agricultural soils in the area. The USDA, Natural Resources
Conservation Service classifies Conaby as a prime farmland soils.
Mineral soils make up 7,165 acres (85.7 percent) of the land area of the refuge. The soil with the largest
area is Engelhard very fine sand (3,124 acres mostly in the north-central part of the refuge, 36 percent of
land area), followed by, Weeksville loam (1,427, 16 percent), New Holland (1,245, 15 percent),
Udorthents (644, 8 percent), Fortescue (289, 3 percent), Hydeland (212, 2 percent), Portsmouth (199, 2
percent), Wysocking (42, <1 percent), and Acredale (5, <1 percent). Most mineral soils are more
productive than organic soils for crops as well as forest trees. Most on the refuge are poorly drained and
rarely flood. They would grow loblolly pine, baldcypress, swamp blackgum, red maple, sweetgum, water
oak, willow oak, and swamp white oak. The USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies
Acredale, Engelhard, Fortescue, Hydeland, New Holland, Portsmouth, Weeksville, and Wysocking as
prime farmland soils if drained. The refuge’s cropland is on Engelhard soils.
The Udorthent soils are well-drained to droughty and are more suitable for native tree species such
as longleaf pine, loblolly pine, and upland oak species such as white oak and red oak. Udorthents
are the dredge spoils from the canals and ditches and are extremely droughty.
HYDROLOGY
Ground water provides the freshwater resources for the area. Studies have shown that the ground
water reservoir consists of two types of aquifers: a water table aquifer which extends from the land
surface to the first confining beds of silt and clay, and a confined, or semi-confined aquifer beneath
and between the silt and clay beds. The water table aquifer ranges in thickness from 10 to 50 feet
and averages 15 feet. The water table itself averages 3 feet above mean sea level.
Maintenance of the fresh groundwater depends on the amount of rainfall. Due to the sandy nature of
the soils, rainfall infiltrates the soil and enters the water table aquifer with little or no surface runoff.
However, after the ground has become saturated during periods of intensive rainfall, some runoff
occurs in roadside ditches and small intermittent fresh water ponds.
The deeper confined aquifers are as much as 30 feet thick and are below the first confining beds
whose thickness ranges from 5 to 20 feet. Exact thicknesses are difficult to determine due to the
gradational nature of sediments below the water table aquifer.
The fresh groundwater is best described as a lens-shaped mass floating on top of denser salt water.
The amount of fresh water in this lens varies depending on the amount of recharge and discharge.
Between the fresh water and salt water a zone of brackish water occurs. This zone periodically
changes due to flooding, tidal movement, and rainfall.
WATER QUALITY
There are three National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted sites that
discharge into waters adjacent to the refuge. Two are seafood-processing plants and one is a
domestic water supply treatment plant.
22 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
The State has classified North Carolina water bodies and streams according to their water quality and
the uses that quality supports. The classifications for the waters surrounding the Mattamuskeet NWR
are listed below in Table 5.
Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding Mattamuskeet NWR
Water Body or Stream Classification Best Uses
Boundary Canal
Rose Canal
Swindells Canal
Florida Canal
Burrus Canal
Carters Canal
Jarvis Canal
C– Low Quality
Freshwater
SW – Low Velocity
Water
Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)
Lake Mattamuskeet
Rose Bay Canal
Outfall Canal
Quarter Canal
Gray Ditch
Waupopin Canal
Fairfield Canal
SC– Low Quality
Saltwater
Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)
AIR QUALITY
Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary air
quality standards to protect public health. EPA has also set secondary standards to protect public
welfare. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems, including plants and animals, from harm,
as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings.
EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air
pollutants (also called “criteria pollutants”). They are Ground-Level Ozone (O3), Particulate
Matter (PM), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Lead
(Pb). Areas that meet the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants are said to be “in attainment,” while
areas that exceed the NAAQS are said to be “non-attainment areas.” The area closest to the
refuge that an environmental agency monitors for all of the criteria pollutants is the Virginia
Beach-Norfolk, Virginia, metropolitan area. EPA monitors carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, sulfur dioxide and particulates in Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News,
Suffolk, and Chesapeake. Despite the large population with the industry, traffic, and power
plants, the area has exceeded only ozone level standards in 2002. Monitoring has indicated
unhealthy levels only twice and unhealthy levels for sensitive groups only thirteen times. The
better air quality than expected is due to the breezes blowing through the area from the ocean.
Closer to the refuge, data from the state show that Hyde County is in attainment both for ground-level
ozone and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter) (North Carolina Division of Air
Quality, 2005). Based on EPA's most current data, Hyde County ranks among the cleanest or best
20 percent of all counties in the country. This is based on an average individual's estimated added
cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants (Scorecard 2005). Table 6 presents annual emissions of
criteria pollutants for Hyde County.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Table 6. Annual emissions (tons) of select criteria pollutants in Hyde County, North Carolina
CO NOx* PM-10 SO2 VOCs*
Mobile Sources 8,836 1,095 303 150 3,325
Areas Sources 9,521 178 1,690 87 1,614
Point Sources 0 14 0 1 0
All Sources 18,358 1,287 1,993 238 4,939
Ranking*** Highest 60-
70%
Lowest 20-
30%
Lowest 10-
20%
Lowest 30-
40%
Highest 70-
80%
* Nitrogen oxides, including NO2
** Volatile Organic Compounds, a precursor to ozone
*** Rank of county compared with all counties in USA; a lower ranking is better (fewer
pollutants emitted)
Source: Scorecard, 2005.
Prescribed burning on the refuge has the potential to have a short-term adverse impact on air quality.
The State of North Carolina specifies that prescribed fires purposely set in marshes for marsh
management practices acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the Environmental
Management Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and regulations of
governmental entities having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses
certain potential liabilities of burning even though permissible.
VISUAL RESOURCES
Mattamuskeet NWR offers a great variety of habitats and wildlife species; however, effort on the part of
the observer is often required in order to see and appreciate the resources. There is certainly a grand
opportunity for visitors to see and experience habitats and wildlife not available in other places. From the
shorelines of Lake Mattamuskeet, visitors can watch sunrises, sunsets, forest silhouettes, and other
scenic vistas. One of the most popular and first sights seen by refuge visitors is the view from the
causeway (Route 94) through Lake Mattamuskeet. For many, this is the first exposure to tundra swans.
Trails, roadways, and fishing areas; opportunities for canoeing and kayaking into dense and unique
habitats; all make this refuge a popular spot. The causeway through the lake, entrance road, and
wildlife drive south of the lake offer scenic vistas of wildlife management areas and good, close-up
examples of an impoundment managed for waterfowl and shorebirds.
Mattamuskeet Lodge is Hyde County’s most famous landmark. It is the county’s tallest man-made
structure and represents significant events in the county’s history from large-scale drainage and land
clearing for agriculture to the popularity waterfowl hunting as a recreational pursuit. Area visitors will
see images of the lodge throughout the county.
U.S. Highway 264, as it passes just south of Mattamuskeet NWR, and North Carolina Route 94, as it
passes through the refuge, are part of the Alligator River Route of the North Carolina Scenic Byway.
Motorists in the area frequently hope that they will spot black bear and the far more elusive American
alligator, red-cockaded woodpecker and red wolf. The Charles Kuralt Trail also highlights the refuge.
This auto trail was established to help people enjoy the wildlands and 11 national wildlife refuges of the
24 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
mid-Atlantic coastal plain of North Carolina and Virginia, and to commemorate the famous broadcast
journalist and native North Carolinian who shared the delights and wonders of off-the-beaten-track spots
like these with his fellow Americans (Northeastern North Carolina 2007).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Human development activities have profoundly affected plant communities on the refuge over time.
Some of these activities occurred before the Service established the refuge and some have occurred
since. Most notable today are the road/canal systems, public highways, farmland, and the refuge
maintenance/support facilities. However, the undisturbed swamp forest and wetlands on the refuge
contains many important wildlife and ecological resources. Since clear-cutting, peat mining, and
agricultural conversion have developed much of the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula, this area remains as
important wildlife habitat in eastern North Carolina. Lake Mattamuskeet is the dominant habitat feature on
the refuge. Other principal habitats are moist-soil units to support waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading
birds; freshwater marshes to support marsh birds and wading birds; and wet pine flatwoods to support
mammals and songbirds. Hyde County, in which Mattamuskeet NWR lies, is a stronghold for the black
bear in North Carolina and the mid-Atlantic coast. In terms of listed species, the refuge also has the
potential for habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, currently hosts bald eagles, and was a
site for reintroduction of the red wolf. More recently, the staff has utilized prescribed fire to maintain plant
communities and a variety of successional stages on the refuge.
There are 12 habitat types/land uses found on the refuge (Figure 4 and Table 7). These cover types,
for the most part, are classified as wetlands based upon vegetation, degree of soil saturation, and
hydroperiod. All cropland is classified as prior converted wetland.
Table 7. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Mattamuskeet NWR
Habitat Acreage
Open Water 40,276
Freshwater Marsh 2,046
Nonriverine Swamp Forest 1,933
Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 1,210
Wet Pine Flatwoods 960
Moist Soil Unit Impoundment 1,997
Cypress-Gum Impoundment 572
Cypress-Gum Swamp 266
Cropland 191
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Field 189
Administrative Areas 401
High Pocosin 139
Total Acres 50,180
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Open Water
Lake Mattamuskeet is the prominent habitat feature of the refuge (Table 7 and Figure 4). The
40,276-acre lake is a shallow basin ranging from 0.5 - 3 feet deep. The source of water for the lake is
rainfall and surface runoff from adjacent agricultural land. Water pH ranges from neutral to slightly
acidic. In Lake Mattamuskeet submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is an important habitat
component. The most common SAV is wild celery, redhead grass, and musk grass.
It is difficult to exaggerate the true importance of the lake and surrounding impoundments and
wetlands to regional wintering waterfowl. This refuge is indeed a magnet that attracts a majority of
the current swans and pintails inventoried along the entire Atlantic Coast. Literally tens of thousands
of tundra swans, geese and wading/shore birds, and hundreds of thousands ducks utilize this nucleus
during fall, winter, and spring migrations.
Freshwater Marsh
The majority of the 2,046 acres of marsh lies on the southern edge of Lake Mattamuskeet. Most
natural marshes have a natural fire frequency of one to three years, but some areas have endured
fire exclusion during the past half century or longer. As a result, the unburned areas have a lack of
species diversity, as only one to three species of marsh grasses predominate in the wetter or lower
marshes, and encroaching brush has now dominated the high marshes. On Mattamuskeet NWR,
sawgrass and cattail historically dominated unburned marshes but these marshes are now dominated
by phragmites (Phragmites australis). Marshes with natural fire frequencies have a diversity of
sedges, rushes, bulrushes, and wildflowers.
Dead grass makes up a large component of marsh stands that have not been burned, limiting plant
productivity and nutrient availability and adversely affecting wildlife habitat. Infrequent natural fire or
prescribed burning results in invasion by shrubs that occupy 500 acres of marsh. Invasion by
common reed has been a major problem in the marshes and it occupies 900 acres. Control of
invasive species requires a combination of fire, mowing, flooding, and herbicide applications.
The marshes are essential habitats for rails, bitterns, salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow, and seaside sparrow.
Peregrine falcons and northern harriers hunt in the marshes. Waterfowl such as American black ducks use
the marsh for food and cover. Marshes are also vital nursery areas and habitats for many saltwater species
as well as species of freshwater fish, crustaceans, and mollusks (Table 7 and Figure 4).
Nonriverine Swamp Forest
This habitat type occurs on 1,933 acres of shallow organic soils found primarily in the southeastern
and northeastern edges of Lake Mattamuskeet (Table 7 and Figure 4). Various soft mast-producing
hardwood trees typical of bottomland hardwoods dominate this forest. A long history of poor logging
practices has further degraded this habitat type. However, a tree canopy of sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) dominate the forest in the natural state. Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and serviceberry (Amelanchier canadensis)
may also be found. Dominant understory vegetation includes American holly (Ilex opaca), deciduous
holly (I. decidua), blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweet
and bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra and coriacea), and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida). The ground layer may
have cane, netted and Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis),
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens). Common woody
vines are greenbrier (Smilax spp.), grape (Vitis spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and cross vine (Bigninia capreolata).
26 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Habitats and land use at Mattamuskeet NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest
Forests of mixed hardwoods and pines are found on 1,210 acres in the western half of the
southern edge of Lake Mattamuskeet. Red maple, red bay (Persea borbonia), and swamp tupelo
are dominant hardwood trees with an average height of 50 to 60 feet. Pond pine (Pinus serotina)
and loblolly pine (P. taeda) are the pine species present. Dominant shrubs are fetterbush (Lyonia
lucida), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana). Typically little or no
herbaceous vegetation is present. River cane (Arundinaria gigantea) may be found in some
locations (Table 7 and Figure 4).
Wet Pine Flatwoods Forest
Forests of mixtures of loblolly pine and hardwood trees are found on 960 acres in scattered areas
throughout the refuge (Table 7 and Figure 4). Red maple, red bay, and black gum trees are
dominant hardwood species with an average height of 50 to 60 feet. Loblolly pine is the primary pine
species present. Dominant shrubs are waxmyrtle, fetterbush, bitter gallberry, and sweet bay. Little or
no herbaceous vegetation is present (Noffsinger et. al 1984). Chinese privet (Ligustrum chinense)
and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are invasive weeds of concern. Cane may be found
in some locations. The refuge staff manages areas with enough pine straw with prescribed fire to
control understory vegetation and reduce fuels that could pose a wildfire hazard. The National Park
Service has designated a 150-acre old growth stand as a National Natural Area.
Moist-Soil Unit Impoundments
The Service developed approximately 1,933 acres as moist soil management units on the southern
edge of Lake Mattamuskeet in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Water management in the moist-soil units is done to promote optimum growth conditions for
vegetation adapted to growing in a moist environment that produce good waterfowl food. This
generally entails a slow drawdown of water in the spring. However, each unit is drawn down at a
different time to create a diversity of habitats. Drawdowns may begin as early as March and end as
late as early June. A slow drawdown is generally preferred to avoid flushing nutrients and coliform
bacteria from the farm fields. Some units may be completely dried out during the spring and early
summer so that treatments such as burning, disking, and planting can be conducted to encourage
moist soil plant growth and/or set back noxious weeds and perennial plants. Monitoring determines
the quality of the vegetation in each unit and the results of monitoring dictates whether the unit
requires more intensive management (Table 8). Once treatments are complete, moist soil conditions
are maintained during the remainder of the summer. During years with very dry summers, water may
be pumped into moist soil units to facilitate growth of moist-soil plants. In early fall, the units are
gradually flooded to encourage use by waterfowl (Table 7 and Figure 4).
Cypress-Gum Impoundments
This vegetation type is encompassed by three forested impoundments totaling 572 acres which are
located adjacent to moist soil units and are flooded semi-permanently to function as a very wet
cypress-gum swamp containing open water, freshwater marsh, and moist-soil plants. These
wetlands provide important breeding habitat for wood ducks and wintering habitat for greenwing teal
and ringneck duck. They also provide habitat for turtles, frogs, water snakes, and many species of
wading birds. Once every three to five years the forested impoundments are drawn down to reduce
the carp population and to encourage moist-soil plant growth.
28 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Table 8. Examples of vegetation in moist-soil units with different levels of management
Intensive Management – Good/Fair
Waterfowl Foods Minimal Management – Poor Waterfowl Foods
Barnyardgrass
Dwarf spikerush
Fall panicum
Flat Sedge, yellow nut
Foursquare
Seedbox
Smooth beggarticks
Southern naiad
Smartweed
Water hyssop
Walter’s wild millet
Alligatorweed
Broadleaf cattail
Centella
Cocklebur
Common reed (Phragmites)
Dog Fennel
Early whitetop fleabane
Morning Glory
Sesbania
Woolgrass
Cypress-Gum Swamp
This cover type is found primarily on 266 acres of islands located in the southwest portion of lake
Mattamuskeet. Dominant tree species are bald cypress, black gum, red maple, and red bay. Other
tree species may include Carolina water ash and green ash. An occasional loblolly or pond pine may
be found scattered throughout. Average canopy height of these trees varies depending upon
hydroperiod and past logging practices but can be 100 to 120 feet. Large trees suitable for denning
by many wildlife species may be found throughout this forest type. These den trees add a very
important component to the overall habitat. The den trees house species such as neotropical
migratory songbirds, wood ducks, bats, raccoons, and black bear. Red bay, greenbrier, titi, and
fetterbush make up the shrub layer. Very little if any herbaceous vegetation is present in the
understory (Table 7 and Figure 4).
Cropland
The 191 acres of cropland (excluding 189 acres under the Conservation Reserve Program) provide a
high-energy food (corn) close to moist soil sites with minimal daily disturbance to help meet the needs
of ducks and geese. In North Carolina, the availability of high energy foods is severely reduced
during critical periods (December, January, and February) due to the practice of harvesting such
crops in September or earlier. This lack of high-energy foods (hot foods) is a potential limiting factor
for geese, swans, and ducks in North Carolina during critical weather events. Private lands play an
important role in supplying habitat needs of migratory birds, but cropland on the refuge provides a
more reliable and long-term habitat and sanctuary need.
The cropland is rented out to local farmers (cooperative farmers) who farm the land and leave a
portion of the crop standing in the field as a rental payment. The rent payment in crops provides
approximately 95 acres of high-energy food (corn), which is thus available for waterfowl. The farmers
operate under a Cooperative Farming Agreement that specifies the use of a crop rotation which is
approved by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, focusing on corn, soybeans, and
wheat (Table 7 and Figure 4).
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Fields
A total of 189 acres of cropland which was prone to wetness and yielded poorly was taken out of
production in 2001 and allowed to grow into a natural stand of grasses and forbs. Broomsedge
bluestem, tall fescue, goldenrod, asters and other herbaceous species predominate. Some sections
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
also have wax myrtle and bacharus shrubs. White-tailed deer, gray fox, marsh rabbits, cotton rats,
red-winged blackbirds and northern harrier are some of the more common species which use the
area. Occasionally, red wolves hunt in the area for food. Periodic fire and/or mowing are used to
maintain the area as a grasslalnd and prevent it from growing into forest. The area provides a unique
habitat on the refuge as most of the refuge is forested or wetland.
Administrative Areas
The refuge requires dikes, roads, parking lots, office and maintenance/storage buildings, residences,
and lawns to provide safe and efficient access to the refuge, facilitate visitation, house employees,
and store vehicles and equipment used in management. The staff does not manage these areas
intensively for wildlife. Roadsides and lawns do fragment natural habitat and create corridors along
which exotic and invasive plants thrive and spread. However, they also provide habitat for robins,
nesting turtles, rabbits, and kestrels.
High Pocosin
The high pocosin community is associated with deep to intermediate-depth organic soils, primarily in
a transitional zone between low pocosin and the pond pine pocosin. The shrub layer is the dominant
feature of this community. However, shrubs tend to be taller (10-15 feet) than those in low pocosins
and trees, mostly pond pine (Pinus serotina), may grow up to thirty to forty feet. Bitter gallberry (Ilex
glabra) and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) dominate this shrub layer with Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia
virginica) being the most abundant herbaceous plant. Other shrub species may include wax myrtle
(Morella cerifera) and groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), especially on edges and in areas of
disturbance. Red bay (Persea borbonia) and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) may be found, but
are uncommon. High pocosin occupies almost 140 acres, mostly on deep organic soils on the
eastern half of the southern edge of Lake Mattamuskeet (Table 7 and Figure 4).
INVASIVE AND NON-NATIVE PLANTS (EXOTICS)
Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) is an invasive plant currently found in the refuge’s canals
and impoundments. Common reed (Phragmities australis) is found throughout various refuge areas
including lakeshores, marshes, moist soil units, and disturbed sites. Recent intensive control efforts
have significantly reduced the presence of this species in moist soil impoundments but extensive
stands remain along the shoreline of the lake.
The Service planted roadsides to tall fescue and lawns to Kentucky bluegrass, Bermuda grass and
white clover as there are no native grasses or legume species that tolerant frequent mowing at low
heights. Low mowing heights minimizes seed production and the potential for the exotic species to
escape into natural habitats. The corridors along roads and levees do facilitate the spread of other
exotic species such as thistle (Cirsium sp.), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), white poplar (Populus alba),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum chinense), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) which thrive
and spread on roadside environments and the edges of natural habitats.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANTS
Although there have been no comprehensive botanical surveys, there are no known federally listed
plants on the refuge. However, Sensitive Joint Vetch, Aeschynomene virginica, a federally
threatened species, does occur near the refuge and may possibly occur on the refuge.
30 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
WILDLIFE
Mattamuskeet NWR lies in the middle of the Atlantic Flyway and provides a valuable wintering area
for the waterfowl using this migration route, which extends from Canada southward. Thousands of
Canada geese, snow geese, tundra swan and 22 species of ducks overwinter on the refuge annually.
Although celebrated primarily for its waterfowl, Mattamuskeet NWR also provides habitat for formerly
listed species such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Deer, bobcats, otters, black bear, 240
species of birds and other wildlife species are indigenous to the area. The refuge and its surrounding
waters support many species of resident and migratory fish and wildlife. Of these, 48 species are fish
(Hester and Copeland 1975; Johnson et al., 1980), 145 are birds, 48 are reptiles and amphibians,
and 40 are mammals. The refuge supports wildlife species that are important from both a regional
and a national standpoint. Its large size and vegetative diversity make the refuge a haven for species
that require aquatic and wetland habitats.
Birds
Mattamuskeet NWR provides habitat for a wide variety of birds. Because of the refuge's large size
and plant community diversity, habitat is provided for forest-dwelling species as well as marsh-dwelling
species. This somewhat unique complex of various wetland habitat types results in the
presence of some unique avian forms such as the Wayne’s black-throated green warbler, a distinct
form of prairie warbler, and an unusually dense population of worm-eating warblers (Watts and
Paxton, 2002). There are approximately 250 species of birds that visit regularly with about 40-50
additional species considered accidental visitors.
The area is roughly at midpoint in the Atlantic Flyway and is a much used and valuable feeding and
resting area for numerous species of wintering waterfowl. Tundra swans, coots, and more than 25
species of ducks winter either on the refuge or in the sounds and rivers adjacent to the refuge.
Populations of migratory waterfowl peak during the months of November through February. In
addition to waterfowl, large numbers of hawks, owls, and many species of passerine birds may be
seen. Avian species composition changes throughout the year since most birds are migratory.
Waterfowl. Lake Mattamuskeet provides 40,000 acres of open water for resting, feeding, and escape
cover. The moist soil management units support large numbers of waterfowl. The wood duck is the
most abundant year-round species. This species is most often associated with the lakeshores,
wooded swamps, ditches, and canals. The most prevalent wintering species are found in moist-soil
units and refuge marshes and include northern pintail, green-winged teal, gadwall, widgeon, mallard,
and black duck (Table 9). Other species wintering or migrating on the refuge and surrounding waters
may include blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, shoveler, scaup, canvasback, ruddy duck, red head,
bufflehead, hooded merganser and red-breasted merganser. Tundra swan numbers increased
steadily to a peak of about 25,000 birds on average. There is a flock of resident Canada geese on
the refuge. Both migratory Canada geese and snow geese use the refuge. The refuge is an
important wintering area for the Atlantic Population of Canada (AP) Geese. Although this population
has increased significantly in the Atlantic Flyway over the last decade, the numbers of AP geese
wintering in northeastern North Carolina have not returned to historic levels.
Breeding Birds. The species that breed on the refuge are characteristic of species that inhabit other
coastal plain communities. They include warblers, nuthatches, thrashers, and blue-gray
gnatcatchers. Wading birds such as the great blue heron are common and breeding has been
documented in at least one rookery on the refuge. Bald eagles and ospreys have also historically
nested on the refuge and viable nests remain.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Table 9. Waterfowl survey results, 2006 – 2007
Species 12/19/06 1/10/07
Northern Pintail 27,060 45,773
American Green-Winged Teal 55,247 96,627
Blue-Winged Teal 12 8
Tundra Swan 27,839 28,000
Lesser Snow Goose 2,500 11,700
Canada Goose 5,889 4,236
American Wigeon 16,246 7,675
Mallard 1,548 1,583
Ring-necked Duck 27,698 30,425
Ruddy Duck 345 233
Northern Shoveler 169 719
Black Duck 3,465 3,764
Gadwall 732 1,364
American Coot 64,595 26,905
Redhead 110 7,920
Canvasback 55 247
Lesser Scaup 60 440
Hooded Merganser 7 40
Red Breasted Merganser 42 20
Wood Duck 57 0
Total Waterfowl 233,678 267,679
Wintering Birds. The most common winter species are the American robin, yellow-rumped warbler,
red-winged blackbird, sparrows, and northern bobwhite. Robins feed heavily on berries of redbay
and greenbrier and roost in large concentrations along canals and ditches. Myrtle warblers use
vegetated canal banks and forest edges. They feed heavily on wax myrtle berries. Northern
bobwhite and red-winged blackbirds overwinter primarily in the agricultural fields on the refuge. The
song sparrow, fox sparrow, swamp sparrow, white-throated sparrow, and savannah sparrow inhabit
the agricultural grassland filter strips. Mourning doves and crows winter on the refuge in smaller
numbers, making use of the farm fields. The American kestrel and the red-tailed hawk prey in the
open areas of the refuge, while the northern harrier hunts over the marshes and fields.
32 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Transient Species. The refuge lies in the path of the Atlantic Flyway, a major migration route running
north and south along the Atlantic Seaboard of North America. The refuge provides resting and
foraging areas for many migrant species which winter farther south. Species which migrate through
the refuge during the fall include: blue-winged teal; raptors such as the broad-winged hawk and
merlin; shorebirds; and a variety of perching birds (passerines) such as the western kingbird, bank
swallow, Swainson's thrush, warblers (yellow, magnolia, Cape May, black-throated blue, blackpoll
and palm) bobolink, northern oriole, and rose-breasted grosbeak.
Mammals
Of the 47 species of mammals commonly occurring in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, 42 of
these occur on the refuge. Common land mammals include several species of mice and rats, bats,
rabbits, opossums, and white-tailed deer. Semi-aquatic furbearers such as the muskrat, river otter and
non-native nutria are also common. Numbers of beaver are increasing. The white-tailed deer population
has remained relatively constant at low numbers in recent years. However, deer herd health checks at
five-year intervals show that the population is at or very near carrying capacity for pocosin habitat. The
black bear population is among the highest density bear populations in the southeast. Numerous
sightings of eastern cougar have been reported but none have been confirmed.
American Black Bear. The Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula has one of the largest concentrations of
black bear found in the southeastern United States. Hyde County annually has one of the top two
highest levels of bear harvest of all counties in North Carolina. Approximately 10,000 acres of the
refuge has forested wetlands which are used by black bears. These forests occur as a narrow strip of
land around Lake Mattamuskeet, thus their value and use by black bear is largely determined by land
use practices on adjacent private property. Most adjacent private property is farmed and/or used for
waterfowl impoundments, thus bear habitat is quite limited on the refuge. The southwest portion of
the refuge has the greatest bear population on the refuge; this is also where the largest tracts of
forest occur on the refuge as well as on neighboring private property.
White-tailed Deer. The white-tailed deer is one of the most sought after game species in the region.
White-tailed deer are considered to be browsers because they primarily consume woody vegetation.
However, whitetails will eat almost any available form of plant life. Because of this adaptability, it is
impossible to single out one habitat as greatly superior to others. Interaction of deer and habitat is a
combination of food preference and utilization, quantity and quality of food, and availability of cover
(Halls 1984; Halls and Ripley 1961). However, best estimates suggest a much lower carrying
capacity for pocosin habitat than other habitat types. For example, Monschein (1981) reported best
estimates for pocosin habitat is about six deer per square mile; about 18 deer per square mile along
pocosin borders; and 35-40 deer per square mile for coastal bottomland hardwoods. Basic
differences involve the quantity, quality, and availability of food.
Since establishment of the refuge, periodic abomasal parasite counts, necropsy findings, laboratory
tests, and general physical condition indicate that the health of the deer population is fair to good. It
was concluded in 1985, 1992, and 1998 by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Study that the
Mattamuskeet deer were within an optimal stocking density for the nutritional capacity of the habitat.
The refuge conducts two 2-day hunts in October of each year to help keep the deer population
healthy. Annual harvest during the past 10 years was between 50 and 80 deer, with approximately
1/3 female and 2/3 male.
Furbearers. Mattamuskeet NWR provides habitat for several fur-bearing species. Raccoon, nutria,
muskrat, otter and mink make use of the canals and streams that run through the refuge. The gray
fox primarily uses edge habitats, feeding on small mammals as well as blackberries and other fruits.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Bobcats are common predators on the refuge and are most commonly observed around the farm
unit, along the edges of pocosin areas, and in swamp forests. They may be found throughout the
refuge because of the presence of the marsh rabbit, the bobcat's main prey.
In addition to the mammals already mentioned, the refuge supports populations of the gray squirrel,
cottontail rabbit, opossum, and several rodent and insectivore species.
Reptiles and Amphibians
There are 61 species of reptiles and amphibians reported for the refuge. Reptiles and amphibians
are most numerous and diverse around permanent and semi-permanent open water, marshes,
creeks, lakes, and canals. They also thrive in disturbed or modified and transitional areas. Some of
the species that inhabit the area are the brown, banded, and plain-bellied water snakes; common
snapping, red-bellied and eastern painted turtles; the southern leopard frog; and a wide variety of
snakes. Four venomous snake species have been documented on the refuge: the cottonmouth
moccasin, canebrake (timber) rattlesnake, pygmy rattlesnake, and copperhead.
American Alligator. The refuge is near the northern extent of the American alligator's natural range in
North America. This formerly threatened reptile occurs in refuge marshes, slow-moving streams, and
man-made canals. They prefer areas where water turbidity is low, water quality is high, and an adequate
food source is present. Canals and drainage ditches provide the primary alligator habitat on the refuge.
Fish
The fishery on and surrounding Mattamuskeet NWR is diverse and productive. The refuge's interior lakes
and streams support species characteristic of blackwater or oligohaline systems. Fish that inhabit the
refuge include resident species, migratory species, anadromous species, and one catadromous species.
Resident species such as largemouth bass, black crappie, white bass (white perch), a variety of
sunfish (bream), and catfish inhabit Lake Mattamuskeet and the associated canals on the refuge.
These and other freshwater species provide a large portion of the diet of migratory species, which are
important to both sport and commercial fishermen. Migratory species that use the refuge include
Atlantic croaker, spot, Atlantic menhaden, and the southern and summer flounders. Most of these
species are commercially harvested elsewhere. Anadromous species are those that spawn in the
refuge's freshwater streams and estuary, inhabit these areas as juveniles, mature offshore, and
return to these streams to spawn as adults. These species include striped bass, alewife, and
blueback herring. The American eel, Anguilla rostrata, is the primary catadromous species on the
refuge. This species spawns in the Sargasso Sea, travels to the East Coast of the United States, and
matures in freshwater streams and lakes.
Insect and Disease Pests
The gypsy moth is now well established as far south as northeastern North Carolina. The North
Carolina Division of Plant Industry and the USDA Forest Service closely monitor gypsy moth
populations. They use pheromone traps located throughout the Hyde County mainland and barrier
islands, including refuge lands. When they detect large-scale outbreaks, they use integrated pest
management techniques to suppress the outbreak, but not necessarily eliminate the species from the
area. Although the refuge is within the quarantine area of northeastern North Carolina, there have
not been any outbreaks of the gypsy moth requiring treatment other than on Roanoke Island.
Since the mid-1990s Southern pine beetle outbreaks and cutting controlling buffers have resulted in the
conversion of over 5,000 acres of mostly pond pine habitat to shrub habitat. Without prescribed fire, this
acreage will most likely remain as shrub habitat unless pond pine is planted after site preparation. During
2002 and 2003 the spread of southern pine beetle infestations was greatly diminished.
34 Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Fire ants are well-established on the refuge and occur in large densities on levees, roadsides, and
lawns. They can out-compete native ants in these areas and can easily kill flightless baby birds and
other small slow-moving animals.
Invasive and Non-Native Animals (Exotics)
At the present time little is known about the impact of exotic organisms to native wildlife on the
refuge. Feral cats and dogs can be found on the refuge but population size and use of the refuge
is little understood.
The nutria was introduced from South America many years ago but has spread throughout the
southeast and is now naturalized. It is very abundant on the refuge. Although the nutria can be
destructive to levees and vegetation, the species is used as a food source for by alligators and other
native predators. The impacts of nutria to waterfowl and other waterbirds are not known and are an
important research need.
Feral swine are established within a few miles of the northwest corner of the refuge. It is quite likely
they will inhabit the refuge within the next few years. They will have a profound effect on virtually all
habitats on the refuge and will quite likely reduce population levels of many species including
waterfowl. Nearly 50 percent of all waterfowl on the refuge occur in the managed impoundments;
thus any destruction of moist soil plants by feral swine will have a direct negative impact on waterfowl.
Coyotes are not native to North Carolina but are nevertheless becoming much more common
throughout the state. Other canines including the native gray fox and the reintroduced red wolf are
negatively influenced by coyotes. A continued increase in the coyote population will likely affect
many other species as well.
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
Several federally listed species occur, or may occur, in the area. Among them are the red-cockaded
woodpecker, red wolf, and American alligator. The red wolf occurs throughout the refuge.
The red-cockaded woodpecker has not been documented to occur on the refuge in recent times.
However, there are active colonies on the nearby Gull Rock Gamelands Area. No recent surveys
have been conducted but suitable habitat may be present in the southwestern portion of the refuge.
The Service first reintroduced the red wolf on the refuge in 1987. Since the initial releases, wolves
have reproduced in the wild and may be found throughout the refuge and four surrounding counties.
Depending upon circumstances within and between packs, there can be from one to two packs of
wolves on the refuge at any given time. An estimated 100 wolves now inhabit a 1.7-million acre area
in eastern North Carolina.
The American alligator is listed as threatened by similarity of appearance with the American crocodile
in North Carolina and is found in aquatic habitat throughout the refuge. The Service has documented
nesting in recent years on the refuge, but the current population is not known.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Access To "Indian Sacred Sites" to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic
resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and
remains that are related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of
traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP as a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an
American Indian tribe. Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that
is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest.
Mattamuskeet NWR follows these legal mandates to protect the public’s interest in preserving the
cultural legacy that may potentially occur on the refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken
that involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment, such as tractors, graders, and
bulldozers, the refuge contracts with a qualified archaeologist or cultural resources expert to conduct
an archaeological survey of the site. The results of these surveys are submitted to the Service’s
Regional Historic Preservation Officer in Atlanta, Georgia, as well as the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO), which, in North Carolina, is the Office of Archives and History in the Department of
Cultural Resources. The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will
be impacted, that is, whether any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected. If cultural resources are actually encountered during construction
activities, the refuge is to notify the SHPO immediately.
There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The staff conducts
management activities so as to avoid compromising sensitive sites and requests an investigation
before they plan any development. The most important cultural resource site is Mattamuskeet
Lodge. The Lodge is on the National List of Historic Places and has been the symbol of the
county for decades. The Service closed the Lodge because of structural problems. However, an
act passed by Congress in 2006 (H.R. 5094), the “Lake Mattamuskeet Lodge Preservation Act,”
conveyed the lodge to the State of North Carolina, and permits the State to use the property,
adjacent to the refuge headquarters, as a public facility dedicated to the conservation of the
natural and cultural resources of North Carolina.
The inhabitants of Hyde County at the time of European settlement were Coastal Algonkians
called the Machapungo and Mattamuskeets. By the early 1700s, most of the Indians lived on a
reservation in the eastern part of the county. In 1711 the number of Indians was about 30, and
by 1761 only six remained.
English explorers first arrived in the county in 1585. The early history of the county was dominated by
maritime trade and featured the exploits of Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard the Pirate. The
first settlers were castaways from ships.
The North Carolina General Assembly formed Hyde County from Bath County in 1705 and originally
named it Wickam County. It named the county Hyde County