LMWRP_FinalwithAddendum_Upload

LAKE MATTAMUSKEET
WATERSHED RESTORATION
PLAN
An anchor to the past, a path to the future

NOVEMBER 30, 2018
PREPARED BY: NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
On behalf of: Hyde County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission

L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. i
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS and GLOSSARY ............................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 3
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 6
HISTORY OF DRAINAGE ALTERATIONS ...................................................................................................... 7
MODERN HYDROLOGY AND LAND USE..................................................................................................... 8
CURRENT STATE OF THE LAKE ................................................................................................................. 13
EDUCATION and OUTREACH ...................................................................................................................... 15
MONITORING ............................................................................................................................................. 16
STRESSORS and SOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 20
WATER QUALITY AND CLARITY ISSUES ................................................................................................... 20
FLOODING ISSUES ................................................................................................................................... 25
MANAGEMENT MEASURES ........................................................................................................................ 28
PRIORITY ACTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 31
ESTIMATED LOAD REDUCTIONS ................................................................................................................ 38
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................ 38
EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................................... 38
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................................. 39
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.............................................................................................................................. 39
SCHEDULE and MILESTONES ...................................................................................................................... 40
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 46

APPENDIX A – ESTABLISHMENT OF LAKE MATTAMUSKEET WILDLIFE REFUGE
APPENDIX B – ESTABLISHMENT AND REPEAL OF MATTAMUSKEET DRAINAGE DISTRICT ONE
APPENDIX C – HISTORIC TIMELINE OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
APPENDIX D – LAKE MATTAMUSKEET WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX E – LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON LAKE MATTAMUSKEET
APPENDIX F – SERVICE DISTRICT PLAN EXAMPLE: WEST QUARTER
APPENDIX G – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

i | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the many members of the public who participated in public
meetings, provided comments and supported the process of developing a watershed restoration plan for
the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed. Also, to the stakeholder team who deliberated and met throughout
the plan development process to identify the right solutions for the watershed and chart a course of action
moving forward. And to the many researchers and technical workgroup members who helped provide the
science needed to understand the concerns and possible solutions for the lake watershed.

Daniel Brinn, Hyde County*
Michael Cahoon, local resident*
Pete Campbell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge*
Paul Clark, North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Dr. Greg Cope, North Carolina State University
Dr. Linda D’Anna, University of North Carolina, Coastal Studies Institute
Wilson Daughtry, local resident, Mattamsukeet Drainage Association
Dr. Randall Etheridge, East Carolina University
Dr. Jesse Fischer, North Carolina State University
Erin Fleckenstein, North Carolina Coastal Federation
Michael Flynn, North Carolina Coastal Federation
Rosemary Johnson, Hyde County
Doug Howell, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission*
Art Keeney, local resident*
April Lamb, North Carolina State University
Caroline Lamb, North Carolina Coastal Federation
Todd Miller, North Carolina Coastal Federation
Dr. Michelle Moorman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kris Noble, Hyde County
Bill Rich, Hyde County*
Dr. Michael Piehler, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Sam Ruark, North Carolina Coastal Federation
Ben Simmons, local resident, Fairfield Drainage Commissioner, Hyde County Commissioner*
Pat Simmons, local resident *
Dr. Raymond Smith, East Carolina University
JW Spencer, Hyde Soil and Water Board*
Mackenzie Taggart, North Carolina Coastal Federation
James Topping, local resident*
Joey Ben Williams, local resident, Fairfield Drainage Commissioner*
Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group
*denotes member of the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan stakeholder team

ii | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS and GLOSSARY
303(d) LIST - Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are
required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise
degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law
requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for
these waters. A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum amount of a
pollutant that a water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. Category 5
impaired waters require the development of a TMDL.
AIWW – Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
ARNWR – Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
BMP - Best Management Practice
CFU - Colony Forming Unit, used to measure fecal coliform concentrations.
COG – Regional Council of Government
CONDITIONALLY APPROVED CLOSED - An area subject to predictable intermittent pollution that may be
used for harvesting shellfish for direct market purposes when management plan criteria are met
generally during drought conditions.
CONDITIONALLY APPROVED OPEN - An area subject to predictable intermittent pollution that may be
used for harvesting shellfish for direct market purposes when management plan criteria are met
generally during low rainfall conditions.
CST – Core Stakeholder Team – this eleven-member group met regularly over the course of the
watershed plan development to identify water quality and flooding concerns. They developed the goals,
objectives and actions to be included in the plan for presentation to the public.
CRP – Conservation Reserve Program
CWA - Clean Water Act
DEGRADED WATERS - General description of surface waters that have elevated pollution levels,
including high bacteria levels, pathogens, sediment, low dissolved oxygen, and/or high nutrient levels.
This is not a legal description of impairment (see impaired waters definition below).
FECAL COLIFORM - Bacteria that originate in the intestines of warm-blooded animals. Bacteria of the
coliform group which will produce gas from lactose in a multiple tube procedure liquid medium (EC or A-
1) within 24 plus or minus two hours at 44.5 degrees C plus or minus 2 degrees C in a water bath.
FLOW - The volume of water, often measured in cubic feet per second (cfs), flowing in a stream or
through a stormwater conveyance system.
GROWING WATERS - Waters that support or could support shellfish life.
HYDROLOGIC CYCLE - The cycle by which water evaporates from oceans and other bodies of water,
accumulates as water vapor in clouds, and returns to oceans and other bodies of water as precipitation
or groundwater. Also known as the water cycle.
HYDROGRAPH - A graph showing changes in the discharge of a surface water river, stream or creek over
a period of time.
HYDROLOGY - The science dealing with the waters of the earth, their distribution on the surface and
underground, and the cycle involving evaporation, precipitation, flow to the seas, etc.
IMPAIRED WATERS - For the purposes of this Plan, any saltwater classified for shellfish harvest (SA) that
is not managed as an “Approved Area” by the Division of Environmental Health, or any saltwater
classified for swimming (SB) where swimming advisories are being issued. These waters have been
listed as impaired on the state’s 303(d) list for USEPA.
LIDAR – “Light Detection and Ranging,” a remote sensing technology that can measure properties of a
target using light.

iii | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE - According to USEPA, actions available and capable of being done
after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purpose.
MDA - Mattamuskeet Drainage Association, a large agricultural drainage district in eastern Hyde County
comprised of 42,500 acres.
MNWR – Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
MTWG – Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group – The members of the MTWG are biologists and
technicians from USFWS and NCWRC who identify, prioritize and conduct monitoring and research at
MNWR to inform management actions that can be implemented to improve water quality and restore
SAV in Lake Mattamuskeet.
MOIST SOIL MANAGEMENT – The intentional manipulation of water levels to promote germination of
native wetland plants that are beneficial to waterfowl and other waterbirds by mimicking the seasonal
wet and dry cycles of natural wetlands for the benefit of waterfowl.
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service, a federal agency that administers Farm Bill programs
one of which is the Wetland Reserve Program. WRP works with landowners on private lands to conserve
natural resources
NFWF – National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
NCDOT - N.C. Department of Transportation
NCDEQ – N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
NCDWR - N.C. Division of Water Resources
NCEMC - N.C. Environmental Management Commission
NCWRC – N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
PROHIBITED AREA - An area unsuitable for the harvesting of shellfish for direct market purposes.
SA - Saltwater classified by the EMC for shellfish harvesting. These are waters that should support
aquatic life, both primary and secondary recreation (activities with frequent or prolonged skin contact),
and shellfishing for market purposes.
SB - Saltwater classified by the EMC for swimming.
SC - Saltwater classified by the EMC for fish propagation and incidental swimming. The waters are safe
for swimming but have a higher risk of pollution and human illness than SB waters.
SS - Shellfish Sanitation Section, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, N.C. DENR. In 2011 the N.C. General
Assembly transferred the shellfish and recreational water quality functions of this agency from the N.C.
Division of Environmental Health to the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.
SAV – Submerged aquatic vegetation.
STAKEHOLDER – Anyone who can affect or be affected by the watershed restoration plan.
STORMWATER - Water from rain that flows over the land surface, picking up pollutants that are on the
ground.
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD - Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act establishes the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) program, a water quality-based approach to regulating waters that fail to meet water
quality standards despite the use of pollution control requirements. A TMDL is a calculation of the
maximum quantity of a given pollutant that may be added to a water body from all sources without
exceeding the applicable water quality standard for that pollutant. States must establish TMDLs for all
pollutants that prevent waters from attaining water quality goals. The TMDL helps regulators devise the
limitation necessary to meet water quality standards by identifying and quantifying the individual
sources contributing to a particular water quality problem.
USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

iv | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

WATERSHED - The topographic boundary within which water drains into a particular river, stream,
wetland, or body of water.
WATER BUDGET – An accounting of the rates of water movement and the change in water storage in all
parts of the atmosphere, land surface, and subsurface.
WREP – (Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program) a voluntary program through the NRCS to protect,
restore, enhance, and manage high priority wetlands and wildlife habitat. WREP funds can only be used
on projects that meet WRP program requirements
WRP - (Wetlands Reserve Program) a voluntary program through the NRCS to preserve and protect
wetlands on private property. An incentive program, landowners are compensated financially to restore
previously drained farmland into wetlands habitat.

v | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Estimated construction of waterfowl impoundments on private land………………………………………13
Table 2: Monitoring activities conducted at Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding region……………….19
Table 3: Description of flooding hotspots within the Lake Mattamuskeet watershed ……………………………35
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of Hyde County, N.C. General project area outlined ............................................................. 3
Figure 2: Map of the Atlantic Flyway of the United States, extending from Maine to Florida .................... 4
Figure 3: Map of Drainage District 1 and associated canals from 1917-1932. ............................................. 7
Figure 4: Major land use and crops grown in watershed from 2002-2017 ................................................ 11
Figure 5: Top three crops grown within the watershed since 2002. .......................................................... 12
Figure 6: A map displaying the location of impoundments and year of development. ............................. 13
Figure 7: Results of the annual SAV surveys conducted from 1989-2017…………………………………….………….17
Figure 8: The SAV conceptual model developed by Davis and Brinson (1980)………………………………………..17
Figure 9: The results of water quality sampling conducted since the 1980s …………………………………..………20
Figure 10: Plot of chlorphyll-a concentrations in the lake from 2012 – 2017………………………………………….21
Figure 11: Plot of total nitrogen concentrations in the lake from 2012 – 2017 .……………………………………. 21
Figure 12: Plot of total phosphorus concentrations in the lake from 2012 – 2017 …………………..…………….22
Figure 13: Plot of turbidity concentrations in the lake from 2012 – 2017 ……………..……………………………….22
Figure 14: Plot of maximum pH values in the lake from 2013 – 2018 .……………………………………………………23
Figure 15: Plot of maximum water levels in the lake from 2013 – 2018 .……………………………………………..…25
Figure 16: A map displaying the location of flooding hotspots throughout the watershed.………………….…26
Figure 17: Plot of water levels at Bell Island Pier from 2013 – 2018 ………………………………………………….……27
Figure 18: Example of cross-section comparison of conditions along Outfall Canal…………………………..……28
Figure 19: A map displaying the potential sheet flow application sites within the watershed ………………..37

1 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lake Mattamuskeet is located in eastern North Carolina on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula
within the heart of Hyde County and the center of the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge.
The present surface area of the lake is around 40,000 acres, which ranks as the largest in the
state. The lake has an average depth of just four feet.
In 2016, the lake was listed on the state 303(d) list for impaired waters due to elevated levels of
pH and chlorophyll-a. The water quality within the lake has drastically declined due to significant
increases in nutrients and suspended sediments that have been contributed from over a century
of landscape alterations and hydrologic modifications.
In addition, monitoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has indicated that the
majority of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), an important habitat for fish and food source
for waterfowl was lost in the lake by 2017. Monitoring results also indicates algae blooms
containing a cyanotoxin, cylindrospermopsin, at concentrations that border the federal limits for
recreational contact has become a more frequent occurrence.
Flooding issues have also become commonplace throughout the watershed due to a passive
drainage system for the lake that relies on gravity in a very low-relief area and is further
compromised by rising sea level. There are four major outlet canals that were excavated prior to
1950 to convey water from the lake to the Pamlico Sound. Each of the canals have a set of tide
gates that operates on differences in head pressure to ensure Lake Mattamuskeet remains a
freshwater system by preventing saltwater intrusion from the Pamlico Sound. Rising sea levels
and siltation of the main canals connecting the lake to the Pamlico Sound are thought to be
contributing factors in the decline of drainage function, and those conditions are anticipated to
exacerbate flooding in the future.
These alarming trends prompted the development of a Watershed Restoration Plan for Lake
Mattamuskeet through a partnership between the Hyde County Government, N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The North Carolina Coastal Federation
was retained to develop the plan for approval by the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s
319 Program.
The initial priority actions of this watershed restoration plan stem around establishing active
water-level management capabilities on Lake Mattamuskeet and improve water management
within the watershed. This includes creating a formal body that provides managing authority,
such as a service district, for active water management within the watershed in close
coordination with the Refuge, which would be excluded as party to the formal body since U.S.
FWS cannot cede management authority. An additional priority action is to develop a hydrologic
and hydraulic model for the watershed to assist with exploring engineered solutions including
additional outlets for the lake.
Engineering studies will determine and evaluate the feasibility of placing pumps on the existing
main outlet canals and/or redirecting water in current drainage systems/districts that could move

2 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

water from the lake to the Alligator River or Pamlico Sound. The strategy being pursued aims to
re-establish and replicate the natural movement of water from the lake to the Alligator River
drainage rather than the Pamlico Sound since the increased discharge of nutrient rich water could
have the potential to negatively impact shellfish habitat. The preferred design alternative is to
identify, design, and prioritize projects where water diverted from the lake could be sheet flowed
over newly-created or restored wetlands, where nutrients and sediment can be absorbed before
discharging into a water body.

3 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n v e r . 11.2 9 . 1 8

INTRODUCTION
Lake Mattamuskeet is located in eastern North Carolina on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula
within the heart of Hyde County (Figure 1). It is the largest naturally-formed lake in the state, but
it is no longer a “natural lake” due to extensive hydrologic modifications that have occurred over
the past 200 years. Most land in eastern North Carolina, and specifically the Albemarle-Pamlico
Peninsula, is ditched and drained. Many ditches in Hyde County provided the initial access for
logging activities and later for agricultural water management. The drainage provided by these
canals has been necessary for the landscape development due to minimal topographic relief and
low-lying elevation on the peninsula.
The highest elevation within the Lake Mattamuskeet watershed is approximately nine feet, and
the majority of the land is less than five feet above mean sea level. Due to the centuries of
landscape alterations, the surface area of the lake decreased from 110,000 acres (pre-1800s) to
40,000 acres (today), and the water quality has drastically declined due to significant increases
in nutrients and suspended sediments resulting in an increase in harmful phytoplankton blooms
and reduction in water clarity. Flooding issues have also become commonplace throughout the
watershed due to a passive drainage system for the lake that relies on gravity in a very low-relief
area and is further compromised by rising sea level.

Figure 1: Map of Hyde County, N.C. General watershed area outlined
Treasured for its natural resources and steeped in rich cultural history, the health of the lake is
inherently linked to the way of life for Hyde County residents and visitors. In an area where
livelihoods depend on farming and guided hunt services, many people in Hyde County are

4 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

economically connected to the lake. In the winter, waterfowl and other migratory birds on the
lake and surrounding impoundments attract hunters and birdwatchers, who spend money on
lodging, meals, guide services, and hunt club memberships. Fishing on the lake and from the
banks of the canals, particularly for largemouth bass, white perch, crappie, catfish and blue crabs,
draws locals and visitors back in the spring and through the fall. Canoeing and kayaking on the
lake offers recreational opportunities as does walking nature trails. Furthermore, the lake vista
provides aesthetic and therapeutic qualities that are enjoyed year-round.

Lake Mattamuskeet is a popular destination for fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing (left, photo by Bill Swindaman). The
Mattamuskeet Lodge (center, photo by Gene Davis) offered visitors comfortable lodging, often with views of wildlife. Tundra
swans draw huge crowds during ‘Swan Days’ (right, photo by Lindy Martin.)
Lake Mattamuskeet is also the centerpiece of the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
(Refuge), which was established in 1934 after the last failed draining and farming project was
abandoned [Appendix A]. The purpose of the Refuge is to protect and conserve habitat for
migratory birds and other wildlife resources within 50,180 acres of open water, wetlands,
impoundments, and forest that is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The
Figure 2: Map of the Atlantic Flyway of the United States, extending from Maine to Florida

5 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Refuge is a premier National Wildlife Refuge for wintering migratory waterfowl along the Atlantic
Flyway (Figure 2). From September through March, waterfowl (ducks, geese, and swans) use the
lake and surrounding habitat to feed and rest in preparation for their return migration to their
breeding grounds.
There are 240 species of birds that are known to use the Refuge. Shorebirds, wading birds, and
other bird species can be spotted throughout the year along the lakeshore or flying through the
woodlands. Birds of prey, like the osprey, nest in cypress trees and hunt for fish within the lake
and adjacent Pamlico Sound. Bald eagles also nest and winter at the Refuge. A variety of
amphibians and reptiles are supported by a rich diversity of habitats throughout the Refuge, and
larger mammals such as black bears and white-tailed deer live within the mixed loblolly pine
forests and adjacent habitats.
In recent decades, residents around the lake have raised concerns about low and high water
levels in the lake and surrounding watershed. Lake levels have a direct influence on water quality
as a result of limited circulation of water as well as the ability of sunlight to penetrate deeper
waters. In 2016, the lake was listed on the state 303(d) list for impaired waters due to elevated
pH and chlorophyll-a. In addition, monitoring by USFWS has indicated that the majority of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), an important habitat for fish and food source for waterfowl
was lost in the lake by 2017. Monitoring results also indicates algae blooms containing
clyndrospermopsin, a cyanotoxin produced by the cyanobacteria, Cylindrospermopsin raciborskii,
are occurring at concentrations that border the federal limits for recreational contact, has
become a more frequent occurrence. These alarming trends prompted the development of a
Watershed Restoration Plan for Lake Mattamuskeet.
This Plan was developed through a partnership between the Hyde County Government (county),
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). It
was guided by an inclusive group of core stakeholders as identified by the county and Hyde Soil
and Water Conservation District. The North Carolina Coastal Federation (federation) was
retained to facilitate stakeholder and public meetings and to develop the plan for approval by
the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s 319 Program. The partners provided
information about land use changes over time, water quality and quantity issues, and identified
and prioritized possible restoration strategies. The plan identifies three goals and various
management actions to protect the current way of life, actively manage the lake water level in
accordance with the purpose of the Refuge and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
per the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, and restore the water quality
and clarity within the lake. It is important to note that the three goals are designed to work in
concert with each other. Actions taken to implement active water management within the
watershed have the potential to reduce flooding on private property adjacent to the lake while
also improving water quality and clarity within the lake. Improvements to water quality and
clarity within the lake will provide direct ecological benefits and protect the way of life in Hyde
County. The primary outcomes of each goal are further described below.

6 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

PROTECT THE WAY OF LIFE IN HYDE COUNTY:
Maintain existing land uses and industries in the watershed (residential, farming, fishing and
tourism) and enhance and maintain the health of the lake’s natural resources (waterfowl and
wildlife).
ACTIVELY MANAGE THE LAKE WATER LEVEL:
Minimize flooding of residential, business and farm properties. Allow for annual drawdowns as
appropriate and in compliance with the Refuge's management objectives defined in its
Comprehensive Conservation Plan to establish and maintain submerged aquatic vegetation
within the lake, and to establish and maintain a zone of emergent vegetation around the lake
periphery.
RESTORE WATER QUALITY AND CLARITY:
Reduce nutrients, sediments and phytoplankton blooms, promote the growth of submerged
aquatic vegetation and remove the lake from the NC 303(d) list of impaired waters.
BACKGROUND
Lake Mattamuskeet originally extended over 110,000 acres and was 6-9 feet deep (Forrest,
1999). It existed as a lake with low levels of available nutrients (oligotrophic) with a sandy lake
bed and clear water. Inputs of organic matter into the lake from the surrounding watershed was
extremely limited prior to the beginning of the Little Ice Age (c. 1600) (Waters et al.,
2009). Nutrient inputs into the lake began to increase in the early 1600’s when Native American
and early European colonist activity is first documented around the lake (Heath, 1975; Forrest,
1999). Waters et al. (2009) identified that from the time of early colonist activity to about 1850
the lake exhibited increased plant and phytoplankton abundance as well as an increase in woody
plant material entering the lake. Intense European settlement and land alternation activities
around the lake began in the mid-1800’s (c. 1850).
The promise of extremely fertile soil motivated a massive engineering project designed to drain
and farm the lake bed that resulted in the excavation of three major canals cut from the east side
of the lake to the Pamlico Sound between the 1800’s and early 1900’s. Mattamuskeet Drainage
District One was established in 1909 after the passage of Public Law Chapter 509 by the N.C.
Legislature (Figure 3)[ Appendix B]. The goal of forming the district was to improve the economic
conditions of Hyde County as well as oversee the plans to drain and farm the lake bed and
adjacent lands. Plans included the establishment of the New Holland community to support the
drainage and farming operation, the excavation of additional smaller canals and ditches across
the lake, the construction of the pumping plant, and a supporting railroad to transport building
materials and later passengers.

7 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Figure 3: Map of Drainage District 1 and associated canals that were used during the lake bed farming operations from 1917-
1932.
HISTORY OF DRAINAGE ALTERATIONS
The lake watershed has undergone many hydrologic changes since the first canal was excavated
at Lake Landing to drain the lake for farming in 1838 [Appendix C]. The development of this canal
alone reduced the lake to 55,000-acres and an average depth of 4 feet (Heath, 1975; Forrest,
1999). Over the next century, three additional canals (Fairfield, Waupoppin, and Outfall Canals)
were dug to further drain the lake, and the world’s largest pump station (at the time) was
installed in 1916 on Outfall Canal (Heath, 1975; Forrest, 1999). Three separate corporations
attempted to farm the lake bed from 1917 – 1932 by directing water to the Pamlico Sound. Every
venture ultimately failed, but the third enterprise was able to reclaim the lake bed for more than
five years while the pumping plant was in operation (Forrest, 1999; Waters, 2007). The
Mattamuskeet Drainage District was dissolved following the establishment of the Mattamuskeet
National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in 1934 and the lake bed eventually refilled to a capacity of
40,000 acres [Appendix A]. Landowners within the original boundary of Drainage District One
retained the right to drain their lands into Lake Mattamuskeet through a Final Decree in 1935
[Appendix B].

8 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

During the time the successful farming operation of the lake bed was taking place, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) was completing construction of the Alligator/Pungo cut of the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). In 1928, the AIWW canal was completed to connect the
Pungo River to the Alligator River. Before the cut was completed there was no known water
exchange between the two river systems. This massive canal radically changed the hydrology of
these two river systems, the community of Fairfield, and the lake. Engineers that designed the
waterway expected these changes, and specified that a lock and dam structure be constructed
to avoid some of the flooding problems the canal would cause. However, the lock and dam was
never constructed.
The next major hydrologic modification within the watershed occurred in 1940 when a causeway
was constructed to re-route NC-94 from Fairfield across the lake to an intersection with US-
264. This causeway divided the lake into an east and west basin connected through five culverts
beneath the roadway, which opened to traffic in 1942. Rose Bay Canal was excavated in 1950 to
provide a single hydrologic connection in the west basin to the Pamlico Sound through Rose Bay
(Heath, 1975).
About the time the causeway construction was completed, flooding from the Alligator-Pungo cut
of the AIWW was recognized to still be a problem. The two water bodies had no natural
connectivity prior to the excavation of the canal. Prevailing southwest winds in the summer push
water through the cut, over the landscape and eventually to the Alligator River. Prevailing
northeast winds in the winter push the water from the Alligator River through the cut, over the
landscape and eventually to the Pungo River.
The change in hydrology caused by the construction of the AIWW significantly altered the natural
processes by which water is drawn out of the lake. Construction of the AIWW also resulted in
increased salinity levels where the lake once discharged. In 1948, USACE reviewed the saltwater
intrusion and flooding issues associated with the AIWW. Findings concluded that the AIWW was
not solely responsible, but corrective works for Fairfield were recommended and provided at
federal expense (Report of Survey of North Carolina Inland Ports and Waterways, 1954). The
Fairfield Drainage District was ultimately developed in 1958 after passage of the 1955 Civil Works
Appropriation Bill. Dikes were constructed to prevent serious property and crop damage from
persistent flooding, and pumps were installed on Fairfield Canal next to NC-94 to provide
adequate drainage capacity and direct water towards the natural hydrologic flow path from the
lake towards the Alligator River. The Fairfield Drainage District and infrastructure is still in
existence today.
MODERN HYDROLOGY AND LAND USE
Since the development of the Fairfield Drainage District, very little of the major infrastructure
affecting the hydrology of the lake and adjacent lands within the watershed has changed. No
new outlet canals have been excavated and no major pump stations have been installed.
However, there have been incremental changes to water management and land use within the
watershed [Appendix C]. It is worth noting here the current state and changes that have been
documented in the lake and surrounding watershed during this timeframe.

9 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

First, the lake water level is not actively managed. Instead, water flows from the lake to the sound
when differences in head pressure allow tide gates to open at each outflow canal. The primary
function of the tide gates is to ensure Lake Mattamuskeet remains a freshwater system by
preventing saltwater from Pamlico Sound from entering the lake. The type of tide gate located
at each canal has undergone a progression since they were first installed during the original canal
excavation. Pete Campbell, current Refuge Manager, provided a synthesis of information from
the Refuge Narratives that details the progression of the tide gates as described below.
“During the 1950’s all the original gates from the 1930’s were replaced with wooden top hinged
flap gates. These gates opened when head pressure in the lake exceeded head pressure in the
sound, very similar to the aluminum tide flap gates installed today on the Refuge. During that
time the top-hinged flap gates allowed for movements of anadromous and catadromous fish
during spring, summer and fall; and movements of salt and freshwater fish and invertebrates
between the Pamlico Sound and the lake, resulting in a vibrant and diverse fishery. The young
herring and eels represented a large food base for other predatory fish and birds, such as the
largemouth bass and osprey. Historically, approximately one-quarter to one-third of visits to the
Refuge were related to fishing.
By the 1980’s the wooden top-hinged gates had begun to fail due to age and increasing salinity
of the water in the canals was a concern. From 1987 to 1988 all of the gates were replaced by
fixed wooden stop log structures that had a small stainless steel flap gate built into the bottom
third of the structure. These wooden gates were constructed of several stop blocks permanently
bolted together. An unintentional impact of these new gates was that the small stainless steel
flap gates required a much higher head pressure to open than the previous gates and therefore
did not open as frequently or allow the level of water exchange or flow allowed under the previous
gates. This led to occasionally higher lake levels that lasted longer into the growing season, large
blooms of blue-green algae and cyanobacteria, and a dramatic decline in anadromous and
catadromous fish as well as the blue crab population.
Furthermore, these gates did not allow enough flow out of the lake or adequate drainage off
farmland that drains to the lake. In response to multiple complaints from farmers and following
a site visit by congressional staff from Congressman Walter Jones office, language was added to
the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations Bill Senate Report mandating the replacement of all gates on
the Refuge with aluminum tide gates of the size that existed prior to their replacement in 1988.
Most of the 1988 wooden stop log structures were replaced in 2003, while six remained in place,
two at each structure at Outfall, Lake Landing, and Waupoppin canals. Since the new top hinged
gates were installed in 2003 that allow the lake to mimic natural water levels, Refuge records
indicate that available habitat to waterfowl increased as well as a corresponding increase in
wintering waterfowl numbers. In fact, the average wintering waterfowl numbers since 2003 have
exceeded all wintering waterfowl numbers during the previous 15 years when the small stainless
steel flap gates were in place.
In 2008, the State of North Carolina designated all of Mattamuskeet Refuge as well as the four
outfall canals as Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas. The results of research conducted by Dr.
Rulifson, Professor at East Carolina University, indicates that anadromous fish need unobstructed
fish passage in spring for their spawning run (immigration) and in summer and fall for the

10 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

juveniles to depart (emigration). Fish passage studies have highlighted the importance of Lake
Landing and Waupoppin canals for migratory fish and crab movements. In 2009, the Refuge
received funds from the USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services Office to install 3 side-opening tide
gates to improve fish passage. The side opening gates were designed to address issues associated
with (1) difficulty in maintenance of top hinged gates, especially when large debris gets stuck
under the gate; (2) increasing fish passage, particularly during times of low or no flow when the
top hinged gates are shut; and (3) correcting the fact that current fish weirs in the older stop log
structures end up above the water line during low water summer months and do not allow for
any fish passage during times of low water. Three side-opening fish passage gates were installed
during the spring of 2011, replacing 3 of the 6 remaining stop log structures. There was an
immediate response of white perch and blue crabs, which greatly improved spring fishing
opportunities for those species.”
Secondly, since landowners within the original Drainage District One retain the right to drain to
the lake some alterations have been made to private property over the last half century to
improve water management capabilities (Copeland et al., 1983). This includes tiling of agricultural
land, new or improved canals draining private farmlands, and the installation and use of both
temporary and permanent pumps. The total area of cultivated land has remained stable at about
10,100 acres according to the National Land Cover Database of 2001, 2006, and 2011 (Figure 4).
The total area of planted/cultivated land accounts for approximately 15% of the land use within
the watershed. Although there have been some shifts in the percentage of specific crops grown
over time, the primary crops grown within the watershed include corn, soybeans, cotton, and
wheat (Figure 5). No-till or strip-till farming is not a common practice within the watershed nor
is the use of cover crops.

11 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Figure 4: Major land uses and crops grown in the watershed from 2002-2017.

12 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Figure 5: Top three crops, by acre, grown within the watershed since 2002.
Thirdly, there has been an increase in the number of private waterfowl impoundments
constructed in the watershed (Figure 6). Prior to 1984, there were a total of 20 impoundments
managed by private landowners throughout the watershed. Half of those were located on the
northeast boundary along North Lake Road. Two additional impoundments were also
constructed in 1984 on private land. In 1995, six impoundments were constructed on the
western shore of the lake north of Rose Bay Canal and east of Piney Woods Road. In 1996, there
was a single 50-acre impoundment constructed on the west side of Piney Woods Road. Then in
1998, the CRP program prompted the construction of 58 impoundments covering 676 acres.
In total, there are currently 102 waterfowl impoundments located within the watershed, that
cover 3,630 acres. There are 87 impoundments on private land that cover 1,140 acres (31.4%)
and 15 impoundments on the Refuge that cover 2,490 acres (68.6%) (Figure 6) (Table 1). The
2,490 acres of impoundments on the Refuge were constructed between 1967 and 1980 and use
moist soil management techniques that produce stands of natural vegetation for the waterfowl.
There are 585 acres (23.5%) located in the west basin and 1,905 acres (76.5%) located within the
east basin of the lake.

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
C
o
r
n
S
o
y
b
e
a
n
s
C
o
t
t
o
n
C
o
r
n
Co
t
t
o
n
Do
u
b
l
e

C
r
o
p
C
o
r
n
Co
t
t
o
n
So
y
b
e
a
n
s
C
o
r
n
S
o
y
b
e
a
n
s
Do
u
b
l
e

C
r
o
p
C
o
r
n
S
o
y
b
e
a
n
s
Co
t
t
o
n
C
o
r
n
So
y
b
e
a
n
s
Co
t
t
o
n
C
o
r
n
So
y
b
e
a
n
s
Co
t
t
o
n
C
o
r
n
S
o
y
b
e
a
n
s
C
o
t
t
o
n
2002 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Ac
r
e
s
Crops/Year
Top Crops within the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed

13 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Figure 6: A map displaying the location of impoundments and their approximate year of development.
Estimated Construction Date* Quantity Acreage
< 1984/uncertain 20 152.58
1984 2 27.21
1995 6 233.32
1996 1 50.92
1998 58 676.07
Total 87 1,140.10

Table 1. Estimated construction of waterfowl impoundments on private land. *Dates were derived from historical NAIP image
analysis and cross referenced by Hyde County Soil and Water staff members as well additional public input.

CURRENT STATE OF THE LAKE
The cumulative impact of the last century of landscape and hydrologic modifications have
transformed the lake watershed and ecosystem. Today, areas of the watershed experience
chronic flooding and residents have raised concerns about their ability to continue to live and
work in the watershed. An inability to actively manage the lake water level has created problems

14 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

for residents and farmers in the watershed, and will only be exacerbated as sea level continues
to rise.

Properties in the watershed experienced chronic flooding after above average rainfall in 2016.
In addition to the flooding concerns, the lake has experienced major shifts in its ecosystem. Over
time the lake has shifted from an SAV to an algal-dominated system. Increased levels of nutrients
(eutrophication) have resulted in frequent algal blooms, and increased suspended sediments
have decreased light penetration into the water column. The root mass of SAV binds the
sediments of the lake bed together, and when coverage of SAV declines the sediments become
loose. These loose sediments become suspended throughout the water column by wind and
wave action, and by bottom dwelling fish such as common carp. In addition, waters that are
drained to the lake also contain suspended sediments. As the lake becomes more turbid, light is
unable to penetrate to the bottom of the lake. When light is unable to reach the lake bed, SAV
cannot photosynthesize and growth is reduced, coverage decreases, and more sediment
becomes suspended in the water column. Measurable declines in SAV coverage have occurred,
as this negative feedback cycle persists within the lake. As of 2017, coverage of SAV within Lake
Mattamuskeet was mostly absent in both basins (Figure 7). Dense beds of SAV are desired
because they maintain water clarity, provide habitat for fish and crab populations, and are a vital
food source for waterfowl. This ecological state also supports the way of life in Hyde County.
The increased nutrients and turbidity have also caused a shift to cyanobacterial dominance within
the algal community (Waters et al., 2009). Toxic algal blooms were recently sampled, and the
results revealed concentrations of cylindrospermopsin that bordered on federal limits for
recreational contact and were near the highest concentrations in the country (NCDEQ DWR,
2018). These conditions are indicators of poor water quality and overall health of an aquatic
ecosystem.
Today, the lake is considered highly nutrient-rich (hyper-eutrophic). Water and nutrient inputs
are still largely derived from precipitation and runoff, but hydrologic and landscape changes have
increased the volume of water transported to the lake thereby increasing the nutrient and
sediment loads in the lake. Rising sea level has exacerbated some of these issues by decreasing
the flushing capacity of the lake (reduced head pressure at the tide gates results in reduced water
flow from the lake) and contributes to localized flooding on the land adjacent to the lake.

15 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

EDUCATION and OUTREACH
Throughout the development of this watershed restoration plan, the project partners used a
variety of education and outreach tools. They felt very strongly that the development of the plan
should be a transparent and open process and should provide the public with the information
they need to engage in the decision making. The need for outreach and engagement will not end
with the submission of this plan, it will continue to be an integral and important part of the plan’s
implementation moving forward.
The plan used the following outreach and engagement tools in its development:
1) Core Stakeholder Team (CST): a group of core stakeholders were identified by the county
and Hyde Soil and Water Conservation District. This 11-member team served as an
advisory committee and represented diverse backgrounds, viewpoints, and interests.
These stakeholders reviewed draft products, constructed the public meeting agendas,
and edited the draft versions of this plan. The CST also engaged with the community and
facilitated two-way information sharing throughout the plan development. The CST met
a total of 14 times beginning on May 2, 2017 and concluding on November 16, 2018
before the final public meeting [Appendix D].
2) Community Interviews: Dr. Linda D’Anna, a research associate with the UNC Coastal
Studies Institute, was contracted to conduct anonymous in-person interviews to learn
about local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding watershed. These
interviews were synthesized and summarized in a final report presented to the
stakeholder team [Appendix E].
3) Webpage Development: The federation hosted a project webpage
(nccoast.org/lakemattamuskeet) to disseminate news about the development of the plan
as well as resources including presentations from the public meetings and a story map.
4) Newsletter service: On the project webpage, interested public were able to sign-up for
notifications on the project which included announcements of upcoming public meetings
as well as a summary of meetings and major actions/goals to be included in the plan.
5) Flyer Development: A two-page handout was created [Appendix D]. It described the
development of the plan, answered frequently asked questions, and provided contact
information for the CST members. This was distributed to anyone who signed-up for
notifications on the project webpage and also distributed to residents who receive the
Hyde Happenings e-newsletter. The USFWS and NCWRC also helped to post this
information throughout the watershed as well as various communication platforms.
6) CST-Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group Meetings: Two joint meetings were held
with the Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group (MTWG). The MTWG consists of staff
from FWS and WRC who have specific expertise in toxicology, hydrology, water quality,
and fish and wildlife management. The MTWG works to identify, prioritize, and conduct
monitoring and research at the Refuge to inform management actions that can be
implemented to improve water quality and restore SAV in Lake Mattamuskeet. The first

16 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

joint meeting on January 30, 2018 provided an opportunity for stakeholders to view
presentations about monitoring efforts from MTWG members, learn about Best
Management Practices (BMPs), and receive updates about ongoing research projects
conducted within the watershed by scientists from several academic institutions based in
North Carolina. The second joint meeting held on June 6, 2018 served as a working
session to prioritize BMPs and identify potential sites for implementation [Appendix D].
7) Quarterly Public Meetings: A total of five (5) public meetings were convened on a
quarterly basis at the Hyde County Government Complex. The federation staff delivered
presentations about the progress of the plan development and facilitated public
engagement through participatory activities to identify data gaps and collect feedback
about the likelihood of BMP implementation. Supplemental presentations were provided
by members of the MTWG and Principal Investigators of the research projects conducted
within the watershed [Appendix D].

8) Public Symposium: The final plan was presented during a public symposium held on
December 3, 2018 at Martelle’s “Feed House” Restaurant, a community hub, in
Engelhard, NC [Appendix D].
As the plan implementation progresses, it will be key to keep the public informed and engaged.
Additional outreach and educational steps during the implementation of the plan are identified
in the management measures section below.
MONITORING
The members of the MTWG work in partnership through a collaborative agreement to identify,
prioritize, and conduct monitoring and research at the Refuge to inform current and future lake
management actions. Long-term monitoring datasets are essential to evaluating the
effectiveness of management actions and developing research questions that can be addressed
through scientific investigation. The MTWG has been working to understand declines in SAV
(Figure 7) and water quality through the lens of a conceptual model published by Brinson and
Davis (1980) (Figure 8).

17 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Figure 7: Results of the annual SAV surveys conducted from 1989-2017 (Moorman et al., 2017).

Figure 8: The SAV conceptual model describes light attenuation, toxicity and biomass removal as three general stressors that
can be influenced by other specific factors (Davis and Brinson, 1980).

18 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

The conceptual model has helped guide and develop recommended monitoring and research
needs to advance a science-based approach to improving water quality and clarity and restoring
SAV in Lake Mattamuskeet through the development of implementable actions taken in the lake
and watershed. The five components outlined by the MTWG for SAV restoration include: 1)
monitoring, 2) water level management, 3) suspended sediment reduction, 4) nutrient
abatement, and 5) fishery management.
In 2012, the Refuge, NCWRC, NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) established two real-time water quality monitoring stations in the east and west
basins of the lake. The water quality data collected allowed more complete examination of
factors that limited regeneration and threatened survival of SAV within the lake. The
collaborative water quality and SAV monitoring efforts are described in detail by Moorman et al.,
(2017); and a list of concurrent monitoring activities that occur at Lake Mattamuskeet and the
surrounding region are included below (Table 2).

19 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Monitoring
Activity
Frequency,
Period of
Record
Funding Source
and Cost
Justification/SAV
management need
Comments
Continuous
monitoring of
lake levels and
water-quality,
precipitation, and
wind speed
Continuous,
September
2012 - present
USFWS, USGS,
and NCWRC
contributions,
$281,600
Data required for
watershed model,
provides real-time
data to assess lake
hydrology and water
quality, informs public
on lake levels
USGS contracted to
collect and
maintain this data
with in-kind
assistance from
USFWS staff
Real-time
monitoring at
Rose Bay
(Pamlico Sound)
Continuous,
September
2013 - present
USFWS as part of
refuge
operations and
I&M program,
$27,595
Provides information
on water levels in the
estuary which could
affect outflows
Accomplished in
coordination with
USFWS I&M
program in
collaboration with
NCSU
Monitoring of
water levels,
discharge and
water-quality in
refuge canals
Weekly to
monthly, 1977
– 2006, 2013 -
present
USFWS as part of
refuge
operations
Gives an assessment
of outflows, ensures
gates are properly
functioning, monitors
saltwater intrusion
Data could be
improved with
instrumentation
that provided for
real-time
monitoring of
outflows
Monitoring of
inland fish
communities in
Lake
Mattamuskeet
and associated
refuge canals
Annually NCWRC, part of
NCWRC
operations
Provides an annual
assessment of fish
community structure
in Lake Mattamuskeet
and associated refuge
canals
Provides
justification for
sport fish
regulations
SAV Monitoring Annually
starting in
2013 with
occasional
surveys dating
back to 1989
USFWS, part of
refuge and
USFWS
migratory game
bird program
operations
Monitors SAV
occurrence and
health, our primary
indicator of
ecosystem health for
the lake

Aerial waterfowl
surveys of lake
Annually,
1986 - present
USFWS, part of
refuge
operations;
NCWRC, part of
annual mid-
winter waterfowl
survey
Provides an annual
estimate of numbers
of waterfowl at Lake
Mattamuskeet
Tundra swans are
proposed as an
indicator species of
SAV abundance

Table 2. Monitoring activities conducted at Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding region.

20 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

STRESSORS and SOURCES
WATER QUALITY AND CLARITY ISSUES
Declining water quality and clarity threatens the uses of the lake by people, fish and wildlife.
Since the 1980s, monitoring efforts have identified a significant decline in water quality
(Moorman et al. 2017) (Figure 9).

Figure 9: The results of water quality sampling conducted since the 1980s suggest the lake has become more eutrophic. The gray
bars on the graphic represent the state or federal thresholds. High levels of chlorophyll-a and pH resulted in the listing of the
lake on the NC 303 (d) list of the impaired waters (Moorman et al., 2017).
A summary of the trends of six water quality parameters: 1) chlorophyll-a, 2) total nitrogen, 3)
total phosphorus, 4) suspended solids, 5) turbidity and 6) pH is described below. Plots that
display the results of monthly grab samples collected by Refuge staff since 2012 are included as
well for specific parameters. The grab samples are collected near the USGS surface water stations
located on the west and east side of NC-94 and analyzed by a NCDWR laboratory. The results of
the lake monitoring survey conducted on May 18, 2017 by NCDWR field staff for the Ambient
Lakes Monitoring program is also included for reference (NCDEQ DWR, 2018). The NCDWR
collected the water sample from station PAS0123A located near the middle of the lake on the
east side of NC-94.

21 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

1) Chlorophyll-a is an algal pigment used as an approximate measure of algal biomass and
indicator of nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment. The NC water quality standard is 40 µg/L
and results frequently exceeded this threshold after 2012. The NCDWR survey recorded a
concentration of 190 µg/L.
Figure 10: Plot of chlorophyll-a concentrations derived from monthly grab samples collected by Refuge staff within each basin of
Lake Mattamuskeet. The red line on the plot marks the NC water quality standard.

2) Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for plants and animals, but excess nitrogen in water
contributes to eutrophication. The state of NC does not have a standard for total nitrogen,
but the USEPA guideline is a range between 0.32 – 0.41 mg/L. Monitoring results indicate an
approximate 400% increase in concentration of total nitrogen within the lake water since the
early 1980s (Figure 9). The NCDWR survey recorded a concentration of 4.40 mg/L.

Figure 11: Plot of total nitrogen concentrations derived from monthly grab samples collected by Refuge staff within each basin
of Lake Mattamuskeet.

22 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

3) Phosphorus is another essential nutrient for plants and animals, but excess phosphorus in
waters also contribute to eutrophication. The state of NC does not have a standard for total
phosphorus, but the USEPA guideline is a range between 0.008 – 0.02 mg/L. Monitoring
results indicate an approximate 100% increase in concentration of total phosphorus within
the lake water since the early 1980s. The NCDWR survey recorded a concentration of 0.14
mg/L.
Figure 12: Plot of total phosphorus concentrations derived from monthly grab samples collected by Refuge staff within each
basin of Lake Mattamuskeet.

4) Suspended solids are a total quantity measurement of solid inorganic and organic material
per volume of water. NC does not have a suspended sediment water quality standard for SC
waters, but monitoring results from NCDWR survey recorded a concentration of 206 mg/L.
5) Turbidity is an optical determination of water clarity. Light will attenuate more rapidly from
the surface the more turbid a waterbody is. The NC water quality standard is 25 NTUs for
turbidity and results of the NCDWR survey measured a value of 80 NTUs.
Figure 13: Plot of turbidity values derived from monthly grab samples collected by Refuge staff within each basin of Lake
Mattamuskeet. The red line on the plot marks the NC water quality standard.

23 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

6) pH is used to indicate the degree of basicity or acidity, ranked on a scale of 0 to 14. The NC
water quality standard is between 6.8 and 8.5 standard units and results frequently exceeded
this threshold after 2012. High pH values are an indicator of algal blooms, and the NCDWR
survey recorded a value of 8.3.

Figure 14: Plot of the maximum water level recorded each month within each basin of Lake Mattamuskeet at the USGS surface
water monitoring stations summarized on an annual and monthly basis from January 2013 through November 2018 with data
gaps from February – May 2015 and December 2017 – February 2018. The pH value within lake displays a seasonal trend that
peaks during the summer. The red line on the plot marks the NC water quality standard.

As a result of the water quality declines, changes in the lake habitats have also occurred.
Increased nutrient and sediment loading from the landscape have transitioned the lake
ecosystem from 1) a lake that is able to remain healthy with the nutrient and sediment loads it
receives and supports SAV to 2) a lake system that has excess nutrients and suspended sediments
and cannot support SAV growth. Now, instead of SAV, algae are the dominant plant life in the
11 11

24 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

lake and source of high levels of chlorophyll-a and cyanobacteria, Clyndrospermopsis raciborskii,
that produces cylindrospermopsin, a cyanotoxin.
There are many potential sources of nutrient inputs to the lake that include agricultural run-off,
atmospheric deposition, failing septic systems, and pumping of waterfowl impoundments. The
MTWG prioritized monitoring and research needs to identify the concentrations of nutrients
derived from both point and non-point sources within the watershed. The details of several
recent and ongoing research projects are summarized below.
Dr. Michael Piehler, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, collected sediment and water
samples from the lake to analyze nutrient levels. Dr. Piehler found that internal sediment
nutrient supplies of the lake were lower than predicted. He also found that algae in the lake’s
water column were stimulated by either nitrogen or phosphorus and to the greatest extent by
the combination of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Dr. Randall Etheridge, East Carolina University, is studying two waterfowl impoundments with
different management regimes. One impoundment is managed by the Refuge to provide native,
seed-producing wetland plants preferred by waterfowl (moist-soil management), and the other
is a private impoundment planted with corn and managed by a local farmer. The objective of
this study is to determine the potential nutrient input of these management regimes into Lake
Mattamuskeet. The results will help to inform if the management of the impoundments can be
altered to reduce the nutrients reaching the lake while also maintaining their food production for
waterfowl.
Drs. Jesse Fischer and Craig Layman, North Carolina State University, are working with graduate
student Ms. April Lamb to understand the potential ecological effects of reducing or removing
the carp population from Lake Mattamuskeet once again. Common carp have historically been a
nuisance species within Lake Mattamuskeet since the establishment of the Refuge, and a carp
removal program was conducted during the 1940s and 1950s to improve water clarity and
increase growth of SAV (Cahoon, 1953). Common carp are known as “ecosystem engineers”
capable of causing stable state shifts in shallow aquatic ecosystems as a result of increased
turbidity from carp grazing that results in a decline of SAV and subsequent shifts in biological
assemblages. Modeling shows the loss of SAV is a result of a negative feedback mechanism
between increased nutrient loading, increased harmful algal blooms, and increased turbidity,
which is possibly exacerbated by an overabundance of invasive common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
(Figure 8).
Dr. Greg Cope, North Carolina State University, is working with graduate student Ms. Anna Alicea
to identify baseline levels of agricultural herbicide concentrations within surface waters of
drainage ditches and canals, and evaluate if agricultural herbicides are contributing to SAV
declines within Lake Mattamuskeet. The results of the study will be used to determine if
alternative herbicides should be applied to agricultural lands and guide the recommendation of
BMPs that may reduce agricultural runoff.

25 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

FLOODING ISSUES
Water levels within the lake and surrounding watershed are influenced by precipitation rates and
frequency; evapotranspiration rates; wind direction, speed, and duration; and water levels in the
Pamlico Sound (due to the hydrologic connection at each outflow canal). Continuous water level
data is recorded on 15 minute intervals at the USGS surface water sampling stations located
within the lake on the west and east side of NC-94 through a partnership with the USFWS and
NCWRC. The figures that are included below represent summaries of the maximum water level
recorded each month for the past five years on an annual and monthly basis. The yellow line
represents when hot spot flooding occurs, and the red line represents when chronic flooding
occurs within the watershed as identified by local stakeholders through participatory mapping
exercises.

Figure 15: Plot of the maximum water level recorded each month within each basin of Lake Mattamuskeet at the USGS surface
water monitoring stations summarized on an annual and monthly basis from January 2013 through November 2018 with data
gaps from February – May 2015 and December 2017 – February 2018. The water level within lake displays a seasonal trend
that is the lowest in the summer and highest in the fall. The yellow line represents when hot spot flooding occurs, and the red
line represents when chronic flooding occurs throughout the watershed.
Year Year
11 11

26 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Precipitation is the only direct source of water within the lake and Hyde County receives an
average of 55 inches annually. However, in 2016, an unprecedented 79 inches of rain fell within
the watershed and many landowners experienced catastrophic flooding from the impact of
Hurricane Matthew to the point where septic systems were failing and farmers were unable to
access fields or harvest crops. This unprecedented flooding has been an extreme burden on the
community. Even during average years of precipitation, some areas of the watershed experience
chronic flooding concerns. Many homes, businesses and farms within the lake watershed have
been severely impacted by unusually high water levels within the watershed in recent years.
Examples include the inability to use septic systems or drain agricultural fields for extended
periods of time. Entire residential communities and hundreds of acres of cropland are regularly
flooded during relatively minor precipitation events when combined with wind events that push
water in the Pamlico Sound up through the canals preventing the lake from draining (Figure
16). These flooding “hot spots” typically border drainage districts, service districts, and drainage
associations that use active water management, such as pumps, to drain water from low-lying
land through canals that discharge to the Alligator River or the Pamlico Sound.

Figure 16: A map displaying the location of flooding hotspots throughout the watershed.

27 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

High precipitation events or extended periods of precipitation as well as high water levels in the
Pamlico Sound prevent the one-way flap gates located on the main outlet canals from opening,
and the passive drainage system for the lake cannot function in the capacity necessary to mitigate
flooding. Additionally, if lake levels are consistently high (during spring and early summer),
emergent aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of the lake cannot become established. Many
of these emergent aquatic plants are important for wildlife habitat and serve as a preferred food
sources for waterfowl. The establishment and spread of an exotic common reed (Phragmites
australis) along the perimeter of the lake over the past two decades also makes it difficult to re-
establish natural emergent aquatic vegetation as preferred by resource managers.
Continuous water level data is recorded at a surface water monitoring station mounted to Bell
Island Pier, which extends from the Swan Quarter National Wildlife Refuge into Rose Bay. The
water level recorded at the Bell Island Pier can indicate whether the flap gate located on Rose
Bay Canal would be open or closed based on differences between water levels recorded at the
Bell Island Pier and water levels within the west basin of the lake as recorded at the USGS surface
water station located to the west of NC-94. The figures that are included below represent
summaries of the maximum water level recorded each month for the past five years on an annual
and monthly basis. Data collection began in May of 2013 and has been continuous with the
exception of a gap in collection from February 2014 to September 2015. The five year range of
data is too short of a time frame to infer trends in water level at Rose Bay, especially with the
data gap, but it does provide a baseline for reference purposes and future monitoring. The data
recorded over the past five years indicate that the highest water levels have historically occurred
in March - April and September - October.
Figure 17: Plot of the maximum recorded water level each month at Bell Island Pier from January 2013 through November 2018
summarized on an annual and monthly basis.
The water levels recorded at the Bell Island Pier can also serve as a proxy to indicate whether
drainage from the east basin of the lake to the Pamlico Sound could occur based on other
meteorological factors such as wind direction, speed and duration. The water level stations
Year
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2.0

WL
,

N
A
V
D
8
8
,

f
t

Max Monthly Water Level, Bell Island Pier, 2013-2018
3.
0

2.5

1.5

1.
0

0.5

12
WL
,

N
A
V
D
8
8
,

f
t

Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 8 9
0.5

1.0

1.
5

2.0

2.
5

3.0

Max Monthly Water Level, Bell Island Pier, 2013-2018

28 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

located on the Pungo River in Belhaven and near Hatteras Inlet at the U.S. Coast Guard Station
provide additional reference points.

Figure 18. Example of cross-section comparison of conditions along Outfall Canal obtained from bathymetric survey performed in
2017 by Dr. Randall Etheridge, East Carolina University.
Rising sea levels and siltation of the main canals are thought to be contributing factors in the
decline of drainage function, and those conditions are anticipated to exacerbate flooding in the
future. Dr. Randall Etheridge, East Carolina University, conducted a study in partnership with the
Hyde County Soil and Water Conservation District to determine the impact of sedimentation and
sea level rise on the four main outlet canals. Dr. Etheridge determined that the cross-sectional
area of the outlet canals has been significantly reduced when compared to the design
dimensions. For example, Outfall Canal exhibited a minimum of 43% and maximum of 81%
reduction in cross-sectional area when compared to the design dimensions (Figure 18).
While dredging the canals may seem like an obvious solution, projections of sea level rise may
diminish the drainage capacity over time especially in conjunction with land subsidence. The
2015 Update to the North Carolina Sea Level Rise Assessment Report prepared by the N.C.
Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel used existing water level gauge rates from locations
at Duck, Oregon Inlet Marina, Beaufort, Wilmington, and Southport to project sea level rise
across North Carolina. Estimates varied from a low estimate of 2.4 inches at Southport to a high
estimate of 5.4 inches at Duck by 2045. These estimates increased when greenhouse gas
emission scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were used.
MANAGEMENT MEASURES
The stakeholders have considered public input as well as guidance from members of the technical
workgroup to identify six key objectives and dozens of actions that can be taken to reach the
three goals identified in this plan and begin to mitigate the effects of the stressors and sources
identified in the previous section. These include:

29 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Objective 1: Continue managing current projects and collaborations.
Action 1-1: Perform annual review of monitoring methodology and data gap assessment with the
Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group (MTWG).
Action 1-2: Continue existing monitoring and research efforts.
Action 1-3: Continue to keep tide gates free of debris.
Action 1-4: Continue to snag and drag outlet canals after storms and as needed to provide flow and
access at outlet canals.
Action 1-5: Continue to follow nutrient management plans for agricultural lands.
Action 1-6: Continue to hold regular workgroup meetings and public meetings to keep people informed
of the watershed restoration plan progress.
Objective 2: Establish active water-level management capabilities on Lake Mattamuskeet and
improve water management within the watershed.
Action 2-1: Create a formal body that provides managing authority for active water management within
the watershed in close coordination with the Refuge, which would be excluded as party to the formal
body since USFWS cannot cede management authority.
Action 2-2: Perform hydrologic study of the watershed.
a) Develop a hydrologic model of the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed.
b) Determine the need to replace flap gates with side-opening gates on the lake outlet canals
where appropriate.
c) Perform localized hydrologic studies within the watershed where flooding occurs or where there
is an identified need to improve or redirect water flow.
Action 2-3: Design engineered plans for active water management within watershed.
a) Determine need and perform maintenance dredging of Refuge boundary canals and lake bottom
as resources allow, and consider beneficial use of dredge material.
b) Determine need and perform maintenance dredging of outlet canals (consider beneficial use of
dredge material and feasibility after Dr. Etheridge’s study is complete).
c) Identify, design, and prioritize projects where managed water could be sheet flowed over
created or restored wetlands.
d) Identify where pumps are needed on the lake outlet canals or within the watershed that could
move water towards the Alligator River or Pamlico Sound that would otherwise drain to the
lake.
e) Evaluate the need to excavate additional outlet canals.
f) Maintain and create new earthen dikes as needed to facilitate water management.
Action 2-4: Facilitate active water management project implementation and evaluate success.
Action 2-5: Continue landowner education and participation in active water management projects.

30 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Objective 3: Determine how to effectively improve and meet water quality standards within
the watershed.
Action 3-1: Evaluate water quality monitoring results within the lake watershed.
Action 3-2: Perform carp biomass removal if advisable.
Action 3-3: Identify locations and determine the feasibility and water quality improvement derived from
implementing BMPs such as:
a) Stormwater wetlands or detention/retention basins.
b) Filter strips along edges of drainage ditches.
c) Sediment basins/settling ponds on canals draining to lake.
d) Water control structures in drainage ditches.
e) Sediment removal from the lake bottom.
f) Annual soil tests to target fertilization rates for dominant crops.
g) Developing nutrient management and herbicide/pesticide application guidelines.
h) Precision nutrient application with GPS technology
i) Cover crops and/or no-till or strip-till where appropriate
j) Altering water management of croplands, if advisable.
k) Moist soil management on private waterfowl impoundments.
l) Altering water management of impoundments- staged drawdowns.
Action 3-4: Develop specific funding mechanisms to offset costs of installing aforementioned water
quality improvement practices.
a) Identify practices that can be funded and secure funding for projects supported by NRCS and
NC Soil and Water District or other granting agencies.
b) Incentivize conservation crop rotation, cover crops, residue management practices and
structural practices to minimize the potential for nutrient losses.
c) Incentivize moist soil management of private waterfowl impoundments.
Action 3-5: Purchase land or easements within the Lake watershed to treat (i.e. reduce nutrient levels
and sediment loads) cropland/impoundment waters.
Objective 4: Ensure septic systems are in compliance.
Action 4-1: Continue to inspect septic systems within the watershed.
Action 4-2: Assist with making improvements to systems as needed.
a) Repair/upgrade septic systems.
b) Consider a no-interest or low-interest loan for septic system improvements.
c) Determine if it is feasible to connect residential properties to municipal sewer.
Objective 5: Make habitat improvements that have a direct water quality or way of life
benefit.
Action 5-1: Re-establish submerged aquatic vegetation in Lake Mattamuskeet following a reduction in
nutrient and suspended sediment levels and/or a reduction in grazers (e.g. common carp).
Action 5-2: Promote emergent vegetation growth around the periphery of Lake Mattamuskeet by
reducing Phragmites australis at specific target locations augmented by supplemental planting.

31 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Action 5-3: Manage side-mounted tide gates for fish and larval blue crab passage.
Objective 6: Adapt and evolve the plan based on results.
Action 6-1: Adapt communities in Hyde County and specifically within the lake watershed to become
resilient to sea level rise.
Action 6-2: Work with NCDEQ to closely monitor water quality in the impaired waters to determine if
the plan is having its intended water quality benefits.
Action 6-3: Conduct annual and five-year assessments on the success of the plan, taking into account
improvements in water management on the lake and within the watershed, reductions in nutrients
reaching the lake, improvements in lake water clarity, reduction in lake algal blooms, and preservation
of the way of life in the watershed.
Action 6-4: Facilitate a framework that will sustain yearly stakeholder discussions including revisions,
edits and updates to the plan as it is implemented.
PRIORITY ACTIONS
Actions that have been prioritized for initial investigation identify ways to create active water
management in the watershed and improve water quality and clarity in the lake. Specifically, the
initial priority actions of this watershed restoration plan stem around Objectives 2: Establish
active water-level management capabilities on Lake Mattamuskeet and improve water
management within the Lake Mattamuskeet watershed.
Action 2-1: Create a formal body that provides managing authority for active water
management within the watershed in close coordination with the Refuge, which would be
excluded as party to the formal body since USFWS cannot cede management authority.
The CST consists of a group of individuals that have met on a regular basis throughout the
development of the watershed restoration plan. They have contributed their time and knowledge
to identifying the key needs and issues to be addressed through the development of a watershed
restoration plan. At the conclusion of the plan writing there is no formal process for them to
remain involved or obligation of any one entity to implement the watershed restoration plan. For
these reasons, the CST have prioritized developing a formal body that will oversee, in
coordination with the Refuge, the implementation of the watershed restoration plan.
There are three possible structures that could be explored for such a purpose. In North Carolina,
Drainage Districts, Service Districts and Drainage Associations can be developed for the express
purpose of providing drainage services and implementing watershed improvement projects.
Drainage Districts:
Formation: The formation of a drainage district was authorized by Public Law Chapter 509
in 1909. Creating one is similar to a lawsuit and requires 3/5 of residents to approve and
50% of landowners agreeing to participation. The last drainage district was formed in Pitt
County in the 1960s. Note: Mattamuskeet Drainage District One was the first drainage
district in the state, but it was dissolved in the formation of the Mattamuskeet Wildlife
Refuge.

32 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Governance: A drainage district is a quasi-government entity, governed by an elected
three-person board of people from within the drainage district boundary.
Authority: The drainage district holds taxing authority. The board is responsible for
implementation of the annual drainage, service and maintenance needs of the district.
Pros: Local elected individuals govern the drainage district activities. As a quasi-
government entity they are eligible for disaster relief.
Cons: There is no living lawyer in North Carolina with experience in developing a drainage
district. They are difficult to form. The legal cost of developing a drainage district is
prohibitive.
Service Districts:
Formation: The formation of a service district is authorized by Chapter 153A Article 16 of
the current NC General Statutes. Creating one can be done by the local county
commissioners after they have been presented with a plan outlining the need and
purpose of the service district.
Governance: A service district is governed by the local county commissioners. It may have
a locally appointed advisory board to help guide service district’s actions.
Authority: The county commissioners set the annual budget for the service district,
implementation of the annual actions can be contracted out and overseen by the advisory
board within the approved budget and service district plan.
Pros: Compared to developing a drainage district, service districts can be easily formed
for a demonstrated need. There is no limitation on the size of a service district. Any
assessments collected for the service district will be managed by the county
commissioners and can only be used in the district for the described management actions.
As an entity managed by the County Commissioners, they would be eligible for disaster
relief.
Cons: Some people have expressed concerned that there is no “local” control of the
district since the district is managed by the county commissioners who may or may not
live in the service district. This can be mitigated somewhat by having a local advisory
committee.
Drainage Associations:
Formation: The formation of a drainage association is a private 502(c)12 organization
that can be formed for mutual ditch/irrigation benefit.
Governance: A drainage association is governed by a board of directors and the bylaws
that are part of the articles of incorporation.
Authority: the board of directors would oversee the annual budget, setting dues and
implementing the drainage or irrigation plan for the association.

33 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Pros: Privately run entity can set its budget based on needs
Cons: Since they are not a public entity they have difficulty receiving public assistance
after disasters. May have difficulty in acquiring all needed easements for a private
association to form.
After consideration of the above structures, the stakeholders are currently in favor of exploring
the development of a service district for the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed, and suggest using
the historic boundary of Mattamuskeet Drainage District One as the territory.
The existing Lake Mattamuskeet watershed is currently located within the historic boundary of
Mattamuskeet Drainage District One, which was formed through “an Act to authorize the State
Board of Education to unite with certain landowners in Hyde County in establishing a drainage
district, including Mattamuskeet Lake and the lands adjacent thereto” (N.C. Public Law Chapter
509 of 1909). The Act to establish Mattamuskeet Drainage District One was repealed following
the establishment of the Mattamuskeet Wildlife Refuge through Executive Order 6924 in 1934. It
is important to note that a Final Decree from the United States Department of Agriculture in 1935
reserved the right of the adjoining land owners to drain their lands into Mattamuskeet Lake.
Four drainage entities have been established (either wholly or partially) within the original
boundary of Mattamuskeet Drainage District One since then including the Fairfield Drainage
District No. 7, Mattamuskeet Drainage Association, West Quarter Service District, and Slocum
Drainage Partnership. The acreage of the Refuge is 50,180 acres and the existing drainage
entities extend over 16,836 acres of the former Mattamuskeet Drainage District One which was
102,895 acres. This leaves 35,879 acres of land that is primarily privately owned and
managed. Fourteen percent, or 5,021 acres, of that remaining land has been identified as a
flooding hotspot.
The details of the service district still need to be evaluated, but the general understanding among
the stakeholders is that drainage services could be either contracted from the existing drainage
entities or new drainage infrastructure and management could be developed to assist in meeting
the drainage needs. The upfront infrastructure and development costs of establishing a new
service district could likely be funded by grant or other funding opportunities. The service district
would be responsible for using income generated from a levy on private property taxes for the
operation and maintenance of drainage services within the district as well as capital
improvement projects. The USFWS cannot cede management authority of the Refuge and
therefore would not be included as a party of the service district. The Refuge could enter into an
MOA with the County as a collaborating partner to contribute to the implementation of the plan’s
management within the service district. The advisory committee of the service district and the
Refuge will also continue regular public meetings and stakeholder team meetings to facilitate the
implementation of management measures.
A service district would allow for the desired active water management in the watershed to
proceed through coordination of actions and provide an entity who is responsible for responding
to drainage needs. The service district advisory board would be responsible for overseeing the
water management plan moving forward and local representation on the advisory committee

34 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

would bring concerns to the County Commissioner’s attention. An example of a service district
plan is included as Appendix F.
Developing a service district to oversee the implementation of the plan and ensure proper active
water management within the watershed will take some time. It is anticipated that at least 18
months will be necessary to develop the service district plan for the Board of Commissioners to
consider. In light of this, the core stakeholder team has recommended that an interim step
include the development of an MOU between USFWS, NCWRC, and Hyde County. This MOU will
outline an understanding that the three partners will continue to work and collaborate on the
implementation of the watershed restoration plan while the formal service district is created.
The partners will continue to include stakeholders and meet at regular intervals. They recognize
the need to hire a third-party entity to assist in the continued coordination of meetings and
advancing the watershed restoration plan.
Action 2-2: Perform hydrologic study of the watershed.
Members of the MTWG and university researchers have worked to develop an understanding of
the water budget within the lake’s watershed. However, a more refined model to understand the
influence of private canals and pumps as well as the impact of wind and other environmental
factors is needed to be able to evaluate alternatives for water management. For example, one of
the next actions identified by the stakeholders as a priority is to explore engineered solutions
including new lake outlets - an improved watershed model would help stakeholders evaluate and
understand how pumps at new lake outlets will influence lake levels during various weather
conditions.
The modeling study will be developed in three sub-tasks: 1) understanding flow of water in the
watershed; 2) understanding lake level fluctuations due to changes in water inputs to the system-
taking into account the effects of the tide gates on existing outlet canals as well as wind and tide
effects within the lake and Pamlico Sound; and 3) incorporating outcomes of the watershed
model to evaluate the existing drainage system and potential benefits of drainage improvements.
A hydrologic model on the watershed scale will be developed to further evaluate precipitation
and evapotranspiration rates as well as compute the water inputs to the lake over time. This
model will aim to reproduce regional behavior within the watershed (i.e. not focused on single
drainage areas and sub-watersheds). The water inputs will be used as boundary conditions to
develop the hydraulic model that will be used to identify critical pool elevations within each
basin of the lake that lead to flooding and develop thresholds for active lake level management
purposes. The results of the hydraulic model will also be used to determine the need for
construction of additional outlet canals.
Delineating sub-catchment areas within the watershed and surrounding region, and identifying
design limitations based on the existing locations of dikes, gates, plugs, pump
locations/capacity/flow direction, and secondary channels will help identify more targeted or
sub-basin level hydrology improvements, such as evaluating whether the boundaries of existing
entities that provide drainage services on lands adjacent to the Lake Mattamuskeet watershed
should be re-delineated to mitigate flooding and increase drainage capacity.

35 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

In addition to the overall lake watershed model, localized hydrologic studies within the
watershed where flooding occurs or where there is an identified need to improve or redirect
water flow are needed. The existing stakeholder team has identified flood prone areas
throughout the watershed. There are a total of seven flooding hotspots distributed around the
lake. Three of those hotspots are residential zones, while the other four are on agricultural lands.
Flooding Hotspot Type Size (ac) Structures (#)
N. Lake Rd Residential 2,545 146
New Holland Residential 298 42
Fairfield Residential 108 38
Buzzard’s Roost Farm 1 Agricultural 954 16
Buzzard’s Roost Farm 2 Agricultural 203 33
Whitetail Farms 1 Agricultural 260 0
Whitetail Farms 2 Agricultural 654 13
Total 5,022 288

Table 3. Description of flooding hotspots within the Lake Mattamuskeet watershed.
Working in these localized hotspot areas to remedy the flood concerns will be part of the overall
strategic plan and will require focused engineering studies to develop cost estimates and
engineered design drawings that can be submitted for permitting.
Action 2-3: Design engineered plans for active water management of the lake watershed.
Engineering studies will determine and evaluate the placement of pumps on the existing main
outlet canals and/or redirecting water in current drainage systems/districts that could move
water from the lake to the Alligator River or Pamlico Sound. The strategy being pursued aims to
re-establish and replicate the natural movement of water from the lake to the Alligator River
drainage rather than the Pamlico Sound since the increased discharge of nutrient rich water could
have the potential to impact shellfish habitat. The preferred design alternative is to identify,
design, and prioritize projects where water diverted from the lake could be sheet flowed over
newly-created or restored wetlands, where nutrients and sediment can be absorbed before
discharging into a water body.
Infrastructure Improvements
The exact size and placement of pumps is still to be determined and will be informed by
the hydrologic model described in Action 2-2. The desired management capacity for the
watershed will determine the number of pumps and pump stations needed.
While the CST has discussed evaluating pumps that would discharge to the Pamlico
Sound, the strategy being pursued would explore the installation of pumps that would
restore hydrologic flows to the northwest. It is believed that water historically flowed to
the northwest, but water was re-directed due to hydrologic changes in the watershed.
Landowners in this area have volunteered their properties to be part of this potential
pumping plan, which would include sheet flowing water over newly-created or restored
wetlands for water quality improvements prior to discharging that water into the Alligator
River.

36 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

An additional benefit of pumping water to the northwest is that currently the Fairfield
Drainage District is dependent on a single pumping station to move water to the Alligator
River. If they were to ever experience a failure of that pump station, an additional pump
station on the northern side of the lake could provide a backup for their drainage needs.
Finally, pumping water to the northwest, away from the Pamlico Sound, would help to
reduce nutrient and sediment loads to already impaired SA shellfish waters.
Additional Outlet Evaluation
As part of the evaluation of pump locations, one idea that needs further exploration is
installing a new outlet on the north side of the west basin of the lake. Currently, the west
basin has only one outlet canal. During the summer months, the Rose Bay canal is known
for its inability to move water from the lake to Pamlico Sound because often there is not
enough head pressure to passively drain water from the lake to Rose Bay, given the
prevailing wind direction is from the southwest, the exact orientation of the canal.
Therefore, during summer, water from Pamlico Sound is pushed into Rose Bay canal
effectively blocking water from discharging from the lake. A new outlet canal with a tide
gate on the north side of the west basin would help to alleviate these issues, and may
help to improve water circulation and management in the western basin.
Potential Sheet Flow Sites
The CST desires to discharge “clean” water from the lake to surrounding water bodies.
They do not want to divert water rich in nutrients, sediments and bacteria from the lake
and simply re-distribute it in another location. For this reason, until the water quality in
the lake improves, identifying locations where water could be sheet flowed over newly
created or restored wetlands within the watershed and surrounding lands is a priority.
Sheet flowing water over wetlands reduces the volume of water being directly discharged
to the Pamlico Sound or Alligator River while simultaneously decreasing the
concentrations of nutrients, sediments, and bacteria as the water infiltrates the soil and
is absorbed by vegetation.
To date several potential locations have been identified (Figure 19). Private land owners
have volunteered tracts of land located on the northwest boundary of the watershed that
would provide a pathway to sheet flow water over prior converted wetlands before
eventually discharging to the headwaters of the Alligator River. One of these potential
sites includes a 293-acre tract of land that currently has the infrastructure in place to
accept water that currently discharges to the lake thereby reducing an input.
Additionally, there are three tracts of land (total = 346 acres) located to the north of the
Fairfield Drainage District that water could sheet flow through with additional pumps
through existing canals. There has also been discussion about the use of the Gull Rock
Game Lands as a prospective site for sheet flow applications to increase the drainage
capacity for both the Lake Mattamuskeet watershed and the Fairfield Drainage District.

37 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Additional lands are likely needed and one output of the hydrologic model will be an
estimate for how much land is needed to meet water management and treatment needs.
The impacts of the altered hydrologic regimes on these lands will need to be further
evaluated as well.
Figure 19: A map displaying the potential sheet flow application sites within and adjacent to the watershed.
Other management measures, listed below, will be prioritized after results from ongoing
research projects are received.
 Evaluate whether dredging the main outlet canals and canals within the Refuge boundary
to their original design dimensions will increase drainage capacity and alleviate flooding
within the watershed in the near-term and long-term.
 Encourage the use of moist soil management on private waterfowl impoundments
where feasible with willing landowner participation.
 Provide assistance to landowners interested in alternative applications of fertilizer,
herbicide, or pesticide.
 Reduce the common carp population within the lake.
 Plant SAV within the lake experimentally and more broad-scale after some water quality
improvements have been documented.

38 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

ESTIMATED LOAD REDUCTIONS
The current delineation of the watershed totals 68,173 acres and the Refuge boundary totals
50,180 acres, thereby leaving 17,993 acres of adjacent lands that drain to the lake, or 26.4% of
the watershed. A total of 378 acres within the watershed has been identified as potential sheet
flow sites, which would result in 2.1% reduction in land area that would otherwise drain to the
lake. This percentage will increase once the hydrologic model for the watershed is developed
and engineers identify the volume of water that could be re-directed to the potential sheet flow
sites. An additional 2,477 acres located outside of the watershed have also been identified for
potential sheet flow application. Additional acreage will likely be needed to reach water
management and water quality goals. Estimates of the nutrient and sediment load reductions
will be generated once the engineered plans are developed that identify the volume of water
that could be treated through sheet flow applications. Additional estimates will be tracked as
BMPs are implemented within the watershed over time.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The principal funding partners (Hyde County, USFWS, NCWRC) of this watershed restoration plan
will consider the development of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to continue to hold
stakeholder meetings and regularly scheduled public meetings. The primary purposes of the
stakeholder meetings will be to oversee the implementation of the priority actions, and provide
a mechanism to adapt the plan over time. Regularly scheduled public meetings will be held to
keep people informed of the watershed restoration plan progress.
EVALUATION
The continuation of existing monitoring efforts conducted at Lake Mattamuskeet and the
surrounding watershed (Table 2) will provide immediate feedback about improvements to water
quality trends within Lake Mattamuskeet, and the metric for success will be the removal of Lake
Mattamuskeet from state 303(d) list. Additionally, the results of the Ambient Lakes Monitoring
Program implemented by the NCDEQ DWR will be used to evaluate changes in water quality
trends over the long-term.
The return of SAV coverage will serve as a primary indicator of the lake ecosystem health and will
be used as the metric to evaluate the effectiveness of each implemented management
action/BMP to improve water quality within Lake Mattamuskeet. Refuge staff will conduct
annual surveys to evaluate SAV species composition and percent coverage. Since the scope of
the MTWG focuses on monitoring efforts within the Refuge it is recommended that
representatives from Hyde County Soil and Water Department participate in the MTWG to
provide information about land use activities occurring throughout the watershed including the
implementation of BMPs to facilitate a more comprehensive evaluation of effectiveness towards
improving water quality and SAV restoration.
The residential and farming communities will provide first-hand accounts of the effectiveness of
management measures to mitigate flooding issues. These same stakeholders will be able to
evaluate if the management actions have improved their way of life.

39 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Hyde County Center of the NC Cooperative Extension Office connects farmers,
agribusinesses, and communities with vital research-based information and technology. The
Extension office can assist growers with problem diagnosis, variety selection, pesticide education,
as well as providing agronomic information.
The Hyde County Soil and Water Conservation District is primarily responsible for stormwater
management and drainage issues in the County. The USDA-Natural Resources Conservation
Service provides a major source of assistance, and enables the Soil and Water Conservation
District to provide county residents and landowners with the following: 1) consultative
assistance, 2) technical assistance, 3) technical assistance to units of government, and 4)
information and education assistance. The North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program
encourages landowners and its users to apply best management practices (BMPs).
Hyde County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program and existing floodplain
management regulations can be found in Chapter 20 – Flood Damage Prevention – in Hyde
County’s Code of Ordinances. The County also participates in the Community Rating System
(CRS) and is a Class 9 community. Activities that receive credit by the CRS program include actions
to enhance public safety, reduce flood damage, and enhance environmental protection. Public
information activities associated with the CRS program also help to build a knowledgeable
constituency interested in supporting and improving flood mitigation measures. The Hyde County
Office of Planning and Economic Development oversees the development and implementation
of the County Ordinances, the Pamlico Sound Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2015), Hyde
County Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2014), Hyde County CAMA Land Use Plan (2008).
Reviews for consistency should accompany proposed amendments to ordinances and plan
updates to avoid with management recommendations provided within this watershed
restoration plan.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Section 205(j) Grant Program
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provides states with funding to implement
water quality planning activities through the Section 205(j) grant program. Projects funded
through this program can involve identifying the nature, extent and cause of water quality
problems. Funds can also be used to advance the plans developed to address water quality
impairments such as: mapping stormwater infrastructure, conducting engineering designs for
stormwater BMPs, and watershed assessments of pollutant sources. Section 205(j) grants are
eligible to regional Councils of Governments (COGs), which may partner with any public sector
organization to implement projects. The Albemarle Commission is the regional COG for the Lake
Mattamuskeet watershed.
Section 319 Grant Program
Through the Section 319 grant program, the USEPA provides states with funding to reduce
nonpoint source pollution. Funds may be used to conduct watershed restoration projects such

40 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

as stormwater and agricultural BMPs. Projects funded through the Section 319 Grant program
must be used to implement an approved watershed restoration plan that includes the nine
elements required by the USEPA. State and local governments, interstate and intrastate
agencies, public and private non-profit organizations, and educational institutions are all eligible
to apply for 319 funding. The annual 319(h) grant application cycle is initiated at the beginning
of the calendar year.
National Coastal Resilience Fund
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) announced the National Coastal Resilience
Fund in 2018 to restore, increase and strengthen natural infrastructure to protect coastal
communities while also enhancing habitats for fish and wildlife. The fund aims to:
 Benefit coastal communities by reducing the impact of coastal flooding and associated
threats to property and key assets, such as hospitals and emergency routes.
 Benefit coastal communities by improving water quality and recreational opportunities.
 Benefit fish and wildlife by enhancing the ecological integrity and functionality of coastal
and inland ecosystems.
Hyde County submitted a proposal to develop a watershed scale hydrologic model and engineer
a design to sheet flow water over created or restored wetlands in August 2018. The proposal is
currently under review and if funds are awarded, this phase of the project will begin in early 2019.
The results of the project will help to inform the development of the service district and its
infrastructure needs.
NCDEQ Planning and Management Grant
The NCDEQ Division of Coastal Management helps local governments in the 20 coastal counties
fund local planning and management projects.
SCHEDULE and MILESTONES
The implementation schedule is detailed below. The dates listed serve as tentative deadlines.
The implementation of the priority actions is dependent on acquiring funding and voluntary
interest of private land owners. The priority actions listed in a gray and italicized font are sub-
actions.

41 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Objective 1: Continue managing current projects and collaborations.
Action Description Timeline Partners
1-1
Perform annual review of monitoring
methodology and data gap assessment with the
Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group (MTWG).
Annually beginning
March 2019 MTWG
1-2 Continue existing monitoring and research efforts. Ongoing
USFWS, NCWRC,
USGS, NCDEQ,
Research
Scientists
1-3 Continue to keep tide gates free of debris.
Ongoing (during weekly
monitoring at
minimum)
USFWS
1-4
Continue to snag and drag outlet canals after
storms and as needed to provide flow and access
at outlet canals.
Evaluate annually and
post storm events
Hyde County Soil
& Water
1-5 Continue to follow nutrient management plans for
agricultural lands. Ongoing
NC Cooperative
Extension, Crop
Consultants,
Farmers
1-6 Continue to hold stakeholder meetings to evaluate
watershed restoration plan progress. Regularly Waterhsed
Stakeholders
1-7
Continue to hold public meetings to keep people
informed of the watershed restoration plan
progress.
Quarterly beginning
March 2019
Hyde County,
USFWS, NCWRC
Objective 2: Establish active water-level management capabilities on Lake Mattamuskeet and
improve water management within the watershed.
Action Description Timeline Partners
2-1
Create a formal body that provides managing
authority for active water management within the
watershed in coordination with the Refuge, which
would be excluded as party to the formal body
since USFWS cannot cede management authority.
Public hearing by May
1, 2020 to take effect
July 1, 2020
Hyde County,
FDD, MDA
2-2 Perform hydrologic study of the watershed. May 1, 2020
Engineers,
Research
Scientists
2-2a Develop a hydrologic model of the Lake
Mattamuskeet Watershed. April 1, 2020
Engineers,
Research
Scientists
2-2b
Determine the need to replace flap gates with
side-opening gates on the lake outlet canals where
appropriate.
May 1, 2020 MTWG/Research
Scientists

42 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

2-2c
Perform localized hydrologic studies within the
watershed where flooding occurs or where there is
an identified need to improve or redirect water
flow.
May 1, 2020
PLOs, NCDOT,
Engineers,
Research
Scientists
2-3 Design engineered plans for active water
management within the watershed. June 1, 2021
Engineers,
Research
Scientists
2-3a
Determine need and perform maintenance
dredging of Refuge boundary canals and lake
bottom (consider beneficial use of dredge
material).
June 1, 2020
USFWS,
Engineers,
Research
Scientists
2-3b
Determine need and perform maintenance
dredging of outlet canals and lake bottom
(consider beneficial use of dredge material and
feasibility after Dr. Etheridge's study is complete).
June 1, 2020
PLOs, Engineers,
Research
Scientists
2-3c
Identify, design, and prioritize projects where
managed water could be sheet flowed over
created or restored wetlands.
June 1, 2020
PLOs, Engineers,
Research
Scientists
2-3d
Identify where pumps are needed on the lake or
within the watershed that could move water
towards the Alligator River or Pamlico Sound that
would otherwise drain to the lake.
June 1, 2021
Engineers,
Research
Scientists, FDD,
MDA
2-3e Evaluate the need to excavate additional outlet
canals. June 1, 2021
Engineers,
Research
Scientists
2-3f Maintain and create new earthen dikes as needed
to facilitate water management.
Evaluate annually and
post storm events
USFWS, Hyde
County Soil &
Water
2-4 Facilitate active water management project
implementation and evaluate success.
Ongoing and annually
before end of fiscal
year
Hyde County,
USFWS, NCWRC
2-5 Continue landowner education and participation
in active water management projects. Ongoing
Hyde County Soil
& Water, NC
Cooperative
Extension
Objective 3: Determine how to effectively improve and meet water quality standards within the
watershed.
Action Description Timeline Partners
3-1 Evaluate water quality monitoring results within
the lake watershed. Ongoing MTWG, USGS,
NCDEQ
3-2 Perform carp biomass removal if advisable. December 1, 2020
Research
Scientists,
MTWG

43 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

3-3
Identify locations and determine the feasibility
and water quality improvement derived from
implementing BMPs such as:
Ongoing
NRCS, NC
Cooperative
Extension, Hyde
County Soil &
Water, Research
Scientists, Crop
Consultants,
Farmers, NGOs,
PLOs
3-3a Stormwater wetlands or detention/retention
basins Ongoing Hyde County Soil
& Water, PLOs
3-3b Filter strips along edges of drainage ditches. Ongoing
NRCS, NC
Cooperative
Extension, Hyde
County Soil &
Water, PLOs
3-3c Sediment basins/settling ponds on canals draining
to lake. Ongoing
NRCS, NC
Cooperative
Extension, Hyde
County Soil &
Water, PLOs
3-3d Water control structures in drainage ditches. Ongoing
NRCS, NC
Cooperative
Extension, Hyde
County Soil &
Water, PLOs
3-3e Sediment removal from the lake bottom. When feasible during
drought conditions USFWS
3-3f Annual soil tests to target fertilization rates for
dominant crops. Annually
NC Cooperative
Extension, Crop
Consultants,
Farmers
3-3g Developing nutrient management and
herbicide/pesticide application guidelines. Ongoing
NC Cooperative
Extension, Crop
Consultants,
Farmers
3-3h Precision nutrient application with GPS
technology. Ongoing
NC Cooperative
Extension, Crop
Consultants,
Farmers

44 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

3-3i Cover crops and/or no-till or strip-till where
appropriate. Ongoing
NRCS, NC
Cooperative
Extension, Crop
Consultants,
Farmers
3-3j Altering water management of croplands, if
advisable. Ongoing
NC Cooperative
Extension, Crop
Consultants,
Farmers
3-3k Moist soil management of private waterfowl
impoundments. Ongoing NCWRC, PLOs,
NGOs
3-3l Altering water management of impoundments -
staged drawdowns.
Annually at the end of
waterfowl hunting
season
Research
Scientists, PLOs
3-4
Develop specific funding mechanisms to offset
costs of installing aforementioned water quality
improvement practices.
Annually NRCS, NGOs,
Service District
3-4a
Identify practices that can be funded and secure
funding for projects supported by NRCS and NC
Soil & Water District or other granting agencies.
Ongoing NGOs, Service
District
3-4b
Incentivize conservation crop rotation, cover crops,
residue management practices and structural
practices to minimize the potential for nutrient
losses.
Ongoing NRCS, NC Soil &
Water
3-4c Incentivize moist soil management of private
waterfowl impoundments. Ongoing NRCS, NC Soil &
Water, NGOs
3-5
Purchase land or easements within the Lake
watershed to treat (i.e. reduce nutrient levels and
sediment loads) cropland/impoundment waters.
Ongoing NGOs, Service
District
Objective 4: Ensure septic systems are in compliance.
Action Description Timeline Partners
4-1 Continue to inspect septic systems within the
watershed. Ongoing
Hyde County
Environmental
Health Services
4-2 Assist with making improvements to septic
systems as needed. Ongoing
Hyde County
Environmental
Health Services
4-2a Repair/upgrade septic systems. Ongoing
PLOs, Hyde
County
Environmental
Health Services
4-2b Consider a no-interest or low-interest loan for
septic system improvements. Ongoing NCDEQ, Hyde
County, PLOs

45 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

4-2c Determine if it is feasible to connect
residential properties to municipal sewer. June 30, 2020
Swan Quarter
and Engelhard
Sanitary Districts
Objective 5: Make habitat improvements that have a direct water quality or way of life benefit.
Action Description Timeline Partners
5-1
Re-establish submerged aquatic vegetation in Lake
Mattamuskeet following a reduction of nutrients
and suspended sediment levels and/or a reduction
in grazers (e.g. common carp).
Ongoing or dependent
on water quality
criteria
MTWG
5-2
Promote emergent vegetation growth around the
periphery of Lake Mattamuskeet by reducing
Phragmites australis at specific target locations
augmented by supplemental planting.
Ongoing MTWG
5-3 Manage side-mounted tide gates for fish and
larval blue crab passage. Ongoing MTWG
Objective 6: Adapt and evolve the plan based on results.
Action Description Timeline Partners
6-1
Adapt communities in Hyde County and
specifically within the lake watershed to become
resilient to sea level rise.
Ongoing
FEMA, NCDCM,
NC Sea Grant,
Research
Scientists, Hyde
County
6-2
Work with NCDEQ to closely monitor water quality
in the impaired waters to determine if the
implementation of the plan is providing water
quality benefits.
Ongoing MTWG
6-3
Conduct annual and five-year assessments on the
success of the plan, taking into account
improvements in water management on the lake
and within the watershed, reductions in nutrients
reaching the lake, improvements in lake water
clarity, reduction in lake algal blooms, and
preservation of the way of life in the watershed.
Annually and every five
years
MTWG,
Watershed
Stakeholders
6-4
Facilitate a framework that will sustain yearly
stakeholders discussions including revisions, edits,
and updates to the plan as it is implemented.
Annually
MTWG,
Watershed
Stakeholders

46 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

REFERENCES
Cahoon, W.G. (1953) Commercial Carp Removal at Lake Mattamuskeet, North Carolina. The Journal of
Wildlife Management, 17(3): 312-317.
Copeland, B.J., Hodson, R.G., Riggs, S.R., Easley, J.E. (1983) The ecology of the Albemarle Sound, North
Carolina: an estuarine profile. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Biological
Services. FWS/OBS-83/01.
Dockendorf, K. J., Potoka, K. M., Thomas, C. D. (2015) Lake Mattamuskeet creel survey, 2014. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, Project F-108, Final
Report, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Forrest, L.C. (1999) Images of America: Lake Mattamuskeet, New Holland and Hyde County. 699
Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing.
Heath, R.C. (1975) Hydrology of the Albemarle-Pamlico Region, North Carolina: A preliminary report on
the impacts of the hydrologic developments. Raleigh, NC: U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources
Investigations 9-75.
Lake & Reservoir Assessments Tar-Pamlico River Basin (2018) NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/Reports/TarPam_17.pdf
Moorman, M.C., Augspurger, T., Stanton, J.D., Smith, A. (2017) Where’s the Grass? Disappearing
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Declining Water Quality in Lake Mattamuskeet. Journal of Fish and
Wildlife management: December 2017, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 401-417.
Report of Survey of North Carolina Inland Ports and Waterways. Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Hall and
MacDonald Engineers, Prepared for the Department of Conservation and Development. 1954.
http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p249901coll22/id/263569/rec/9
Tyus, H. M. (1974) Movements and spawning of anadromous alewives, Alosa pseudoharengus (Wilson)
at Lake Mattamuskeet, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 103(2), 392-396.
Waters, M.N. (2007) Historic transitions in primary producer communities in eastern North Carolina
lakes. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Waters, M.N., Piehler, M.F., Rodriguez, A.B., Smoak, J.M, Bianchi, T.S. (2009) Shallow lake trophic status
linked to late Holocene climate and human impacts. Journal of Paleolimnology, 42: 51-64.
Waters, M.N., Piehler, M.F., Smoak, J.M., Martens, C.S. (2010) The development and persistence of
alternative ecosystem states in a large, shallow lake. Freshwater Biology, 55(6): 1249-1261.

Appendix A
Establishment of Lake Mattamuskeet Wildlife Refuge

Appendix B
Establishment and Repeal of Mattamuskeet Drainage District One

1009
—
Chapter 508—509.STl
five of North Carolina:Provided further,that the State Board Proviso:sum
,,
,
.,,,,,.-..,...,.1,j^,retained for ruralEducationshalldeductfromsaidappropriationbienniallythesumlibraries.
of seven thousand five hundred dollars for rural libraries,as pro-
vided in section four thousand one hundred and seventy-nine of
the Revisal of one thousand nine hundred and five of North Caro-
lina."
Sec.3.That no county needing aid from this appropriation for Counties not to
„,,,1 J.T i i 1 11 •receive aid unlessafour-mouths school term in every district shall receive any levying special
funds therefrom until it shall have levied the special tax herein ^^'^•
required of it for that purpose.
Sec.4.That all laws and clauses of laws in conflict with this
act be and the same are hereby repealed.
Sec.5.That this act shall be in force from and after its ratifi-
cation.
Ratified this 5th day of March,A.D.1909.
CHAPTER 509,
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCA-
TION TO UNITE WITH CERTAIN LANDOWNERS IN HYDE
COUNTY IN ESTABLISHING A DRAINAGE DISTRICT,IN-
CLUDING MATTAMUSKEET LAKE AND THE LANDS AD-
JACENT THERETO.
The General Assembly of Xorth Carolina do enact:
Section 1.The State Board of Education is hereby authorized State board of
to unite with the owners of the lands ad.iacent to Mattamuskeet fzl^'d^to uniteVri°'^"
Lake,in Hyde County,in a petition to establish a drainage dis-petition,
trict which shall include the lands covered by the waters of said
lake and the lands adjacent thereto ;the said petition to be filed
in accordance with the terms and provisions,except hereinafter
modified,of the general drainage law enacted at this session of
the General Assembly.
Sec 2.The classification of lands according to benefits received,Classification of
as set forth in sections twelve and thirty-one of said drainage law,^"^'
shall not apply to the lands owned by the State Board of Educa-
tion,but shall apply to all other lands in said drainage dis-
trict.The State of North Carolina is to pay three-fourths (%)state to pay-,.,.,.„iii-i--11 •'-,.,.j_,,.three-fourtlis ofofthetotalcostsofestablishingsaiddrainagedistrictanddram-costs.
iiig and diking the lands included in said district,but in no event
shall the State pay more than three hundred thousand dollars Limit of amount.
($800,000).
Sec.3.Two nieinl)ers of the board of drainage commissioners Appointment of
provided for in section nineteen of the general drainage law shall m^'6?oners.°™"
be appointed by the State Board of Education and one appointed
i'Z 1909
—
Chapter 509—510.
Corporate name
Cost of repairs
and maintenance.
Payment of
interest on bonds.
Limit of liability
of state.
Bonds not to be
sold below par.
Reimbursement
to state.
Land of state and
of board of educa-
tion discharged
of lien.
State discliarged
of liability.
Action discretion-
ary with board of
education.
by the court before which the petition is filed.The corporate name
of said district shall be the ''Board of Drainage Commissioners
of Mattamuskeet District,"and the State Treasurer shall be the
ex officio treasurer of said board.
Sec.4.After the lands in said drainage district are drained
and diked,the costs of repairs and maintenance shall be borne
equally by all the lands in said district.
Sec.5.The interest on the bonds provided for in section thirty-
four of the general law shall for three years be paid by the Board
of Drainage Commissioners of Mattamuskeet District out of the
general funds in the hands of said board.The State of North
Carolina shall be liable for only three-fourths (%)of the face
value of said bonds,and a statement to this effect must be written
on the face of said bonds.Said bonds shall not be sold for less
than par and accrued interest at the time of sale.The State shall
be reimbursed by the State Board of Education for all money it
expends on said drainage district,with interest at six (6)per
cent on the same,out of the first proceeds that the State Board of
Education shall receive from the sale of lands in said drainage
district.
Sec.6.When the State shall pay the three-fourths (%)of the
total costs of said improvements assumed by it,its land and the
land of the State Board of Education shall be forever discharged
from all lien or claim on account of said bonds ;and if the State
shall,after said lands are drained and diked,sell the said lauds
or any part thereof,it shall be discharged from any and all lia-
bility for costs of maintenance and improvements,the said costs
for improvements to be collected out of the land itself.
Sec.7.It is not mandatory upon the State Board of Education
to unite in the petition mentioned In section one hereof,but it
may do so,or may make such other disposition of its lands under
and adjacent to Mattamuskeet Lake as it may deem proper.
Sec S.This act shall be in force from and after its ratification.
Ratified this the 5th day of March.A.D.1909.
CHAPTER 510.
AN ACT TO ISSUE BONDS TO CARRY OUT THE ACT OF
1907,FOR THE CARE OF THE INSANE OF THE STATE.
Preamble.
Preamble.
Whereas a bill was introduced in the General Assembly of one
thousand nine hundred and seven carrying an'appropriation of
five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)to be expended by a
State Hospital Commission in providing for the care of all the
mental defectives of the State;and whereas said bill provided for
bonds to be issued by this State to the amount of said appropria-

NC General Statutes - Chapter 113 Article 26A 1
SUBCHAPTER IVA. REPEALS.
Article 26A.
Repeal of Acts.
§ 113-377.8. Repeal of certain public, public-local, special and private acts.
The following public, public-local, special and private acts are hereby repealed: Chapter 36
of the Public Laws of 1901; Chapter 113 of the Public Laws of 1901; Chapter 260 of the Public
Laws of 1901; Chapter 308 of the Public Laws of 1901; Chapter 326 of the Public Laws of 1901;
Chapter 370 of the Public Laws of 1901; Chapter 431 of the Public Laws of 1901; Chapter 435
of the Public Laws of 1901; Chapter 475 of the Public Laws of 1901; Chapter 589 of the Public
Laws of 1901; Chapter 673 of the Public Laws of 1901; Chapter 702 of the Public Laws of 1901;
Chapter 771 of the Public Laws of 1901; Chapter 131 of the Public Laws of 1903; Chapter 414
of the Public Laws of 1903; Chapter 520 of the Public Laws of 1903; Chapter 631 of the Public
Laws of 1903; Chapter 650 of the Public Laws of 1903; Chapter 658 of the Public Laws of 1903;
Chapter 668 of the Public Laws of 1903; Chapter 732 of the Public Laws of 1903; Chapter 752
of the Public Laws of 1903; Chapter 86 of the Public Laws of 1905; Chapter 265 of the Public
Laws of 1905; Chapter 283 of the Public Laws of 1905; Chapter 351 of the Public Laws of 1905;
Chapter 363 of the Public Laws of 1905; Chapter 500 of the Public Laws of 1905; Chapter 560
of the Public Laws of 1905; Chapter 386 of the Public Laws of 1907; Chapter 572 of the Public
Laws of 1907; Chapter 690 of the Public Laws of 1907; Chapter 811 of the Public Laws of 1907;
Chapter 977 of the Public Laws of 1907; Chapter 426 of the Public Laws of 1909; Chapter 466
of the Public Laws of 1909; Chapter 585 of the Public Laws of 1909; Chapter 755 of the Public
Laws of 1909; Chapter 871 of the Public Laws of 1909; Chapter 525 of the Public-Local Laws of
1911; Chapter 547 of the Public-Local Laws of 1911; Chapter 572 of the Public-Local Laws of
1913; Chapter 587 of the Public-Local Laws of 1913; Chapter 402 of the Private Laws of 1913;
Chapter 58 of the Public-Local Laws, Extra Session of 1913; Chapter 211 of the Public-Local
Laws, Extra Session of 1913; Chapter 30 of the Public Laws of 1915; Chapter 180 of the Public
Laws of 1915; Chapter 610 of the Public-Local Laws of 1915; Chapter 599 of the Public-Local
Laws of 1917; Chapter 202 of the Public-Local Laws, Extra Session 1920; Chapter 114 of the
Public-Local Laws of 1921; Chapter 384 of the Public-Local Laws of 1921; Chapter 432 of the
Public-Local Laws of 1921; Chapter 439 of the Public-Local Laws of 1921; Chapter 157 of the
Public-Local Laws, Extra Session of 1921; Chapter 130 of the Public-Local Laws of 1923;
Chapter 352 of the Public-Local Laws of 1923; Chapter 533 of the Public-Local Laws of 1923;
Chapter 548 of the Public-Local Laws of 1923; Chapter 461 of the Public-Local Laws of 1925;
Chapter 623 of the Public-Local Laws of 1925; Chapter 228 of the Public-Local Laws of 1927;
Chapter 208 of the Public-Local Laws of 1929; Chapter 42 of the Public Laws of 1933; Chapter
51 of the Public Laws of 1933; Chapter 241 of the Public-Local Laws of 1933; Chapter 575 of
the Public-Local Laws of 1933; Chapter 365 of the Public-Local Laws of 1935; Chapter 368 of
the Public-Local Laws of 1935; Chapter 509 of the Public-Local Laws of 1935; Chapter 513 of
the Public-Local Laws of 1935; Chapter 352 of the Public Laws of 1937; Chapter 266 of the
Public-Local Laws of 1937; Chapter 632 of the Public-Local Laws of 1937; Chapter 265 of the
Public Laws of 1939; Chapter 138 of the Public-Local Laws of 1939; Chapter 179 of the
Public-Local Laws of 1939; Chapter 335 of the Public-Local Laws of 1941; Chapter 221 of the
Special Laws of 1947; Chapter 485 of the Special Laws of 1947; Chapter 1017 of the Special
Laws of 1947; Chapter 1031 of the Special Laws of 1949.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 113 Article 26A 2
Provided that any public, public-local, special or private law herein repealed may be covered
by a regulation of the Board of Conservation and Development to effectuate the same privileges
or protection therein provided upon the petition of either the representative or senator from that
county or district filed within six months from the date of ratification. (1951, c. 1045, s. 2.)

Appendix C
Historic Timeline of Watershed Development Activities

A History of Development Within Lake Mattamuskeet and Surrounding Watershed
360-1584- Inputs of organic matter into the lake from the surrounding catchment is extremely limited leaving Lake
Mattamuskeet with clear water, a sandy lakebed and few nutrients to support aquatic plant growth. 6
1773- Lake Mattamuskeet covers 110,000 acres and is 6-9’ deep. An attempt by the Provincial Congress to dig a canal to
Pamlico Sound fails, along with another attempt by an appointed drainage board in 1789. 2, 3
1825- The NC legislature gifts ownership of the lake to the State Literary Board with the expectation they will improve and
sell the surrounding lands to support public education. 2, 3
Late 1830’s- The State Literary Board assigns $200,000 ($4.5 million today) to the construction of canals to drain Mattamuskeet,
Pungo and New Lakes. 3
1838- Lake Landing Drainage Canal is dug by hand approximately 10-15’ deep and 15-25’ wide extending 7 miles from Lake
Mattamuskeet to Pamlico Sound at Wysocking Bay. When complete, drainage to the sound reduces the lake from
110,000 to 55,000 acres. 2, 3
1849- Fairfield Canal is dug north to the Alligator River, providing drainage and transportation for the city of Fairfield. 3
1860- Heightened European settlement and land alterations dramatically increase organic matter input to the lake.
These nutrients support the growth of phytoplankton within the lake over the following decades. 3, 4, 6
1909- NC Public Law 509 is passed authorizing the State Board of Education and around 550 Hyde County landowners to
establish the Mattamuskeet Drainage District. The district is overseen by a Board of Commissioners to drain the lake
and provide additional drainage for approximately 50,000 acres of surrounding private owned farmland. 2, 3
1911- Lake Mattamuskeet is sold to the Southern Land Reclamation Company (SLRC) who layout a plan to subdivide the
lakebed into commercial and residential properties and develop a town.3
1913- The Board of Commissioners drafts a drainage plan and hires A.V. Wills & Sons to construct Outfall Canal, 76 miles of
canals interior to the lake and a pumping plant.2, 3
1914-Outfall Canal is constructed via mechanical dredge at 7 miles long, 60’ wide at the base and 70’ wide at the top. 2, 3
1916- A steam powered pumping station is built at the north end of Outfall Canal. The SLRC, now called New Holland
Farms, Inc., reclaims around 20,000 acres of the lakebed and develops the town of New Holland. 2, 3
1918- Due to financial strain and pump failures, the real estate project is sold to North Carolina Farms who encounter the
same problems after draining the lake in 1920. 3
1919-Construction on the revised 1913 drainage plan is completed, resulting in 130 miles of canals along the lakebed. 2
1920-1923-Roads in New Holland are laid out and graded. By 1923, 125 people live in the town of New Holland. 2
1921- The 35-mile New Holland, Higginsport and Mt. Vernon Railroad extending from Wenona in Washington County to
the pumping plant at New Holland opens its doors to passengers .2
1923- The state acquires NC Farms and the Mattamuskeet Drainage District after the company declares bankruptcy and
the district is unable to collect drainage tax and continue operations. The pumping plant is shut down. 2
1926- The project is purchased by New Holland Corporation who abandon the earlier plan of selling parcels of the lakebed
as real estate and instead pump the lake and transition the lakebed into a large commercial farm. 2
1928-Construction of the Alligator/Pungo cut of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) is completed raising issues
of flooding and saltwater intrusion around Fairfield. 2, 5, 10
1930- Lateral canals along the lakebed are now excavated using ditching machines instead of day laborers. 2
1933- The latest farming project is abandoned. As water levels rise, large-mouth bass, black crappie and white perch enter
the lake from surrounding canals when gates open in winter, creating sportfishing opportunities within the lake.3

18
0
0
s

W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

1

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d

W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

1934- Lake Mattamuskeet Migratory Waterfowl Refuge is formed when the Government purchases 49,925 acres from
New Holland Corporation. Owners within the original boundary of the Mattamuskeet Drainage District retain the
right to drain into the lake. Despite turbid water conditions, refuge managers begin transplanting submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) along the lakebed to improve habitat for migratory birds.4, 7, 11
1937-Waupoppin Canal is constructed via mechanical dredge, improving flow to Pamlico Sound and lowering lake levels.
Sport fishing declines as fish populations shift from large-mouth bass and crappie to perch and carp. 1, 3, 4
1940-1949- The refuge initiates a carp removal program to improve water clarity and support fish diversity. Local fishermen are
employed by the refuge to use pound or fyke nets. No net reduction in population is measured.1
1942- NC Highway 94 is completed dividing the lake into two basins. 4
1948- The Corps of Engineers reviews saltwater intrusion and flooding issues associated with the AIWW. The review finds
the AIWW is not solely responsible, but recommends corrective works be provided to Fairfield at federal expense. 10
1949- Around 100,000 striped bass fingerlings from Weldon Hatchery are distributed within Lake Mattamuskeet.12
1949-1952-Drag seines used for carp removal combined with a series of lake drawdowns during the summer, which occurred
naturally via gravity flow once flashboards were pulled, increases biomass of carp removed. Over 1.6 million pounds
of carp and 1 million pounds of catfish are removed from the lake and surrounding canals. Rose Bay Canal is
constructed via mechanical dredge in 1950. 1, 3, 6, 11
1951-1952- Carp and catfish removal improves water clarity and 15,000 acres of SAV volunteer along the lakebed. Emergent
vegetation attractive to waterfowl expands along the shoreline. 1, 4
1955- The Civil Works Appropriation Bill authorizes funding for the construction of a pumping plant and dam with control
gates on Fairfield Canal near the Intracoastal Waterway. 10
1958- Fairfield Drainage District is established to prevent saltwater intrusion and flooding from the AIWW. 10
1960- Phytoplankton remain dominant within the west basin of the lake while macrophytes, such as SAV, dominate the
east basin. Lake grasses are now considered an important part of the lake Mattamuskeet ecosystem. 4, 11
1980- Water quality parameters associated with eutrophication are measured within the lake. These parameters
include chlorophyll a, total phosphorous and nitrogen, total suspended solids, turbidity and pH.4
Mid 1990’s- SAV loss begins within deep regions of the west basin.4
1998-2003- Large expanses of lakebed are exposed due to extended drought. In 2003, substantial rainfall increases lake levels.11
2002- Samples of chlorophyll a and pH exceed state guidelines for the first time since sampling began in 1981. 4
2008- An extensive fish kill occurs within the lake due to algal blooms resulting in low levels of dissolved oxygen. SOURCE
2012- The refuge initiates a water quality monitoring program in collaboration with NCDWR and USGS. Real time
monitoring stations across the lake measure water level, clarity, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, salinity and
conductivity. Monthly during the growing season, grab samples are analyzed for chlorophyll a, nutrients and
suspended solids and occasional testing of pesticides and cyanotoxins begins. 4, 9, 11
2012-2015- 68% of chlorophyll a and 32% of daily median pH samples exceed state guidelines; turbidity samples exceed state
guidelines for the first time.4
1 2013-2014- SAV loss begins within deep regions of the east basin following a sharp decline in water quality due to increased
suspended sediments, nutrients and phytoplankton. 4
2014- The USFWS and NCWRC form the Mattamuskeet Collaboration Team, tasked with establishing goals and actions to
address the conservation challenges of the reserve and Lake Mattamuskeet. The Mattamuskeet Technical Working
Group, consisting of scientists from both agencies, is formed and tasked with identifying approaches to improving
lake water quality. 11
2016- The lake is listed as an EPA 303(d) Impaired Water due to elevated pH and chlorophyll a levels.4, 8
2017- USFWS, NCWRC, and Hyde County fund the development of a Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan.
Monitoring results suggest no significant difference in water quality between the two basins as previously reported
and surveys conducted by the USFWS indicate that all SAV is effectively gone from both basins.4, 6, 11

Cu
r
r
e
n
t

W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

1

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d

W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

References:
1. Cahoon, Willie G. (1953). Commercial Carp Removal at Lake Mattamuskeet, North Carolina. The Journal of Wildlife
Management, 17(3): 312-317.
2. Forrest LC. (1999). Images of America: Lake Mattamuskeet, New Holland and Hyde County. 699 Charleston, SC:
Arcadia Publishing.
3. Heath, R. C. (1975). Hydrology of the Albemarle-Pamlico Region, North Carolina: A preliminary report on the
impacts of hydrological developments. Raleigh, NC: U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations 9-75.
4. Moorman, M. C., Augspurger, T., Stanton, J.D. & Smith, A. (2017). Where’s The Grass?: Disappearing Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation and Declining Water Quality in Lake Mattamuskeet. Manuscript in preparation.
5. Parkman, A. (1983). History of the Waterways of the Atlantic Coast of the United States. National Waterways
Study- U.S. Army Engineer Water Resources Support Center. Navigation History NWS-83-10.
6. Waters, M. N., Piehler, M. F., Smoak, J. M., Martens, C. S. (2010). The development and persistence of alternative
ecosystem states in a large, shallow lake. Freshwater Biology, 55(6): 1249-1261.
7. Executive Order 6924. Pg. 1. 1934.
8. Impaired Waters and TMDLs: Identifying and Listing Impaired Waters. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. 21
Feb, 2017. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.
9. Conserving the Nature of America: Continuous Water Quality Monitoring at Lake Mattamuskeet. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 2012. https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/2013-11-18%20Fact%20sheet%20December%202012.pdf
10. Report of Survey of North Carolina Inland Ports and Waterways. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall and MacDonald
Engineers, Prepared for the Department of Conservation and Development. 1954.
http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p249901coll22/id/263569/rec/9
11. Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group. Written communication, October 23, 2017.
12. Holloway, Anoil D. (1948). Twelve Years of Fishing Records from Lake Mattamuskeet. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA.

Appendix D
Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan Development

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Core Stakeholders/Project Team Roles and Responsibilities- FINAL 9.25.17

Core Stakeholders Charge
The Core Stakeholders of the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Planning process are
responsible for directing the development of a watershed restoration plan for the Lake and its
surrounding watershed and representing the various viewpoints, uses and goals of the Lake watershed’s
many stakeholders. They will serve as a sounding board and advisory committee for the duration of the
plan development and prioritize key action items for inclusion in the final plan. Core Stakeholder’s roles
and responsibilities will include:
 Provide a wide range of backgrounds and ideas that will help to inform the plan development;
 Engage with the community and facilitate two-way information sharing throughout the plan
development;
 Establish ground rules and expectations for the group dynamics;
 Agree upon meeting frequency and commit to attending all stakeholder and public meetings for
the duration of the plan development (18 months);
 Provide guidance and recommendations on actions necessary to adequately protect, manage
and restore the Lake and its surrounding watershed to include: assist in filling data gaps, identify
strategies and recommend future research or management needs;
 Help to identify key community members that could provide additional insight and guidance in
developing action items to include in the plan;
 Provide advice on the agenda for public meetings;
 Provide guidance and review of work products;
 Prioritize action items to include in the final Watershed Restoration Plan;
 Provide timely review (i.e. within one week of receiving), edits and approval throughout the plan
development to the following:
o Stakeholder and public meeting notes;
o Versions of the Watershed Restoration Plan as it evolves;
o Additional communications pieces developed for the plan- such as the plan summary
and press releases.

Meeting Frequency
It is anticipated that the Core Stakeholders will meet on a regular basis, at a minimum once between
public stakeholder meetings, at a maximum monthly. Attendance at the quarterly public meetings is also
required.

Composition
The Stakeholder group will have no more than 11 members. Members are selected by Hyde County Soil
and Water and Hyde County based on their ability to represent the following stakeholders:
 Hyde County Government
 Hyde County Soil and Water Board
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
 Representatives from residential communities (Fairfield, St. Lydia and North Lake Road)
 Representatives from farming community
 Representatives from waterfowl impoundment owners
 Representative from Hospitality Business owners
 Representatives from Fairfield Drainage District
 N.C. Department of Transportation (advisory role)
 Army Corps of Engineers (advisory role)
 Natural Resources Conservation Service (advisory role)

Members Include:
Name Stakeholder Group
Represented
Phone Number(s) Email
Daniel Brinn Hyde Drainage 252 926 7253 (o)
252 943-7973 (m)
[e-mail]
Michael Cahoon Farming Community 252 944-5384 [e-mail]
Pete Campbell U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Mattamuskeet
National Wildlife Refuge
252 926 4021 (o)
252 944-6495 (m)
[e-mail]
Doug Howell N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission
252 482 5943 (o)
252 287 5694 (m)
[e-mail]
Art Keeney Residential Community 252 925-1084 (h)
252 945-6660 (m)
[e-mail]
Bill Rich Hyde County 252 333-2596 (m) [e-mail]
Ben Simmons Farming Community
Fairfield Drainage District
252 944-3070 (m) [e-mail]
Pat Simmons Hospitality Industry
JW Spencer Hyde Soil and Water
Board
252 926-4061 (h)
252 944-6793 (m)
[e-mail]
James Topping Residential 252 943-4214 [e-mail]
Joey Ben Williams Impoundments 252 944-3807(m) [e-mail]

Technical advisors include: Kris Noble, Drs. Michelle Moorman, Randall Etheridge and Mike Piehler,
additional advisors will be identified
Staff support includes: Erin Fleckenstein, Todd Miller, Linda D’Anna (contractor)
Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Project Team Meeting
May 2, 2017
11:00-12:30
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

11:00 am Welcome, Introductions

11:05 am Review Memorandum of Agreement

11:15 am Communications Discussion
- Webpage
- Press Releases
- Email Lists

11:35 am Calendar
- Monthly Core Project Team Meetings- in person or via phone:
propose next meeting on June 5th 3:00 p.m.
- Technical Advisors- TWG plus additional advisors as needed
- Draft schedule of Public Meetings
7:30 pm at Mattamuskeet School Cafeteria
o June 27, 2017
o October 3, 2017
o January 16, 2018
o April 24, 2018
o June 19, 2018
o September 18, 2018

12:00 pm Introduce Linda D’Anna
- Background and Interest
- Questions from Project Partners

12:10 pm Discussion of plan for first month- month and a half

12:25 pm Wrap up and Next Steps

12:30 pm Adjourn
Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Project Team Meeting
June 8, 2017
10:00-2:30
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

10:00 am Welcome, Introductions

10:05 am Review/Approve Previous Meeting Minutes

10:10 am Review/Finalize Procedural Questions- Erin
- Stakeholder List- process for finalizing composition
- Review Draft Roles/Responsibilities
- Contact Information for Stakeholders

10:45 am Review Communications Pieces- Caroline
- Press Release
- Flyer
- Webpage

11:30 am Review Possible Interview Questions/Generate Interviewee list- Linda

12:15 pm Lunch

1:00 pm Preview Watershed Mapping Products- Mackenzie Taggart

2:00 pm Discuss Draft Agenda for June 27 public meeting

2:30 pm Wrap up and Next Steps

2:45 pm Adjourn
Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting
June 27, 2017
5:00-7:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

5:00 pm Stakeholder Team Dinner

5:30 pm Meeting Commences- Welcome and Introductions

5:35 pm Project Overview/Recap
- Overview of signed MOA

5:45 pm Project Timeline and Milestones- Coastal Federation
-Work Undertaken since last public meeting

6:00 pm Stakeholder Roles/Responsibilities- Erin

6:15 pm Review Communications Pieces

6:30 pm Overview of Interview Process and Goals- Linda

6:45 pm Overview of Mapping Products/Watershed Characterization- MacKenzie

7:00 pm Questions/Discussion of any clarification needed

7:15 pm Discuss Draft Agenda for August 8 public meeting
-Review future public meeting schedule

7:25 pm Wrap up and Next Steps
- Set next stakeholder meeting

7:30 pm Adjourn
Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting
August 8, 2017
4:00-6:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

4:00 p.m. Welcome and Introductions, as needed

4:05 p.m. Committee Chair

4:10 p.m. Overview- Outline of Watershed Restoration Plan Report Elements

4:20 p.m. Watershed Characteristics

4:40 p.m. Timeline of Lake Management and Water Quality Concerns

5:00 p.m. Possible Actions to be evaluated, ideas presented to date

5:45 p.m. Update on Public Interview Process- Linda D’Anna

5:55 p.m. Set Next Stakeholder Meeting Date

6:00-6:30 p.m. Dinner, provided

7:00 p.m. Public Meeting
Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting
October 4, 2017
4:00-6:00 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

4:00 p.m. Welcome/Call to Order- Bill Rich

4:05 p.m. Overview and approval of previous meeting minutes- Bill Rich

4:10 p.m. Set Key Goals and Develop Preliminary List of Benchmarks for Lake
Mattamuskeet Watershed Plan- Erin/Todd
- Improve Water Quality
- Prevent Problem Floods
- Maintain Existing Uses of Lake and Watershed

4:45 p.m. Review/Discuss Public Comments received to-date- Group Discussion

5:30 p.m. Other Project Updates
- Mapping/Watershed Characterization/Timeline updates- MacKenzie
- Public Interview process- Linda
- Additional follow up from August public meeting- Erin

5:45 p.m. Proposed November Public Meeting Agenda Topics- Erin
- Water quality status and trends (research updates)
- Present stakeholder’s proposed goals discussion
- Map sub-watershed/catchment areas?

5:55 p.m. Confirm Next Stakeholder Meeting Date/Time November 7, 2017 4:00 p.m.

6:00 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting
November 7, 2017
3:30-5:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

3:30 p.m. Welcome/Call to Order- Bill

3:35 p.m. Overview and Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes- Bill

3:40 p.m. Discuss Summary Goal Statements and Preliminary Benchmarks- Erin

4:20 p.m. Review Updated Timeline and Watershed Characterization- MacKenzie

4:50 p.m. Story Map Overview- Michael

5:05 p.m. Update on Public Interviews Conducted to-date- Linda

5:15 p.m. Additional Public Engagement- Margaret Garner

5:20 p.m. Review any Coordination Needed for Public Meeting

5:25 p.m. Confirm Next Stakeholder Meeting Date/Time January xx, 2018 4:00 p.m.
Next Public Meeting- February 6, 2018

5:30 p.m. Adjourn to Dinner

7:00 p.m. Public Meeting Begins

Agenda for Core Stakeholder Meeting
with Technical Working Group Members
Jan. 30, 2018
9:00-4:00 pm
Mattamuskeet NWR Conference Room

Intention for the meeting:
 All of the watershed restoration plan core stakeholders will feel grounded in the science
being conducted within the lake watershed that supports the development of a
watershed restoration plan.
o Understanding the research and results of the work that have been conducted
on the lake and surrounding watershed and
o Understanding the proposed future research being conducted within the
watershed and how it will contribute to the development of the plan.
 Causes of the water quality impairment and water level concerns, if known, will be
detailed and discussed
 Preliminary discussions about various best management practices (moist soil
management; carp removal and sediment removal will be discussed)
 Future meetings/presentations will focus on remedial actions, steps that can be taken to
improve the lake water level and water quality and the feasibility of these actions.
Agenda
1) 9:00-9:15: Introduction/ Ground Rules (15 minutes) : Coastal Fed

2) 9:15 – 10:00: Stakeholders lay out importance of the lake to them, concerns and values

3) 10:00-10:10: Hydrology (10 minutes)
a. What is the Mattamuskeet watershed?
b. How much water is in Lake Mattamuskeet?

4) 10:10- 11:00: Field trip (Outfall WCS): Operation of tide gates and what we know about
them and their influence on flows

5) 11:00- 11:20: Hydrology II (5 min w/ 15 minutes Q/A; 5 minutes eval)
a. The Lake Mattamuskeet Water Budget – a discussion of where the water comes from
and where it goes in Lake Mattamuskeet

6) 11:30 – 12:05: Water-quality (10 minutes w/ 20 minutes for Q/A; 5 minutes eval)
a. Why are we concerned about water quality at Lake Mattamuskeet?
b. What water quality trends have been observed in the Lake?
7) 12:05-12:45 pm: Lunch

8) 12:45 – 3:00 pm: On-going research that can inform our selection of BMPs: Speed
presentation (5 minutes)/Questions (15 minutes)
a. What do we know? And what don’t we know?
b. What are we going to learn that will help guide the restoration process? And
when will we know it?
c. What data gaps are we going to be left with?
i. Joe Fuller: Moist Soil Management
ii. Dr. Michael Piehler’s: SAV restoration and in-lake nutrient sources
iii. Dr. Jesse Fisher: Carp removal
iv. Dr. Randall Etheridge’s: Watershed inputs (from duck impoundments)
and canal flow research
v. Dr. Greg Cope: Pesticides

9) 3:00-3:15 pm: Evaluations/Break

10) 3:15 – 4:00 pm: Open Group discussion: Coastal Federation will facilitate and
evaluations will be completed

11) Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting
February 6, 2018
4:30-5:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

4:30 p.m. Welcome/Call to Order- Bill

4:35 p.m. Overview and Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes- Bill

4:40 p.m. Update from Joint TWG-Stakeholder meeting- Bill/Erin
-how to view presentations from meeting

4:45 p.m. Review Plan Development Timeline -Erin

4:55 p.m. Story Map Overview- Michael

5:10 p.m. Update on Public Interviews Conducted to-date- Linda

5:15 p.m. Review draft fact sheet on SAV- Tentative Item- Michelle Moorman

5:20 p.m. Review any Coordination Needed for Public Meeting

5:25 p.m. Confirm Next Stakeholder Meeting Date/Time February xx, 2018
Next Public Meeting May

5:30 p.m. Adjourn to Dinner

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting Agenda
March 28, 2018
3:00-5:00 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

3:00 p.m. Welcome/Call to Order- Bill Rich

3:05 p.m. Overview and Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes- Bill Rich

3:10 p.m. Public Interviews- Summary of Results and Discussion- Linda D’Anna

3:45 p.m. Overview of BMPs and Actions to Explore- Michael Flynn

4:20 p.m. Drainage Districts, Service Districts and Associations, Oh My!- Daniel Brinn

4:40 p.m. Next Steps-
prioritizing actions and objectives,
planning/agenda for public meeting,
draft plan elements

4:55 p.m. Confirm Next Stakeholder Meeting Date/Time-
May 8, 2018
3:30 -5:30 p.m. stakeholder meeting
5:30-6:30 p.m. Dinner
7:00-8:30 p.m. public meeting

5:00 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting Agenda
May 8, 2018
3:30 - 5:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

3:30 p.m. Welcome/Call to Order- Bill Rich

3:35 p.m. Overview and Approval of March 28th meeting minutes- Bill Rich

3:40 p.m. Draft Plan Elements- Coastal Federation and Stakeholders

Feedback discussion on Introduction/Background

Distribution of Interview Findings – Linda D’Anna

3:50 p.m. Review timeline for remainder of project- Coastal Federation

4:00 p.m. Review and Discuss Proposed Action Matrix- update with feasibility info and stakeholder
feedback

5:15 p.m. Preview of public meeting materials

5:30 p.m. Adjourn to Dinner

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Joint Technical Workgroup- Stakeholder Team Meeting
Agenda
June 6, 2018
10:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

10:00 a.m. Welcome, Introductions as needed
Review/approval of May meeting minutes
Review Goal Statements- final edits/approval, discussion as needed
Review initial ranking of proposed actions
Discuss rankings, need to remove certain actions, need to add some actions
Consensus on priority actions
12:30 p.m. Adjourn to Lunch
1:00 p.m. Discuss specifics of how and where to implement priority actions
--Management structure
--Mapping of potential project locations
--Form groups to delve further into top priority actions
3:30 p.m. Adjourn until next meeting: July 10, 2018

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting Agenda
August 21, 2018
2:00 - 4:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

2:00 p.m. Welcome/Call to Order - Bill Rich

2:05 p.m. Overview and approval of June 6th meeting minutes - Bill Rich

2:10 p.m. Update on formation of a Drainage District – Daniel Brinn
- Next Steps
- Legal Assistance

2:30 p.m. Feasibility of working with existing Drainage Districts – Erin Fleckenstein/Michael Flynn
- Mattamuskeet Drainage Association
- Fairfield Drainage District

2:45 p.m. Potential sheet flow locations – Erin Fleckenstein/Michael Flynn

3:00 p.m. Development of watershed scale hydrologic model – Dr. Randall Etheridge/Dr. Raymond Smith

3:30 p.m. Preview of public meeting materials and draft plan - Michael Flynn

4:15 p.m. Funding Next Steps of the Plan Development – Erin Fleckenstein
- NFWF National Coastal Resilience Fund application submission
- NCDEQ DCM Planning and Management grant

4:30 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting Agenda
October 1, 2018
2:00 - 4:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

2:00 p.m. Welcome/Call to Order – Bill Rich

2:05 p.m. Overview and approval of August 21st meeting minutes – Bill Rich

2:10 p.m. Update on formation of a Service District – Daniel Brinn/Pete Campbell
- Coordination with Hyde County Commissioners
- Legal Assistance
- USFWS Participation

2:30 p.m. Review of draft plan – Erin Fleckenstein

2:45 p.m. Review of schedule and milestones – Michael Flynn

4:00 p.m. Preview of public meeting materials - Michael Flynn
 Press Release
 Agenda
 Presentation
 Public availability of draft plan
4:30 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Team Meeting Agenda
November 16, 2018
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex
30 Oyster Creek
Swan Quarter, NC 27885

10:00 a.m. Welcome/Call to Order – Bill Rich

10:05 a.m. Overview and approval of October 1st meeting minutes – Bill Rich

10:10 a.m. Review of schedule and milestones – Erin Fleckenstein

10:15 a.m. Summary of final public meeting – Erin Fleckenstein

10:20 a.m. Review of public comments – Michael Flynn

10:30 a.m. Review of plan revisions – Michael Flynn

11:00 a.m. Preview of public symposium materials - Michael Flynn
 Agenda
 Outreach Document

11:15 a.m. Summary of presentation to EMC – Pete Campbell

11:20 a.m. Update on grant proposals – Michael Flynn
 NFWF – Coastal Resilience Fund
 Clean Water Management Trust Fund
 NCDEQ 319(h) Grant Program
 FEMA HMGP
 Other funding sources
11:45 a.m. WRRI Annual Conference – Michael Flynn

12:00 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan Meeting
First Public Meeting
August 8, 2017
7:00-8:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex, Swan Quarter

7:00 p.m. Welcome
7:05 p.m. Overview of Progress to Date, Public Meeting Schedule: Bill Rich
7:15 p.m. Ways to Stay Engaged in the Process: Erin Fleckenstein
7:25 p.m. Stakeholders and their Roles/Responsibilities: J.W. Spencer
7:30 p.m. Community Interviews: Linda D’Anna
7:40 p.m. Community Engagement- Citizen Science: Grant Parkins
7:55 p.m. Review Draft Maps of lake characteristics: Erin Fleckenstein
8:20 p.m. Question and Comment Period
8:30 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan Meeting
Second Public Meeting
November 7, 2017
7:00-8:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex, Swan Quarter
7:00 p.m. Welcome
7:05 p.m. Update on Stakeholder Progress- Erin Fleckenstein, NC Coastal Federation
 Stakeholder meetings and composition
 Draft Goals for Plan
7:15 p.m. Water Quality Trends and SAV in the Lake- Michelle Moorman, US Fish and Wildlife
7:30 p.m. Waterfowl Trends in the Lake- Doug Howell, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
7:45 p.m. Results of Watershed Mapping and Survey Effort- Randall Etheridge, ECU
 Summary of mapping and survey results
 Preliminary outline of identified problems and potential solutions
8:15 p.m. Next Steps of Plan Development- Erin Fleckenstein
8:20 p.m. Question and Comment Period
8:30 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan Meeting
Third Public Meeting
February 6, 2018
7:00-8:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex, Swan Quarter
7:00 p.m. Welcome
7:05 p.m. Update on Stakeholder Progress- Erin Fleckenstein, NC Coastal Federation
 Overview of Draft Goals for Plan
7:10 p.m. Briefing on Joint Meeting of TWG-Stakeholders- Bill Rich
7:20 p.m. Story Map overview- Coastal Federation
7:40 p.m. Characterizing the Watershed- Coastal Federation
 Updated Land use Maps
 Timeline of Lake Watershed Changes
8:00 p.m. Update on County Canal Maintenance- Daniel Brinn
8:10 p.m. Next Steps of Plan Development- Erin Fleckenstein
8:15 p.m. Public Input- Ideas of what to do for the lake
8:30 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan Meeting
Fourth Public Meeting
May 8, 2018
7:00-8:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex, Swan Quarter

7:00 p.m. Welcome
7:05 p.m. Update on Plan Development Progress- Erin Fleckenstein, NC Coastal Federation
7:10 p.m. State of the Lake and Proposed Strategies for Restoration - Linda D’Anna & Michael Flynn
7:45 p.m. Review Matrix of Actions
Determining feasibility of strategies
July 10 - Draft Priority Actions, opportunity for review/input
Sep 18 – Draft Plan, opportunity for review/input
8:15 p.m. Question and Answer
8:30 p.m. Adjourn

Take Action for Lake Mattamuskeet

Are you worried about flooding on your property?
Have you wondered why the lake water isn’t clear anymore?
Have you wondered where all the grass in the lake has gone?
For the last year, a group of people has come together to explore solutions for these problems
and develop a plan for fixing them. If you’re concerned about the lake and how it is impacting
you and your property, we want to hear from you.
Here’s how you can get involved:
 Visit www.nccoast.org/lakemattamuskeet to:
o Learn more about the problems and what is being done to make the lake healthy again.
o Submit comments about your concerns or ideas to restore the lake and improve conditions for
people living around the lake.
o Sign up to receive email updates as the plan is being developed.
 Attend the next public meetings on May 8, Jul. 10 and Sep. 18 from 7:00-8:30 p.m. at the Hyde County
Government Complex in Swan Quarter.
 Contact Erin Fleckenstein [phone] or [e-mail].
 Reach out to your stakeholders who are guiding this process (reverse side).

Please see the back of this handout to learn about what we know so far about
flooding, water quality and grass.
This project is a partnership of:

Here’s what we understand so far about…

…why land around the lake is flooding more frequently and for longer stretches of time:
The movement of water out of Lake Mattamuskeet is controlled by water control structures on each of the
four main canals that connect the lake to Pamlico Sound and Alligator River. Water levels within the
watershed vary depending on water levels in the sound, wind direction and rainfall. Over the past decades,
rising sea levels and silting in the main canals have resulted in a poorly functioning drainage system. The lake
depends on passive gravity drainage and cannot be lowered during periods of high tide.

…why the lake water is not clear any more:
Since the 1980's, water quality declines have been monitored in the lake. Results consistently show pH and
chlorophyll a levels above normal limits, indicating algae blooms in the water. These blooms are caused by
excess nutrients in the water, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Toxic algal blooms have also been monitored.
These blooms have some of the highest concentrations of algal toxins in the country, bordering on federal
limits for recreational contact.

…why the grass has gone missing from the lake:
The algae blooms are blocking sunlight from making it to the lake bottom. When this happens for long periods
of time, grass begins to disappear. As grass is lost from the lake, the sediment on the bottom that was held
together by grass roots becomes loose. These loose sediments are stirred up by wind as well as bottom
feeding carp, and they drift in the water, preventing light from reaching the lakebed. Without light, new grass
can not start growing and this leads to more areas of loosened lakebed, more sediment in the water, and less
grass. As of 2017, Lake Mattamuskeet has lost all grass beds. Dense beds of grass are desired because they
help maintain clear water, support fish and crab populations, and provide food for waterfowl.

Stakeholder Committee Members
Daniel Brinn — Hyde Drainage: 252-926-7252 (o), 252-943-7973 (m), [e-mail]
Michael “Slim” Cahoon — Farming Community: 252 944-5384, [e-mail]
Pete Campbell — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 252-926-4021 (o), 252-944-6495 (m), [e-mail]
Doug Howell — N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission: 252-482-5943 (o), [e-mail]
Art Keeney — Residential Community: 252-945-6660 (m), [e-mail]
Bill Rich — Hyde County: 252-333-2596 (m), [e-mail]
Ben Simmons — Farming Community & Fairfield Drainage District: 252-944-3070 (m), [e-mail]
Pat Simmons — Hospitality Industry
JW Spencer — Hyde Soil and Water Board: 252-926-4061 (h), 252-944-6793 (m), [e-mail]
James “Booboo” Topping — Residential Community: 252-943-4214, [e-mail]
Joey Ben Williams — Impoundments: 252-944-3807 (m), [e-mail]

Upcoming public meetings are scheduled for May 8, Jul. 10 and Sep. 18 from 7:00-8:30 p.m.
at the Hyde County Government Complex in Swan Quarter.

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan Meeting
Fifth Public Meeting
July 10, 2018
7:00-8:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex, Swan Quarter

7:00 p.m. Welcome – Bill Rich, Hyde County
7:05 p.m. Progress to date - Erin Fleckenstein, NC Coastal Federation
7:10 p.m. Priority actions as agreed upon by the stakeholder team - Michael Flynn, NC Coastal Federation
7:20 p.m. Technical Presentations and Research Updates
 Different types of drainage districts - Daniel Brinn, Hyde County Soil and Water
 Conditions of outlet canals – Randall Etheridge, ECU
 Water quality within the lake and sediment - Olivia Torano, UNC
 Moist Soil Management - Doug Howell, NCWRC
 Carp removal study - Jesse Fischer, NCSU
8:20 p.m. Question and Comment Period – Panel
8:30 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan Meeting
Fifth Public Meeting
September 18, 2018
7:00-8:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex, Swan Quarter

7:00 p.m. Welcome – Bill Rich, Hyde County
7:05 p.m. Progress to date - Erin Fleckenstein, NC Coastal Federation
7:10 p.m. Priority actions as agreed upon by the stakeholder team - Michael Flynn, NC Coastal Federation
7:20 p.m. Technical Presentations and Research Updates
 Different types of drainage districts - Daniel Brinn, Hyde County Soil and Water
 Conditions of outlet canals – Dr. Randall Etheridge, ECU
 Water quality within the lake and sediment – Dr. Michael Piehler, UNC
 Moist Soil Management - Doug Howell, NCWRC
 Carp removal study – Dr. Jesse Fischer, NCSU
8:20 p.m. Question and Comment Period – Panel
8:30 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan Meeting
Fifth Public Meeting
October 16, 2018
7:00 - 8:30 p.m.
Hyde County Government Complex, Swan Quarter

7:00 p.m. Welcome – Daniel Brinn, Hyde County
7:05 p.m. Update on Plan Development - Erin Fleckenstein, NC Coastal Federation
7:10 p.m. Priority actions as agreed upon by the stakeholder team - Michael Flynn, NC Coastal Federation
7:20 p.m. Technical Presentations and Research Updates
 Carp removal study – April Lamb, NCSU
 Conditions of outlet canals – Dr. Randall Etheridge, ECU
 Hydrologic modeling of Lake Mattamuskeet – Dr. Randall Etheridge, ECU
 Facilitating active water management - Daniel Brinn, Hyde County Flood Control
8:10 p.m. Next Steps – Michael Flynn, NC Coastal Federation
8:15 p.m. Question and Comment Period – Panel
8:30 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Public Symposium
December 3, 2018
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Martelle’s Feed House Restaurant in Engelhard, NC

10:00 a.m. Welcome – Bill Rich, Hyde County
10:05 a.m. Watershed restoration plan development - Erin Fleckenstein, NC Coastal Federation
10:15 a.m. Priority actions as agreed upon by the stakeholder team - Michael Flynn, NC Coastal Federation
10:30 a.m. Water Quality Concerns and Solutions – Panel Discussion
 Water quality monitoring – Wendy Stanton, USFWS
 Feasibility of common carp exclusion and vegetation restoration – April Lamb, NCSU
 Impact of waterfowl impoundments – Dr. Randall Etheridge, ECU
 Implementing BMPs – Allie Mulligan, Hyde County Soil and Water
 Conservation programs – Bill Edwards, NRCS
11:15 a.m. Coffee Break
11:30 a.m. Active Water Management – Panel Discussion
 Conditions of outlet canals – Dr. Randall Etheridge, ECU
 Hydrologic model development – Dr. Raymond Smith, ECU
 Facilitating active water management – Daniel Brinn, Hyde County
 Local drainage management –
o Wilson Daughtry, Mattamuskeet Drainage Association
o Joey Ben Williams, Fairfield Drainage District
12:30 p.m. Lunch
1:30 p.m. Plan Implementation – Panel Discussion with Hyde County, NCWRC, and USFWS
2:00 p.m. Adjourn

Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan
Public Symposium

When:
Monday, December 3, 2018
10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

Where:
Martelle’s Feed House Restaurant
33301 US-264
Engelhard, NC 27824

Contact:
Michael Flynn
[e-mail]
252-473-1607

The unveiling of the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan will be held on Monday,
December 3rd to review the final plan that was developed over the past eighteen months. The
agenda includes a summary of the current lake condition and overview of the priority actions
that were selected by the core stakeholder team. Additional presentations and panel discussions
will focus on water quality concerns and solutions, active water management at the watershed
scale, and outline the next steps for implementation of the plan. The event is free to attend and
includes lunch, but registration is required.

Please visit nccoast.org/lakemattamuskeet to register and review the draft plan.

The Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan was developed through a partnership between
Hyde County, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The North Carolina
Coastal Federation facilitated stakeholder and public meetings and developed the plan for approval by
the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s 319 Program.

Appendix E
Local Perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet

Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape

Linda D’Anna
Coastal Studies Institute
for the
Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan

1. Introduction
The Lake Mattamuskeet watershed covers over 68,000 acres in Hyde County, North Carolina
and is home to many farms, residences, and businesses. Local livelihoods and recreational
opportunities in the watershed rely on the lake. As the largest naturally-formed lake in the
state, the Lake itself covers over 40,000 acres and is the centerpiece of the Mattamuskeet
National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge was designated in 1934 because of its importance to the
health and survival of waterfowl populations, and present-day refuge management efforts
remain focused on protecting and conserving migratory birds and other wildlife through the
protection of wetlands.

Water quality and water quantity (i.e. the level of the lake’s water) are central issues for
refuge management and the surrounding community. To address these issues, Hyde County, NC
Wildlife Resources Commission, and US Fish & Wildlife Service are collaborating to develop a
watershed restoration plan for the region. This plan will describe the current health and status
of the lake and watershed, articulate a vision for how the lake and watershed should function,
and identify management options to reduce watershed flooding and improve lake health. This
research informs those plan objectives by documenting how neighboring landowners and other
local stakeholders conceptualize the lake’s status, threats to the lake’s condition, issues related
to the associated watershed, and potential solutions to those concerns. This research builds on
the findings of a survey of county residents regarding hydrology that indicated that water
quality, flooding, bacterial contamination, water clarity, and wildlife diversity were key
concerns (pers. comm. R. Etheridge, ECU). Respondents in that study identified water level as
the biggest issue and noted that stormwater, agricultural water, and saltwater intrusion had
the greatest negative effects on water quality.

Specifically, the research questions ask:
• What information about conditions in and around the lake do people possess?
• What are people’s concerns about the lake and its watershed, and why are these
threats/concerns important to them?
• What solutions do people think could address the threats and concerns?

2. Methods
This study takes a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis. The goal of qualitative
research is to create an indicative sample as opposed to a statistical one. Data collection relied
on conducting semi-structured interviews with a purposive, non-proportional quota sample of
watershed residents. Purposive sampling targeted interviewees to ensure an appropriately
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 2
diverse set of respondents who had the requisite knowledge and background to engage with
the interview’s subject matter. Interviewees were engaged and knowledgeable stakeholders
who live, work, and/or own land within the lake watershed and adjacent landscape.
Interviewees included individuals involved in farming, who manage waterfowl impoundments,
or have some other connection to land around the lake. Initial interviewees were identified
based on recommendations from Hyde County government. Subsequent interviewees were
identified by a snowball method where each interviewee was asked to suggest the names of
other potential interviewees. Interview participation was confidential. Sixteen interviews were
conducted, with an average recorded length of 80 minutes. (Recordings ranged from 51
minutes to 2 hours and 7 minutes.) Nine of the interviewees lived or worked on the east side of
the lake, seven on the west basin. All were resident property owners.

While the interviews followed a question guide, their semi-structured format and the
open-ended nature of the questions was intended to provide the opportunity for interviewees
to talk about what mattered to them about the Lake and watershed not just the interviewer’s
preconceived ideas of what was important. Instead of following a strict set of survey questions,
interviews were more conversational, allowing the interviewer to ask follow-up questions and
interviewees to follow tangents. For these reasons, no two interviews were exactly the same.
While this kind of questioning results in qualitative data not a quantitative measure of answers,
it can provide a sense of the prevalence of perceptions and attitudes. Questions covered topics
related to water-related property issues, water level in the lake and watershed (assessment of
issues, impacts, potential solutions to issues), the lake’s health (assessment of issues, impacts,
potential solutions to issues), and watershed management. Interviews also discussed the kinds
of information about the lake watershed that were of interest to interviewees and typical
sources of information.

Interviews were audio recorded, and the recordings were transcribed. Transcripts were
analyzed and coded using NVivo v.10 software. Coding is an analysis process in which
transcripts are broken apart into component parts, and each part is given a label or code that
identifies what topic(s) the interviewee is talking about. All portions of all transcripts labeled
with a particular code are then analyzed for common themes, shared properties, and unique
attributes.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Importance of the Lake
Interviewees discussed the importance of Lake Mattamuskeet, both to themselves as
individuals and, more broadly, to the county as a whole, in terms of the variety of benefits and
values supplied by the lake. The lake and watershed matter instrumentally and symbolically to
interviewees in four main ways: economic, ecological, personal enjoyment, and cultural
identity. Most interviewees stressed the importance of the lake watershed to the Hyde County
economy.

Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 3
“That’s probably the biggest effect on Hyde County, that part of
our economy. We have so few things. That’s become a big part of
it.”

The migratory waterfowl and other birds on the lake and surrounding private impoundments
attract hunters and birdwatchers, who spend money on lodging, restaurants, guide services,
and hunt memberships. Recreational fishing, particularly for bass, was also cited as a big draw
for visitors. Some thought there was room for growth of the hunting and fishing sectors, that
the resources could be better taken advantage of and advertised more widely to provide even
more of an economic benefit to the area. Still, interviewees agreed that the money visitors
spend in the county has a large local impact. In addition, a couple interviewees explained that
because so many residents pursue a diverse livelihood, drawing income from a variety of
sources, the lake economy benefits many people who live around it.

“This is heaven on earth. The lake has made it that, there’s no
getting around it. The lake is why the people are still here that are
here…The lake is what has kept a few of these little communities
alive one way or the other, either with hunting or fishing or
birdwatching.”

In an area without many livelihoods beyond farming and commercial fishing, many people in
Hyde County are connected economically to the lake in some fashion.

A watershed ecosystem that can maintain that lake economy was important to
interviewees, but the habitat and biodiversity values of the lake mattered to interviewees for
reasons other than their contributions to the local economy.

“We’ve got an abundance of wildlife here I’ve seen nowhere else.
Diversity of wildlife I’ve seen nowhere else.”

The productivity of the watershed’s ecosystem was valued by interviewees in and of itself, with
some rating the local wildlife more highly than that in other places they had visited. The wildlife
and lake system were also important to interviewees recreationally, as a place to spend time
and enjoy a variety of activities, both alone and with family or friends. However, a couple of
interviewees suggested that improved or additional access areas to the lake and adjoining
resources would enhance recreational opportunities for locals and visitors alike. Interviewees
mentioned fishing, crabbing, and hunting at the lake as children and adults. They also spend
time walking, birdwatching, canoeing, and kayaking. The lake also has important aesthetic and
therapeutic values for interviewees. Several of them described how much they enjoy just
looking at the lake, appreciating its beauty and the sounds of water and nature.

“I’m just in awe of it when I ride across the lake. It’s still just
beautiful to me. … If you ride out on the lake to one of the
culverts and listen to the water, that’s almost as much of an
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 4
appeal to me as going to the ocean and listening to the water.
Peaceful and kind of out of touch.”

Even among those interviewees who commented on the lake’s beauty, there were individuals
who pointed out how they did not spend any time involved in activities directly on or around
the lake.

“And I’ve just taken it for granted. I don’t fish and don’t hunt. I
haven’t taken advantage of what’s around me and I realize that.”

Interviewees like this one suggested that while they may take the lake for granted at times, it
has important value to them.

Despite some interviewees who identified as spending little time on the lake, the lake
was a key factor in how many described their home county and local identity. Interviewees
described strong feelings of connection to Hyde County.

“But all this we’re talking about affects Hyde County. And it’s very
important to me what goes on in Hyde County. … I just hope that
there are things done to improve life in Hyde County. That’s the
main thing. That’s what’s important.”

Changes to the lake, both good and bad, were perceived as directly affecting the county itself.
Interviewees viewed Lake Mattamuskeet as an important part of the local way of life and
heritage. For example, in a discussion of the importance of hunting to Hyde County, one
interviewee underscored the connection between heritage and youth hunts.

“It's all about keeping that heritage alive in Hyde Co. and getting
the kids involved in goose hunting by setting it more around the
holidays. 5 days around Thanksgiving and 5 around Christmas
when the kids are out of school and can spend time with dad and
granddad.”

Interviewees were clear about the connection between life in the county and the status of the
lake watershed. Referring to the lake as the “biggest advantage” for all those around it,
interviewees hoped their grandchildren would be able to enjoy it in the future and continue to
be able to make a living from the land around it, if they chose to do so. Interviewees also noted
that everyone around the lake cares for and about it and would be willing to do what they can
to maintain its health and viability.

3.2. Concerns

3.2.1. Flooding/Water Quantity
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 5
Many interviewees, particularly farmers, said that the level of the lake depends on and changes
according to cycles in weather and rainfall.

“I think it’s just a cycle. That cycle may be several years. If you
come back here three years from now and we’ve been through
three years of annual rainfall 15 or 20 inches below normal, it’d
be a totally different thing. This has happened before, it’s going to
happen again.”

For these interviewees, the high level over the last couple of years was not something that had
not occurred in the past, and conditions would change in due course with the cycle, i.e. levels
would decline with the lower rainfall portion of the cycle. There did not seem to be much
concern that the cycle was changing or becoming more extreme. Instead, after an extended
rainy period, it just takes a long time for the water to get out of the lake just like land in the
county takes a long time to drain when the water is not pumped off.

Other interviewees indicated that recent flooding was different and worse than what
they remembered happening in the past. While a couple of these interviewees presented this
flooding as only affecting a limited number of properties, homes, and residents, most of them
considered the flooding conditions in the watershed a critical issue.

“But it stood in the yards in the last few years the worst I have
seen it since I was a boy. It affects everything we do. If you're
around the lake, you border the lake, it influences what you do at
your house…If you have a nice house and waters stands around it
and under it all the time, that's quite a problem.”

Interviewees pointed to a range of problems the flooding has caused for property owners and
residents, from needing to wear boots to walk in their yards and not being able to mow grass to
issues with septic tanks and difficulties digging graves. Even interviewees whose drainage is
managed by drainage districts experienced the impact of high lake levels on their soils.

Several interviewees pointed to changes in development patterns within the watershed,
shifting from the lake rim or ridge around the lake to other, lower areas that perhaps just
happened to be drier during the 1970s and 1980s, as contributing to present-day flooding
problems.

“And when you build on land that low, when water is up, it’s going
to be wet.”

These interviewees seemed to suggest that certain locations around the lake were at elevations
that were just too low for building and development.

Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 6
Farming and residential interviewees were not concerned about direct impacts of low
lake levels. Instead, they advocated for lowering the lake level. Farmers in particular did not
seem to think there was such a thing as too low for their interests while pointing out that if the
lake was extremely low that likely meant there was a drought, which could be difficult for them.
Interviewees recognized that lower lake levels mean the edges of the lake are exposed and can
support emergent vegetation, which is important for wildlife while high water in the lake erases
this resource, contributing to lower bird numbers at the lake and visitor disappointment.
Interviewees suggested that the impacts of low lake levels would be directly felt by fishing
interests around the lake, including hotel/motel operators and recreational fishermen. Access
by boat to the canals where fishing tends to concentrate or to the culverts along Highway 94
would likely be compromised. Low lake levels could also negatively affect those who rely on the
lake as a water source to flood impoundments. Interviewees were concerned that the loss of
those fishing and potentially hunting opportunities could cost the community financially.

Recognizing that different interests prefer different lake levels, interviewees broadly
agreed that they did not want to be the one to have to decide what would be a good level for
the lake.

“What water level is sufficient, huh? You ask 100 people, you get
100 different
answers.”

Interviewees felt that one cannot control level AND make everyone happy. There are too many
different opinions and agendas for there to be a “happy medium” suited everybody.

Since level depends on rainfall and wind and because lake drainage is gravity-fed,
interviewees stated that the only controls on level are the water control structures or gates in
the lake’s four main outlet canals.

“And right now, the water level can’t be kept down. Nobody can
do anything about it other than the flood gates that are in here.
It’s going to be like it has been since 1934.”

With drainage through the main outlet canals the only means of reducing the level of the lake,
interviewees suggested three main factors that could be affecting the drainage capacity of
those canals and leading to high water levels in the lake and flooding in the lowest-lying areas
within the lake watershed: refuge management, siltation of canals, and sound height.
Despite largely widespread recognition that drainage from the lake is gravity fed through gates
that open under positive head pressure, some interviewees questioned the role of refuge
management in keeping the level high with a few stating that refuge management did indeed
hold water in the lake. They believe that the refuge can choose to keep the gates closed when
lake level and associated pressure is high, speculating about political pressure from individuals
and groups from outside the area that prefer deeper water for their fishing and duck hunting
interests.
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 7

The second factor that interviewees believe has contributed to high water and flooding
is sedimentation or filling in of the outlet canals. Combined with lack of regular maintenance
and dredging along the full length of the canals, according to interviewees, sedimentation has
led to smaller, shallower canals. As a result, the canals cannot move enough water quickly
enough to alleviate flooding conditions.

Finally, interviewees talked about the relationship between lake level and sound height.
Some referred to this as sea level rise, while others talked about winds or abnormally high tides
pushing sound water into the canals, but in either case, these interviewees agreed that sound
level was preventing the lake from discharging the way it had in the past. Interviewees also
discussed the relationship between the canal sedimentation and sound height.

“If you haven’t got outlets, the water’s not going to run off. You
only have so much low tide and when the tide goes out you have
to be able to get rid of the water as quick as you can out of the
lake. Because the tides are running higher now I think than they
used to. There’s a lot of difference if you have a trickle running
out at low tide or if you have a canal full of water running out.”

Interviewees agreed that watershed management should be prepared to take advantage of
sound conditions that are amenable to moving water out of the canals and lake when those
opportunities present themselves.

3.2.2. Health/Water Quality
Many interviewees offered less information about the health of the lake or quality of the water
within it, either expressing limited concern about it or explaining that they did not know
enough to discuss it.

“I really don’t know how I could even comment on the health of
the lake. Because I don’t study it. I don’t fish it, I don’t hunt it, I’m
not on it, so I really can’t say…The only view of the lake is to go
across on 94. What I see there, it looks fine. Looks healthy to
me…I’ve never been involved or had any issue with the quality of
the water in the lake. It’s never been a concern to me. Or been
something you hear in the community.”

Interviewees can see the level of the lake and resulting flooding, but changes in quality are less
noticeable to them. Some connected health to level, suggesting that the high level of the lake
and associated poor flushing made the lake less healthy. It seemed like interviewees had begun
hearing about about changes to the lake or were aware that studies were being done.

Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 8
“Evidently, it’s not in good health. Especially this side of the lake,
the west end. … But my understanding is that they consider it
dead water. And why I’m not sure.”

For interviewees like this one, the idea that lake health and water quality had declined was not
foreign; rather, they did not heard enough about it to really comment or discuss the underlying
reasons for the changes.

Interviewees did discuss a variety of changes in the ecology of lake and watershed that
they have noticed over time. Several talked about how the edge of the lake has changed due to
higher water levels. In addition to the disappearance of the emergent zone vegetation,
interviewees noted the loss of trees, particularly large pines, adjacent to the lake and the
increased abundance of cypress knees and Phragmites. They suggested that these changes in
vegetation and habitat have impacted species usage for forage and cover. Others had heard or
noticed there was not much submerged aquatic vegetation remaining in the lake. The loss of
both submerged and emergent vegetation translated to interviewees as less food for ducks and
other waterfowl.

“I don’t think the birds are going to stick around if we don’t try to
actively recover parts of the lake. I’m not sure we’re going to have
this resource for long. They will look for other places to feed.”

For some interviewees, the changes in lake vegetation portended future changes in the bird
populations that visit and use the lake and refuge.

In addition to current and future changes in bird populations, interviewees noted
declines in other wildlife, including frogs and fish.

“The other thing is something has impacted the amount of fish
that are surviving in the lake. Fishing was way better than it is
now. … Bass fishing on the lake used to be excellent. Why it’s not
as good as it used to be, I have no idea.”

A few interviewees commented on the presence of fewer game fish and more “trash” fish in
the lake, but none could offer an explanation for the shift. They wondered about connections
to lake level, water quality, and cycles, and whether predator trash fish were eating the young
of the game fish.

Discussions with interviewees about lake health and water quality included
considerations of changes in watershed practices and land use that may have contributed to
the declining state of the lake. One factor interviewees pointed to was the increase from only a
few waterfowl impoundments near the lake to many that tend to dump their pent up water at
the same time and over a short period of time.

Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 9
“I don’t have any idea how many impoundments there are, but
it’s a lot. I know there’s been a lot down here where I live. If you
dumped all of them in a week’s time, you’re putting no telling
how many thousands of gallons of water back in. In my opinion
this is a problem when it’s all dumped back in. And that wouldn’t
be a problem if farmers farmed like we did years ago when we
didn’t have the chemicals.”

Pumps are recognized as critical to draining impoundments quickly in order to be able to
prepare the land for planting the next round of crops, but several interviewees were concerned
about what chemicals might be pumped out of the impoundments along with all the water. The
private impoundments around the lake allow the region to support greater numbers of ducks.
Turning agricultural acreage where corn was grown and harvested into impoundments where
corn is grown and eaten by ducks created an additional nutrient load deposited into the lake or
associated drainage by the ducks.

Interviewees posited that a second factor in the lake’s health might be lake level.
Deeper water in the lake may have restricted light penetration, which inhibited growth and
survival of SAV. The high level of the lake, regardless of whether that is the result of
management not opening the gates, the sound being high enough to prevent the gates from
the opening, or some other factor, indicated to many interviewees that the lake is not flushing
sufficiently. One interviewee likened it to a toilet that can’t flush. Another suggested that since
the water quality problems began on the west side of the lake, the basin with only one main
outlet canal, they might be tied to drainage and lake level. As with level, interviewees also tied
the inability of the lake to flush and drain well to sedimentation of the outlet canals that
restricts flow. While many interviewees stressed the importance of adequate maintenance of
the canals, including sediment removal, some also acknowledged the difficulty in getting the
requisite government permits to do such dredging work.

A few interviewees suggested that more land in the watershed may be draining water to
the lake more quickly than it did historically. This includes land that has been cleared of trees
during these interviewees’ lifetimes as well as agricultural land that has had its drainage re-
routed and pumped to the lake. In discussing these changes in land use or practice,
interviewees did not blame the individuals for making the changes; they were quick to point
out these choices were the individuals’ rights. They were just as quick to say that no one in the
lake watershed would want to harm the lake or would not want to change practices to help the
lake if it would not affect their ability to do business or cost them a lot of money.

One change in practice that concerned some interviewees was potential growth of
agricultural acreage in cotton.

“Probably no cotton grown the state since the 50s until the last 20
years now probably. But cotton is, I’ve heard people say,
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 10
sometimes sprayed as much as 30 times in the process of growing
it. A whole lot of chemicals that go into a cotton crop.”

Interviewees were concerned about the role of chemicals, particularly pesticides, in the
changes to the lake, including declines in vegetation and fish populations. One interviewee
worried that people had become careless in their application of these “poisons”. Other
interviewees were less worried about the present day impact of pesticides, fertilizers, and other
agricultural chemicals because the expense of these chemicals leads farmers to be frugal with
them.

Farming interviewees were well aware that other stakeholders in the watershed were
concerned about the impact of agricultural practices on the lake. One way they countered
these perceptions was to suggest that the proportion of the lake watershed that is farmed is
relatively small.

“And the watershed that drains into the lake is so small. ... And
then if you want to look at what that watershed is and how much
of it is agriculture, then that's really small, because most of it is
woodland, marshland, that's draining into the lake. It's just not
much farmland. As far as you can affect change to the lake
because of what the drainage is.”

For these interviewees, agricultural acreage is not the dominant element in lake’s small
watershed, which suggests to them that it cannot be causing major change in the lake. Another
theme articulated by farmers, as well as other interviewees, was that without proper testing,
the actual impact of agriculture on the lake remains largely unknown.

“We hear a lot that pointed at us, too, as farmers. I don’t believe a
whole lot of opinions, I like to see somebody test it and put the
science behind it before they actually say anything. …We spray
pesticides. Everybody knows that. … And fertilizer for crops. It’s
things like that in any kind of watershed. We certainly try to – any
of that stuff we apply, I don’t want to put it out there if I don’t
have to because it costs me money. That’s just one thing that gets
pointed at us. Anything I can do to minimize that I will.”

These farmers echoed other interviewees, pointing out that they want to minimize their use of
chemicals and help the lake watershed in other practical ways so long as such changes do not
have high costs or otherwise negatively affect their ability to do business.

3.3. Proposed Solutions
Following discussion of concerns and problems, interviews covered ideas about how to address
the issues facing the lake and watershed. Critically, interviewees broadly recognized the
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 11
complexity of the issues and that there would be no “quick fixes” to what is going on in and
around the lake.

“It didn’t get to this point overnight, which means it won’t get to a
better point overnight. I don’t think there’s a quick fix. I just wish I
knew what the fix might be.”

A key factor in why interviewees do not think watershed issues can be solved quickly is the
sense that the root causes of the problems have yet to be clearly articulated.

“But I’m extremely disappointed nobody says what the problem
is. And I don’t know how you’re going to address this problem if
you don’t know what it is. Are you going to address everything in
the world?”

Interviewees like this one were concerned that without a clear problem statement restoration
would be impossible at worst or scattershot and costly at best. Compounding these concerns
about the perceived lack of a problem statement, among interviewees who were aware of
changes in water quality there were additional critiques that these changes had not been
tracked better and treated seriously until they became problematic.

“It’s surprising that you have a resource this important and water
quality was never really paid attention to until it was to late.”

Three main themes emerged from interviewees’ ideas about how to address water
quantity and quality issues in the lake and watershed: maintaining existing drainage from the
lake, adding new drainage from the lake, and changing draining patterns in the watershed.
Nearly all interviewees discussed ideas centered on improving water flow from the lake to the
sound through the existing outlet canals including canal/ditch maintenance, gate maintenance,
and utilization of pumps. Several interviewees pointed to the debris, limbs, weeds, and trash
that encumbers many of the roadside ditches and inhibits water movement. They advocated
for coordinating state and federal efforts or funds to keep these ditches clean.

For many interviewees, a key component of improving drainage, alleviating flooding,
and promoting flushing for water quality concerns was to clean out the four major outlet
canals: remove silt and sediment from the bottoms and sides of these canals from the lake all
the way to the sound. Even though the parts of the canals on refuge property have been
cleaned out at various times over the last 40 or so years, interviewees asserted that the entire
lengths of canals have not, some not since the time they were constructed.

“But cleaning out the canals can be done. That seems to be
doable to me. And would help the situation. … Certainly it isn’t
doing the job that it used to do. So that’s adding to the problems
that the lake’s having, that’s adding to the people that have
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 12
problems in the low-lying areas. Drainage seems to be the obvious
thing to me that could do the most good.”

Attending to drainage by cleaning out the canals was considered an obvious or a common sense
solution to many interviewees. Yet they also recognized critical realities that would complicate
the work, including permitting, costs, and questions about what entity or agency would have
oversight of the actual work. They recognized a need to be strategic in terms of predominant
wind and flow direction in prioritizing which canal to start with or which canal to clean if there
is only enough money to do one. A couple of interviewees suggested dredging the lake bottom
as well the canals, both to address flooding concerns and the contribution of resuspension of
sediments to water quality and clarity problems. Interviewees also suggested finding ways to
utilize local expertise in earth moving.

In addition to regular canal maintenance, interviewees also suggested improving gate
management and maintenance to keep the water control structures free of debris and trash so
they can operate properly, allowing water to flow unimpeded when needed and preventing salt
water from entering the lake at other times. Interviewees were aware that some of the older
gates had been replaced, in some instances swapping out the top-hinged gates with side-
opening versions.

“If they had more of those barn door opening they’d let the water
out with getting stopped up so much.”

They perceived these barn door gates as more responsive and capable of moving a greater
volume of water, and, perhaps even more importantly, not as susceptible as top-hinged gates
to getting clogged with grass, trash, and other debris.

Another potential solution for sluggish water flow that interviewees discussed was to
pump water out of the lake through the outlet canals.

“The only way you’re going to do it is pump it out. It isn’t going to
go out by itself.”

The thinking among some interviewees was that since so much of the rest of the land in the
county was under pump, the lake could be as well, and it would help both wildlife and
residents. Other interviewees were concerned about the realism of pumping the lake.

“The problems are endless with this thing. … But oh yeah, “we’re
going to pump it” is easy to say. Moving water is a job.”

According to this interviewee, part of what makes moving water a job is having to consider so
many questions like, how much water needs to be moved, how long would it take, how much
money would it cost, how many pumps would it require. Other interviewees echoed these
concerns as they questioned whose decision it would be to turn the pumps on or off and hinted
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 13
at concerns with leaving that kind of decision-making with refuge management. An interviewee
thought if nothing else, perhaps there could be some assistance for the county to acquire
emergency pumps for use during times of heavy rain to help drain landowners in the lake
watershed.

A second set of suggested solutions focused changing or adding new drainage in the
watershed.

“In order to help the west end it needs to be another outlet.
Whether that outlet needs to dug from here [pointing to map of
the lake] to the sound or from here [pointing to map of the lake]
back to the Alligator River … I don’t know. Nor do I know what
politician would appropriate money for that, but that would
probably help the west end some.”

Several interviewees discussed the utility of adding another outlet on the west basin of the
lake. Others were more equivocal, suggesting that maintaining the outlets the lake already has
might be enough.

Interviewees also discussed ways to improve drainage in areas that have been identified
as flooding hotspots around the lake. One set of ideas focused on changing the boundaries of
existing drainage entity structures to include portions of the watershed along North Lake Road
that flood consistently. Areas along the southern rim of the lake, particularly near the New
Holland and St. Lydia communities, which also flood consistently, are likely not near enough to
existing drainage entities, including Slocum Drainage, to be added to them. Instead
interviewees discussed the potential of creating a new citizen-driven coordinated drainage
entity to organize landowners on the south side of the lake. Another idea centered on building
a new dike and drainage ditch that could drain land that backs up to the refuge property into
neighboring Outfall Canal.

“Coming out of right there, on down there, all the way as far as
you can see and then back on around that way, is the same kind
of thing I'm talking about. Get that on that end so that the water
will have something to drain into … So all that up there is in pretty
good shape. And it's only a quarter of a mile from the back doors
of these people. So I think that would work. That's been there as
long as I can remember.”

This interviewee explained that such a set-up would be similar to existing drainage between the
lake and private property in another location on the south side of the lake on the west side of
highway 94.

Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 14
A third theme among the possible solutions that interviewees discussed revolved
around changing the way water enters the lake. A few interviewees discussed the possibility of
moving water into retention areas before it enters the lake.

“Like someone could say: I have 400 acres that doesn’t grow well,
maybe I can get a decent soil rate to contain water from my farm
and these other two farms.”

Water that currently is pumped or flowing into the lake could be redirected into retention areas
where sediments and other particulates could settle out of the water before it entered the lake.
Interviewees agreed that landowners might be willing to enter easements and create retention
areas on their land as long as they were convinced that it was not going to cost them any
money or impact their taxes. The second way interviewees suggested altering inputs to the lake
focused on the drainage practices used for impoundments.

“…it’s going to be a tricky thing to control with the farmers having
the right to drain. If they want to do it on a volunteer basis, they
could pull one board at a time. … And maybe cycle between the
farmers. Do a few one week and others later.”

Interviewees felt that if letting water out of the impoundments slowly helped reduce
entrainment of nutrients or chemicals, then that could be something that managers would be
willing to do. Interviewees offered conflicting assessments of how many impoundments were
pumped out at the end of hunting season compared to drained by gravity-fed flow, but they all
stressed that the timing of drainage is critical as farmers need to get the land ready to plant.
Another suggestion focused on the refuge’s impoundments and raised the possibility of
building up their levees so that water from the surrounding land could be pumped into them
rather than directly into the lake.

3.4. Additional Themes

3.4.1. Data and Information
Interviewees stressed the need for lake and watershed restoration to be a scientific data-driven
process. Part of this concern was that they felt that there was still no clear understanding of
precisely how the lake is impaired and of what exactly has caused the impairments.

“If they could ever pinpoint that. That’s tough to do, I think. For
something they could pinpoint and say if you make these changes,
we’ll try to incorporate that in what we do, from my perspective.”

Some farming interviewees like this one seemed to suggest that they realized that defining
specific causes or sources of impairment might be difficult, but having that kind of refined
explanation would build incentive for them to potentially change their farming practices or
behaviors.
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 15

Additionally, interviewees were clear that the availability of more scientific information,
presented in straightforward, though not watered-down, ways was important to many in the
surrounding watershed and communities. For example, the utility to the public of some of the
indices that are used to monitor water depth in the lake could be improved by better relating
them to real numbers and real situations that are relatable to people. They were clear that the
source of the information was important, demonstrating a prioritization of what they
considered unbiased or neutral data sources.

“If you have somebody that’s unbiased that doesn’t have a dog in
the fight they’ll put it out there, they’ll let whoever is interested
read it for what they want to read it for. You just hear so many
different opinions it’s hard to decipher sometimes from actual
scientific research, unbiased research.”

Interviewees suggested a variety of potential means of disseminating that information,
indicating there may not be one preferred best way. These included continued public meetings
with presentations by researchers, maintaining a watershed restoration website that posts data
and studies, stories on the local news, and public mailings. One interviewee also mentioned
that one way to keep residents informed about the restoration planning process or upcoming
meetings and activities would be to share information with local churches and ask for their help
in sharing it with their congregations.

Beyond information that illuminates lake and watershed impairments, interviewees also
had specific questions and interests. Some of the questions demonstrated additional topics for
information sharing and community education. For example:
• How can the west and east sides be so different, if they are?
• If there is no grass in the lake, why are the edges grown up in weeds?
• Are lake level and salinity connected, and if so, how?
• When/if water levels in the lake go back down, will the emergent vegetation come back
on it’s own or will the area be contaminated from cyanobacteria?

Others showed the importance of making the data from ongoing monitoring efforts easily
accessible so people can stay up to date on conditions in the lake. For example:
• What is the water level in the lake
• What is the muck depth in the lake?
• What are the phosphorus levels?
• What is the salinity and how does it fluctuate?

3.4.2. Taxes, Regulations and Control
When asked about what comes to mind at hearing the word “restoration”, one interviewee said
the following, which draws together the threads of a theme from the interviews about local
impacts – both impacts that local restoration activities and actions can have on the lake and
watershed and the impacts of those efforts on local residents:
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 16

“It conjures up to me that somehow somebody is going to try to
manage this situation. And it’s either going to be through some
kind of taxation, somehow it’s going to have to be funded, so
greater taxes. There’s going to be more restrictions on what can
be done around the lake. As I’ve said in the past, I don’t know that
we can make that much difference. …When I say restoration I see
there might be some restrictions on use of property. Could be
good. Might be something that we need. But I’m not much for
regulations.”

Like other interviewees, this individual suggested that restoration would require regulating
behaviors in the watershed, particularly those involved in farming and impoundments, but was
unconvinced that such changes in practices could have other than a limited capacity to actually
improve lake health and watershed drainage. Several interviewees also discussed concern and
opposition regarding new taxes or costs associated with addressing watershed drainage and
lake issues. One interviewee stated that new dikes and drainage would help too few people to
justify taxing other properties and residents and instead suggested buying flooding properties
and adding them to the refuge footprint. Another interviewee saw the value in changing the
boundaries of existing drainage entities or creating new ones, work which would likely require
dike construction and rerouting drainage, but maintained that economics and politics would
prevent such work from happening and suggested that securing long-term funding and getting
permits to build new dikes or undertake other major infrastructure projects would be next to
impossible.

Another concern about restoration in the Lake Mattamuskeet watershed was about
controlling interests. Interviewees questioned how control and decision-making would be
balanced between the federal interests of the refuge and the local interests of the county. They
wondered what this balance would look like broadly, as in who would oversee the final plan,
and who would have say so for specific watershed changes. For example, if pumps were
installed on outlet canals, who would decide when to turn them on and off? Interviewees
expressed their beliefs that the local impacts of restoration decision-making would need to be a
priority.

“But I would not like to see a plan developed without the impact
on the people it’s going to affect. That doesn’t make any sense.”

4. Conclusions
Findings from interviews with varied stakeholders in the Lake Mattamuskeet watershed
supported and developed many of the findings of a 2017 hydrology survey of Hyde County
residents. The primary concern among interviewees was lake level and watershed flooding,
which was attributed mainly to poor outlet canal maintenance and higher sound water.
Interviewees questioned the importance of perceived shifts in land use and practices in the
Local perspectives on Lake Mattamuskeet and the surrounding landscape 17
watershed to flooding issues, which suggests these might be appropriate areas for additional
information gathering and dissemination. They made numerous suggestions about how to
address flooding and lake level issues, but were clear-eyed about the challenges in any
proposed solution, including costs, permits, and oversight. Interviewees possessed less
information about water quality and lake health, but demonstrated an awareness of mounting
water quality issues and ecological changes in the lake and surrounding landscape and an
interest in scientific information from neutral sources that could clarify some of the details of
those issues. Interviewees described the critical importance of the lake and watershed for the
economy and livelihoods of the region as well as biodiversity, recreation, enjoyment, and local
identity. They agreed that no resident would want to knowingly do things that would negatively
impact the lake’s and watershed’s capacities to function, but any plan or proposed set of
restoration actions would need to take account of local impacts, including restricting behaviors,
personal costs, and future generations’ ability to make a living from the land around the lake.

Appendix F
Service District Plan Example: West Quarter

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 1
Article 16.
County Service Districts; County Research and Production Service Districts; County Economic
Development and Training Districts.
Part 1. County Service Districts.
§ 153A-300. Title; effective date.
This Article may be cited as "The County Service District Act of 1973," and is enacted
pursuant to Article V, Sec. 2(4) of the Constitution of North Carolina, effective July 1, 1973.
(1973, c. 489, s. 1; c. 822, s. 2.)

§ 153A-301. Purposes for which districts may be established.
(a) The board of commissioners of any county may define any number of service districts
in order to finance, provide, or maintain for the districts one or more of the following services,
facilities and functions in addition to or to a greater extent than those financed, provided or
maintained for the entire county:
(1) Beach erosion control and flood and hurricane protection works.
(2) Fire protection.
(3) Recreation.
(4) Sewage collection and disposal systems of all types, including septic tank
systems or other on-site collection or disposal facilities or systems.
(5) Solid waste collection and disposal systems.
(6) Water supply and distribution systems.
(7) Ambulance and rescue.
(8) Watershed improvement projects, including but not limited to watershed
improvement projects as defined in Chapter 139 of the General Statutes;
drainage projects, including but not limited to the drainage projects provided
for by Chapter 156 of the General Statutes; and water resources development
projects, including but not limited to the federal water resources development
projects provided for by Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes.
(9) Cemeteries.
(10) Law enforcement if all of the following apply:
a. The population of the county is (i) over 900,000 according to the most
recent federal decennial census, and (ii) less than ten percent (10%) of
the population of the county is in an unincorporated area according to
the most recent federal decennial census.
b. The county has an interlocal agreement or agreements with a
municipality or municipalities for the provision of law enforcement
services in the unincorporated area of the county.
c. Repealed by Session Laws 2008-134, s. 76(c), effective July 28, 2008.
(11) Services permitted under Article 24 of this Chapter if the district is subject to
G.S. 153A-472.1.
(b) The General Assembly finds that coastal-area counties have a special problem with
lack of maintenance of platted rights-of-way, resulting in ungraded sand travelways deviating
from the original rights-of-way and encroaching on private property, and such cartways exhibit
poor drainage and are blocked by junk automobiles.
(c) To address the problem described in subsection (b), the board of commissioners of
any coastal-area county as defined by G.S. 113A-103(2) may define any number of service

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 2
districts in order to finance, provide, or maintain for the districts one or more of the following
services, facilities and functions in addition to or to a greater extent than those financed,
provided or maintained for the entire county:
(1) Removal of junk automobiles; and
(2) Street maintenance.
(d) The board of commissioners of a county that contains a protected mountain ridge, as
defined by G.S. 113A-206(6), may define any number of service districts, composed of
subdivision lots within one or more contiguous subdivisions that are served by common public
roads, to finance for the district the maintenance of such public roads that are either located in
the district or provide access to some or all lots in the district from a State road, where some
portion of those roads is not subject to compliance with the minimum standards of the Board of
Transportation set forth in G.S. 136-102.6. The service district or districts created shall include
only subdivision lots within the subdivision, and one or more additional contiguous subdivisions,
where the property owners' association, whose purpose is to represent these subdivision lots,
agrees to be included in the service district. For subdivision lots in an additional contiguous
subdivision or for other adjacent or contiguous property to be annexed according to G.S.
153A-303, the property owners' association representing the subdivision or property to be
annexed must approve the annexation. For the purposes of this subsection: (i) "subdivision lots"
are defined as either separate tracts appearing of record upon a recorded plat, or other lots,
building sites, or divisions of land for sale or building development for residential purposes; and
(ii) "public roads" are defined as roads that are in actual open use as public vehicular areas, or
dedicated or offered for dedication to the public use as a road, highway, street, or avenue, by a
deed, grant, map, or plat, and that have been constructed and are in use by the public, but that are
not currently being maintained by any public authority.
(e) The board of commissioners of a county that adjoins or contains a lake, river, or
tributary of a river or lake that has an identified noxious aquatic weed problem may define any
number of noxious aquatic weed control service districts composed of property that is contiguous
to the water or that provides direct access to the water through a shared, certified access site to
the water. As used in this subsection, the term "noxious aquatic weed" is any plant organism
identified by the Secretary of Environmental Quality under G.S. 113A-222 or regulated as a
plant pest by the Commissioner of Agriculture under Article 36 of Chapter 106 of the General
Statutes. (1973, c. 489, s. 1; c. 822, s. 2; c. 1375; 1979, c. 595, s. 1; c. 619, s. 6; 1983 (Reg.
Sess., 1984), c. 1078, s. 1; 1989, c. 620; 1993, c. 378, s. 1; 1995, c. 354, s. 1; c. 434, s. 1;
1997-456, s. 24; 2005-433, s. 10(b); 2005-440, s. 1; 2008-134, s. 76(c); 2011-100, s. 1;
2015-241, s. 14.30(v).)

§ 153A-302. Definition of service districts.
(a) Standards. – In determining whether to establish a proposed service district, the board
of commissioners shall consider all of the following:
(1) The resident or seasonal population and population density of the proposed
district.
(2) The appraised value of property subject to taxation in the proposed district.
(3) The present tax rates of the county and any cities or special districts in which
the district or any portion thereof is located.
(4) The ability of the proposed district to sustain the additional taxes necessary to
provide the services planned for the district.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 3
(5) If it is proposed to furnish water, sewer, or solid waste collection services in
the district, the probable net revenues of the projects to be financed and the
extent to which the services will be self-supporting.
(6) Any other matters that the commissioners believe to have a bearing on
whether the district should be established.
(a1) Findings. – The board of commissioners may establish a service district if, upon the
information and evidence it receives, the board finds that all of the following apply:
(1) There is a demonstrable need for providing in the district one or more of the
services listed in G.S. 153A-301.
(2) It is impossible or impracticable to provide those services on a countywide
basis.
(3) It is economically feasible to provide the proposed services in the district
without unreasonable or burdensome annual tax levies.
(4) There is a demonstrable demand for the proposed services by persons residing
in the district.
Territory lying within the corporate limits of a city or sanitary district may not be included
unless the governing body of the city or sanitary district agrees by resolution to such inclusion.
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (c), the board of
commissioners shall cause to be prepared a report containing:
(1) A map of the proposed district, showing its proposed boundaries;
(2) A statement showing that the proposed district meets the standards set out in
subsection (a); and
(3) A plan for providing one or more of the services listed in G.S. 153A-301 to
the district.
The report shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board for at
least four weeks before the date of the public hearing.
(c) Hearing and Notice. – The board of commissioners shall hold a public hearing before
adopting any resolution defining a new service district under this section. Notice of the hearing
shall state the date, hour, and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include a map of the
proposed district and a statement that the report required by subsection (b) is available for public
inspection in the office of the clerk to the board. The notice shall be published at least once not
less than one week before the date of the hearing. In addition, it shall be mailed at least four
weeks before the date of the hearing by any class of U.S. mail which is fully prepaid to the
owners as shown by the county tax records as of the preceding January 1 (and at the address
shown thereon) of all property located within the proposed district. The person designated by the
board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that the mailing has been completed and his
certificate is conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(d) Effective Date. – The resolution defining a service district shall take effect at the
beginning of a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board of
commissioners.
(e) Exceptions For Countywide District. – The following requirements do not apply to a
board of commissioners that proposes to create a law enforcement service district pursuant to
G.S. 153A-301(a)(10) that covers the entire unincorporated area of the county:
(1) The requirement that the district cannot be created unless the board makes the
finding in subdivision (a1)(2) of this section.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 4
(2) The requirement in subsection (c) of this section to notify each property owner
by mail, if the board publishes a notice of its proposal to establish the district,
once a week for four successive weeks before the date of the hearing required
by that subsection.
(f) Exceptions for Article 24 District. – The following requirements do not apply to a
board of commissioners that proposes to create a service district pursuant to G.S.
153A-301(a)(11) that covers the entire unincorporated area of the county:
(1) The requirement that the district cannot be created unless the board makes the
finding in subdivision (a1)(2) of this section.
(2) The requirement in subsection (c) of this section to notify each property owner
by mail, if the board publishes a notice of its proposal to establish the district,
once a week for two successive weeks before the date of the hearing required
by that subsection. (1973, c. 489, s. 1; c. 822, s. 2; 1981, c. 53, s. 1; 1995, c.
354, s. 2; 2005-433, s. 10(c).)

§ 153A-303. Extension of service districts.
(a) Standards. – The board of commissioners may by resolution annex territory to any
service district upon finding that:
(1) The area to be annexed is contiguous to the district, with at least one eighth of
the area's aggregate external boundary coincident with the existing boundary
of the district; and
(2) That the area to be annexed requires the services of the district.
(b) Annexation by Petition. – The board of commissioners may also by resolution extend
by annexation the boundaries of any service district when one hundred percent (100%) of the
real property owners of the area to be annexed have petitioned the board for annexation to the
service district.
(c) Territory lying within the corporate limits of a city or sanitary district may not be
annexed to a service district unless the governing body of the city or sanitary district agrees by
resolution to such annexation.
(d) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (e), the board shall cause
to be prepared a report containing:
(1) A map of the service district and the adjacent territory, showing the present
and proposed boundaries of the district;
(2) A statement showing that the area to be annexed meets the standards and
requirements of subsections (a), (b), and (c); and
(3) A plan for extending services to the area to be annexed.
The report shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board for at
least two weeks before the date of the public hearing.
(e) Hearing and Notice. – The board shall hold a public hearing before adopting any
resolution extending the boundaries of a service district. Notice of the hearing shall state the
date, hour and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include a statement that the report
required by subsection (d) is available for inspection in the office of the clerk to the board. The
notice shall be published at least once not less than one week before the date of the hearing. In
addition, the notice shall be mailed at least four weeks before the date of the hearing to the
owners as shown by the county tax records as of the preceding January 1 of all property located
within the area to be annexed. The notice may be mailed by any class of U.S. mail which is fully

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 5
prepaid. The person designated by the board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that the
mailing has been completed, and his certificate shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(f) Effective Date. – The resolution extending the boundaries of the district shall take
effect at the beginning of a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board.
(1973, c. 489, s. 1; c. 822, s. 2; 1981, c. 53, s. 2.)

§ 153A-303.1. Removal of territory from service districts.
(a) Standards. – A board of commissioners may by resolution remove territory from a
service district upon finding that:
(1) One hundred percent (100%) of the owners of real property in the territory to
be removed have petitioned for removal.
(2) The territory to be removed no longer requires the services, facilities, or
functions financed, provided, or maintained for the district.
(3) The service district was created only to provide the services listed in G.S.
153A-301(a)(4) or G.S. 153A-301(a)(6) or both.
(4) The service district does not have any obligation or expense related to the
issuance of bonds.
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (c) of this section, the
board shall cause to be prepared a report containing:
(1) A map of the district highlighting the territory proposed to be removed,
showing the present and proposed boundaries of the district; and
(2) A statement showing that the territory to be removed meets the standards and
requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
The report shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board for at
least 10 days before the date of the public hearing.
(c) Hearing and Notice. – The board shall hold a public hearing before adopting any
resolution reducing the boundaries of a district. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour,
and place of the hearing and its subject and shall include a statement that the report required by
subsection (b) of this section is available for inspection in the office of the clerk to the board.
The notice shall be published at least once not less than seven days before the hearing. In
addition, the notice shall be mailed at least two weeks before the date of the hearing by any class
of U.S. mail which is fully prepaid to the owners as shown by the county tax records as of the
preceding January 1 (and at the address shown thereon) of all property located within the
territory to be removed. The person designated by the board to mail the notice shall certify to the
board that the mailing has been completed, and the certificate shall be conclusive in the absence
of fraud.
(d) Effective Date. – The resolution reducing the boundaries of the district shall take
effect at the beginning of a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board.
(2013-402, s. 1.)

§ 153A-304. Consolidation of service districts.
(a) The board of commissioners may by resolution consolidate two or more service
districts upon finding that:
(1) The districts are contiguous or are in a continuous boundary;
(2) The services provided in each of the districts are substantially the same; or

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 6
(3) If the services provided are lower for one of the districts, there is a need to
increase those services for that district to the level of that enjoyed by the other
districts.
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (c), the board of
commissioners shall cause to be prepared a report containing:
(1) A map of the districts to be consolidated;
(2) A statement showing the proposed consolidation meets the standards of
subsection (a); and
(3) If necessary, a plan for increasing the services for one of the districts so that
they are substantially the same throughout the consolidated district.
The report shall be available in the office of the clerk to the board for at least two weeks
before the public hearing.
(c) Hearing and Notice. – The board of commissioners shall hold a public hearing before
adopting any resolution consolidating service districts. Notice of the hearing shall state the date,
hour, and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include a statement that the report
required by subsection (b) is available for inspection in the office of the clerk to the board. The
notice shall be published at least once not less than one week before the date of the hearing. In
addition, the notice shall be mailed at least four weeks before the hearing to the owners as shown
by the county tax records as of the preceding January 1 of all property located within the
consolidated district. The notice may be mailed by any class of U.S. mail which is fully prepaid.
The person designated by the board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that the mailing
has been completed, and his certificate shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(d) Effective Date. – The consolidation of service districts shall take effect at the
beginning of a fiscal year commencing after passage of the resolution of consolidation, as
determined by the board. (1973, c. 489, s. 1; c. 822, s. 2; 1981, c. 53, s. 2.)

§ 153A-304.1. Reduction in district after annexation.
(a) When the whole or any portion of a county service district organized for fire
protection purposes under G.S. 153A-301(2) has been annexed by a municipality furnishing fire
protection to its citizens, and the municipality had not agreed to allow territory within it to be
within the county service district under G.S. 153A-302(a), then such county service district or
the portion thereof so annexed shall immediately thereupon cease to be a county service district
or a portion of a county service district; and such district or portion thereof so annexed shall no
longer be subject to G.S. 153A-307 authorizing the board of county commissioners to levy and
collect a tax in such district for the purpose of furnishing fire protection therein.
(b) Nothing in this section prevents the board of county commissioners from levying and
collecting taxes for fire protection in the remaining portion of a county service district not
annexed by a municipality.
(c) When all or part of a county service district is annexed, and the effective date of the
annexation is a date other than a date in the month of June, the amount of the county service
district tax levied on property in the district for the fiscal year in which municipal taxes are
prorated under G.S. 160A-58.10 shall be multiplied by the following fraction: the denominator
shall be 12 and the numerator shall be the number of full calendar months remaining in the fiscal
year following the day on which the annexation becomes effective. For each owner, the product
of the multiplication is the prorated fire protection payment. The finance officer of the city shall
obtain from the assessor or tax collector of the county where the annexed territory was located a

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 7
list of the owners of property on which fire protection district taxes were levied in the territory
being annexed, and the city shall, no later than 90 days after the effective date of the annexation,
pay the amount of the prorated fire protection district payment to the owners of that property.
Such payments shall come from any funds not otherwise restricted by law.
(d) Whenever a city is required to make fire protection district tax payments by
subsection (c) of this section, and the city has paid or has contracted to pay to a rural fire
department funds under G.S. 160A-58.57, the county shall pay to the city from funds of the
county service district an amount equal to the amount paid by the city (or to be paid by the city)
to a rural fire department under G.S. 160A-58.57 on account of annexation of territory in the
county service district for the number of months in that fiscal year used in calculating the
numerator under subsection (c) of this section; provided that the required payments by the county
to the city shall not exceed the total of fire protection district payments made to taxpayers in the
district on account of that annexation. (1987, c. 711, s. 1; 2008-134, s. 76(b); 2017-102, s.
14.4(b).)

§ 153A-304.2. Reduction in district after annexation to Chapter 69 fire district.
(a) When the whole or any portion of a county service district organized for fire
protection purposes under G.S. 153A-301(2) has been annexed into a fire protection district
created under Chapter 69 of the General Statutes, then such county service district or the portion
thereof so annexed shall immediately thereupon cease to be a county service district or a portion
of a county service district; and such district or portion thereof so annexed shall no longer be
subject to G.S. 153A-307 authorizing the board of county commissioners to levy and collect a
tax in such district for the purpose of furnishing fire protection therein.
(b) Nothing in this section prevents the board of county commissioners from levying and
collecting taxes for fire protection in the remaining portion of a county service district not
annexed into a fire protection district. This section does not affect the rights or liabilities of the
county, a taxpayer, or other person concerning taxes previously levied. (1989, c. 622.)

§ 153A-304.3. Changes in adjoining service districts.
(a) Changes. – The board of county commissioners may by resolution relocate the
boundary lines between adjoining county service districts if the districts were established for
substantially similar purposes. The boundary lines may be changed in accordance with a petition
from landowners or may be changed in any manner the board deems appropriate. Upon receipt of
a request to change service district boundaries, the board of county commissioners shall set a
date and time for a public hearing on the request prior to taking action on the request.
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (a) of this section, the
board of county commissioners shall cause to be prepared a report containing all of the
following:
(1) A map of the service district and the adjacent territory showing the current
and proposed boundaries of the district.
(2) A statement indicating that the proposed boundary relocation meets the
requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
(3) A plan for providing service to the area affected by the relocation of district
boundaries.
(4) The effect that the changes in the amount of taxable property will have on the
ability of the district to provide services or to service any debt.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 8
The report shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk of the board for at
least two weeks before the date of the public hearing.
(c) Notice and Hearing. – The board shall hold a public hearing before adopting any
resolution relocating the boundaries of a service district. Notice of the hearing shall state the
date, hour, and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include a statement that the report
required by subsection (b) of this section is available for inspection in the office of the clerk to
the board. The notice shall be published at least once not less than one week before the date of
the hearing.
(d) Effective Date. – The resolution changing the boundaries of the districts shall take
effect at the beginning of a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board.
(2005-136, s. 1.)

§ 153A-304.4. Reduction in law enforcement service district after annexation.
When any portion of a county law enforcement service district organized under G.S.
153A-301(10) is annexed by a municipality, and the effective date of the annexation is a date
other than a date in the month of June, the amount of the county law enforcement service district
tax levied on each parcel of real property in the district for the fiscal year in which municipal
taxes are prorated under G.S. 160A-58.10 shall be multiplied by the following fraction: the
denominator shall be 12 and the numerator shall be the number of full calendar months
remaining in the fiscal year following the day on which the annexation becomes effective. For
each parcel of real property in the portion of the district that is annexed, the product of the
multiplication is the amount of the law enforcement service district tax to be refunded if the taxes
have been paid, or released if the taxes have not been paid. The finance officer of the county
shall obtain from the assessor or tax collector of the county a list of the owners of the real
property on which law enforcement service district taxes were levied in the territory annexed,
and the county shall pay the refund amount, if applicable, to the owner as shown on the records
of the tax assessor of the real property as of the January 1 immediately preceding the date of the
refund. Refund payments shall come from any funds not otherwise restricted by law. (2008-134,
s. 76(a).)

§ 153A-305. Required provision or maintenance of services.
(a) New District. – When a county defines a new service district, it shall provide,
maintain, or let contracts for the services for which the residents of the district are being taxed
within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year, after the effective date of the definition of the
district.
(b) Extended District. – When a county annexes territory to a service district, it shall
provide, maintain, or let contracts for the services provided or maintained throughout the district
to the residents of the area annexed to the district within a reasonable time, not to exceed one
year, after the effective date of the annexation.
(c) Consolidated District. – When a county consolidates two or more service districts,
one of which has had provided or maintained a lower level of services, it shall increase the
services within that district (or let contracts therefor) to a level comparable to those provided or
maintained elsewhere in the consolidated district within a reasonable time, not to exceed one
year, after the effective date of the consolidation. (1973, c. 489, s. 1; c. 822, s. 2.)

§ 153A-306. Abolition of service districts.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 9
Upon finding that there is no longer a need for a particular service district and that there are
no outstanding bonds or notes issued to finance projects in the district, the board of
commissioners may by resolution abolish that district. The board shall hold a public hearing
before adopting a resolution abolishing a district. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour
and place of the hearing, and its subject, and shall be published at least once not less than one
week before the date of the hearing. The abolition of any service district shall take effect at the
end of a fiscal year following passage of the resolution, as determined by the board. (1973, c.
489, s. 1; c. 822, s. 2.)

§ 153A-307. Taxes authorized; rate limitation.
A county may levy property taxes within defined service districts in addition to those levied
throughout the county, in order to finance, provide or maintain for the districts services provided
therein in addition to or to a greater extent than those financed, provided or maintained for the
entire county. In addition, a county may allocate to a service district any other revenues whose
use is not otherwise restricted by law.
Property subject to taxation in a newly established district or in an area annexed to an
existing district is that subject to taxation by the county as of the preceding January 1.
Property taxes may not be levied within any district established pursuant to this Article in
excess of a rate on each one hundred dollars ($100.00) value of property subject to taxation
which, when added to the rate levied countywide for purposes subject to the rate limitation,
would exceed the rate limitation established in G.S. 153A-149(c), unless the portion of the rate in
excess of this limitation is submitted to and approved by a majority of the qualified voters
residing within the district. Any referendum held pursuant to this paragraph shall be held and
conducted as provided in G.S. 153A-149. (1973, c. 489, s. 1; c. 822, s. 2.)

§ 153A-308. Bonds authorized.
A county may issue its general obligation bonds under the Local Government Bond Act to
finance services, facilities, or functions provided within a service district. If a proposed bond
issue is required by law to be submitted to and approved by the voters of the county, and if the
proceeds of the proposed bond issue are to be used in connection with a service that is or, if the
bond issue is approved, will be provided only for one or more service districts or at a higher level
in service districts than countywide, the proposed bond issue must be approved concurrently by a
majority of those voting throughout the entire county and by a majority of the total of those
voting in all of the affected or to-be-affected service districts. (1973, c. 489, s. 1; c. 822, s. 2.)

§ 153A-309. EMS services in fire protection districts.
(a) If a service district is established under this Article for fire protection purposes under
G.S. 153A-301(2), (including a district established with a rate limitation under G.S.
153A-309.2), and it was not also established under this Article for ambulance and rescue
purposes under G.S. 153A-301(7), the board of county commissioners may, by resolution, permit
the service district to provide emergency medical, rescue, and/or ambulance services, and may
levy property taxes for such purposes under G.S. 153A-307, but if the district was established
under G.S. 153A-309.2, the rate limitation established under that section shall continue to apply.
(b) The resolution expanding the purposes of the district under this section shall take
effect at the beginning of a fiscal year commencing after its passage. (1983, c. 642; 1989, c.
559.)

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 10

§ 153A-309.1. Reserved for future codification purposes.

§ 153A-309.2. Rate limitation in certain districts – Alternative procedure for fire
protection service districts.
(a) In connection with the establishment of a service district for fire protection as
provided by G.S. 153A-301(2) [G.S. 153A-301(a)(2)], if the board of commissioners adopts a
resolution within 90 days prior to the public hearing required by G.S. 153A-302(c) but prior to
the first publication of notice required by subsection (b) of this section, which resolution states
that property taxes within a district may not be levied in excess of a rate of fifteen cents (15¢) on
each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of property subject to taxation, then property taxes may not
be levied in that service district in excess of that rate.
(b) Whenever a service district is established under this section, instead of the procedures
for hearing and notice under G.S. 153A-302(c), the board of commissioners shall hold a public
hearing before adopting any resolution defining a new service district under this section. Notice
of the hearing shall state the date, hour and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include
a map of the proposed district and a statement that the report required by G.S. 153A-302(b) is
available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board. The notice shall be
published at least twice, with one publication not less than two weeks before the hearing, and the
other publication on some other day not less than two weeks before the hearing. (1985, c. 724.)

§ 153A-309.3. Rate limitation in certain districts – Fire protection service districts for
industrial property.
(a) Any area in a service district for fire protection established pursuant to G.S.
153A-301(a)(2) may be removed from that district by resolution of the county board of
commissioners and a new service district simultaneously created for the area so removed if the
area is an industrial facility (and appurtenant land and structures):
(1) Subject to a contract not to annex by a municipality under which the owner of
the industrial property is obligated to make payments in lieu of taxes equal to
or in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the taxes such industry would pay if it
were annexed and is current in making such payments.
(2) Actively served by an industrial fire brigade which meets the standards of the
National Fire Protection Association and the requirements of the North
Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Standards for General Industry
(Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1910 incorporated by reference in
13 NCAC 07F.0101) for industrial fire brigades.
(b) Prior to removing such area from the service district and simultaneously creating a
new district of that same area, the board shall hold a public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall
state the date, hour, and place of the hearing and its subject. The notice shall be published at least
once not less than one week before the date of the hearing. In addition, the notice shall be mailed
at least two weeks before the date of the hearing to the owners as shown by the county tax
records as of the preceding January 1 of all property located within the area to be removed and a
new district created. The notice may be mailed by any class of U.S. mail which is fully prepaid.
The person designated by the board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that the mailing
has been completed, and his certificate shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 11
(c) In any district created under this section from area removed from an existing district,
the county may not levy or collect property taxes for the purpose of financing fire protection
pursuant to this Article in excess of a rate of three and one-half cents (3.5¢) on each one hundred
dollars ($100.00) of property valuation subject to taxation.
(d) If any district established under this section ceases to meet the tests established by
subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, the board of commissioners may by resolution
abolish that district and annex that territory to the district from which it was removed after a
public hearing under the same provisions as set out in subsection (b) of this section.
(e) Any resolutions adopted under this section become effective the first day of July
following their adoption. (2005-281, s. 1.)

§ 153A-310. Rate limitation in certain districts – Alternative procedure for ambulance and
rescue districts.
(a) In connection with the establishment of a service district for ambulance and rescue as
provided by G.S. 153A-301(7) [G.S. 153A-301(a)(7)], if the board of commissioners adopts a
resolution within 90 days prior to the public hearing required by G.S. 153A-302(c) but prior to
the first publication of notice required by subsection (b) of this section, which resolution states
that property taxes within a district may not be levied in excess of a rate of five cents (5¢) on
each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of property subject to taxation, then property taxes may not
be levied in that service district in excess of that rate.
(b) Whenever a service district is established under this section, instead of the procedures
for hearing and notice under G.S. 153A-302(c), the board of commissioners shall hold a public
hearing before adopting any resolution defining a new service district under this section. Notice
of the hearing shall state the date, hour and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include
a map of the proposed district and a statement that the report required by G.S. 153A-302(b) is
available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board. The notice shall be
published at least twice, with one publication not less than two weeks before the hearing, and the
other publication on some other day not less than two weeks before the hearing. (1985, c. 430, s.
1.)

Part 2. County Research and Production Service Districts and Urban Research Service Districts.
§ 153A-311. Purposes for which districts may be established.
The board of commissioners of any county may define a county research and production
service district in order to finance, provide, and maintain for the district any service, facility, or
function that a county or a city is authorized by general law to provide, finance, or maintain.
Such a service, facility, or function shall be financed, provided, or maintained in the district
either in addition to or to a greater extent than services, facilities, or functions are financed,
provided, or maintained for the entire county. (1985, c. 435, s. 1.)

§ 153A-312. Definition of research and production service district.
(a) Standards. – The board of commissioners may by resolution establish a research and
production service district for any area of the county that, at the time the resolution is adopted,
meets the following standards:
(1) All (i) real property in the district is being used for or is subject to covenants
that limit its use to research; or scientifically-oriented production, technology,
education; or associated commercial, residential, or institutional purposes; or

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 12
for other purposes specifically authorized pursuant to the terms and conditions
of the covenants, or (ii) if all the real property in the district is part of a
multijurisdictional industrial park that satisfies the criteria of G.S.
143B-437.08(h), all such real property in the district is subject to covenants
that limit its use to research or scientifically oriented production, associated
commercial or institutional purposes, or other industrial and associated
commercial and institutional uses.
(2) The district (i) contains at least 4,000 acres or (ii) satisfies the criteria of G.S.
143B-437.08(h).
(3) The district (i) includes research and production facilities that in combination
employ at least 5,000 persons or (ii) satisfies the criteria of G.S.
143B-437.08(h).
(4) Repealed by Session Laws 2012-73, s.1, effective June 26, 2012.
(5) A petition requesting creation of the district signed by at least fifty percent
(50%) of the owners of real property in the district who own at least fifty
percent (50%) of total area of the real property in the district has been
presented to the board of commissioners. In determining the total area of real
property in the district and the number of owners of real property, there shall
be excluded (1) real property exempted from taxation and real property
classified and excluded from taxation and (2) the owners of such exempted or
classified and excluded property.
(6) Repealed by Session Laws 2012-73, s.1, effective June 26, 2012.
(7) There exists in the district an association of owners and tenants, to which at
least seventy-five percent (75%) of the owners of nonresidential real property
belong, which association can make the recommendations provided for in
G.S. 153A-313. This subdivision shall not apply to a research and production
service district that satisfies the criteria of G.S. 143B-437.08(h).
(8) There exist deed-imposed conditions, covenants, restrictions, and reservations
that apply to all real property in the district, provided that the covenants,
restrictions, and reservations shall not be effective against the United States as
long as it owns or leases property in the district but shall apply to any
subsequent owner or lessee of such property.
(9) No part of the district lies within the boundaries of any incorporated city or
town.
The Board of Commissioners may establish a research and production service district if,
upon the information and evidence it receives, the Board finds that:
(1) The proposed district meets the standards set forth in this subsection; and
(2) It is impossible or impracticable to provide on a countywide basis the
additional or higher levels of services, facilities, or functions proposed for the
district; and
(3) It is economically feasible to provide the proposed services, facilities, or
functions to the district without unreasonable or burdensome tax levies.
(a1) Additional Uses. – A developer of a research and production service district
established prior to June 1, 2012, may amend the covenants that limit the use of real property in
the district to include any of the following uses: research; or scientifically-oriented production,
technology, education; or associated commercial, residential, or institutional purposes; or for

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 13
other purposes specifically authorized pursuant to the terms and conditions of the covenants. A
research and production service district is presumed to be in compliance with the standards in
subsection (a) of this section if the district met the standards in subsection (a) of this section, as
that subsection was enacted at the time of the establishment of the district.
(b) Multi-County Districts. – If an area that meets the standards for creation of a research
and production service district lies in more than one county, the boards of commissioners of
those counties may adopt concurrent resolutions establishing a district, even if that portion of the
district lying in any one of the counties does not by itself meet the standards. Each of the county
boards of commissioners shall follow the procedure set out in this section for creation of a
district.
If a multi-county district is established, as provided in this subsection, the boards of
commissioners of the counties involved shall jointly determine whether the same appraisal and
assessment standards apply uniformly throughout the district, or, in the case of a
multijurisdictional industrial park that satisfies the criteria of G.S. 143B-437.08(h), whether there
is a current need in each participating county to levy a tax, which determination shall be made by
each participating county's board of commissioners. This determination shall be set out in
concurrent resolutions of the boards. If the same appraisal and assessment standards apply
uniformly throughout the district, the boards of commissioners of all the counties shall levy the
same rate of tax for the district, so that a uniform rate of tax is levied for district purposes
throughout the district. If the boards determine that the same standards do not apply uniformly
throughout the district, the boards shall agree on the extent of divergence between the counties
and on the resulting adjustments of tax rates that will be necessary in order that an effectively
uniform rate of tax is levied for district purposes throughout the district. In the event that one or
more of the boards of commissioners in one or more of the counties participating in a
multijurisdictional industrial park that satisfies the criteria of G.S. 143B-437.08(h) determines
that there is no current need to levy a tax for all or part of the property meeting said requirements
within its jurisdictional boundaries, then that county or those counties shall be under no
obligation to do so. That county or those counties participating in a multijurisdictional industrial
park that satisfies the criteria of G.S. 143B-437.08(h) that choose to levy a tax for all or part of
the property meeting said requirements within its jurisdictional boundaries may do so without
setting an effectively uniform rate of tax as described above, provided such rate shall not exceed
the rate allowed in G.S. 143B-317(b).
The boards of commissioners of the counties establishing a multi-county district pursuant to
this subsection may, by concurrent resolution, provide for the administration of services within
the district by one or more counties on behalf of all the establishing counties.
(c) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (d), the board of
commissioners shall cause to be prepared a report containing:
(1) A map of the proposed district, showing its proposed boundaries;
(2) A statement showing that the proposed district meets the standards set out in
subsection (a); and
(3) A plan for providing one or more services, facilities, or functions to the
district.
The report shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board for at
least four weeks before the date of the public hearing.
(d) Hearing and Notice. – The board of commissioners shall hold a public hearing before
adopting any resolution defining a district under this section. Notice of the hearing shall state the

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 14
date, hour, and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include a map of the proposed
district and a statement that the report required by subsection (c) is available for public
inspection in the office of the clerk to the board. The notice shall be published at least once not
less than one week before the date of the hearing. In addition, it shall be mailed at least four
weeks before the date of the hearing by any class of U.S. mail which is fully prepaid to the
owners as shown by the county tax records as of the preceding January 1 (and at the address
shown thereon) of all property located within the proposed district. The person designated by the
board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that the mailing has been completed and his
certificate is conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(e) Effective Date. – The resolution defining a district shall take effect at the beginning
of a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board of commissioners.
(1985, c. 435, s. 1; 2009-523, s. 3(a); 2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-313. Research and production service district advisory committee.
(a) The board or boards of commissioners, in the resolution establishing a research and
production service district, shall also provide for an advisory committee for the district. Such a
committee shall have at least 10 members, serving terms as set forth in the resolution; one
member shall be the representative of the developer of the research and production park
established as a research and production service district. The resolution shall provide for the
appointment or designation of a chair. The board of commissioners or, in the case of a
multi-county district, the boards of commissioners shall appoint the members of the advisory
committee. If a multi-county district is established, the concurrent resolutions establishing the
district shall provide how many members of the advisory committee are to be appointed by each
board of commissioners. Before making the appointments, the appropriate board shall request the
association of owners and tenants, required by G.S. 153A-312(a), to submit a list of persons to be
considered for appointment to the committee; the association shall submit at least two names for
each appointment to be made. Except as provided in the next two sentences, the board of
commissioners shall make the appointments to the committee from the list of persons submitted.
In addition, the developer of the research and production park shall appoint one person to the
advisory committee as the developer's representative on the committee. In addition, in a single
county district, the board of commissioners may make two additional appointments of such other
persons as the board of commissioners deems appropriate, and in a multi-county district, each
board of county commissioners may make one additional appointment of such other person as
that board of commissioners deems appropriate. Whenever a vacancy occurs on the committee in
a position filled by appointment by the board of commissioners, the appropriate board, before
filling the vacancy, shall request the association to submit the names of at least two persons to be
considered for the vacancy; and the board shall fill the vacancy by appointing one of the persons
so submitted, except that if the vacancy is in a position appointed by the board of commissioners
under the preceding sentence of this section, the board of commissioners making that
appointment shall fill the vacancy with such person as that board of commissioners deems
appropriate.
Each year, before adopting the budget for the district and levying the tax for the district, the
board or boards of commissioners shall request recommendations from the advisory committee
as to the level of services, facilities, or functions to be provided for the district for the ensuing
year. The board or boards of commissioners shall, to the extent permitted by law, expend the

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 15
proceeds of any tax levied for the district in the manner recommended by the advisory
committee.
(b) In the event that the research and production service district satisfies the criteria of
G.S. 143B-437.08(h), the board of directors for the nonprofit corporation which owns the
industrial park shall serve as the advisory committee described in subsection (a) of this section.
(1985, c. 435, s. 1; 2009-523, s. 3(b); 2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-314. Extension of service districts.
(a) Standards. – A board of commissioners may by resolution annex territory to a
research and production service district upon finding that:
(1) The conditions, covenants, restrictions, and reservations required by G.S.
153A-312(a)(8) that apply to all real property in the district also apply or will
apply to the property to be annexed, provided that the covenants, restrictions,
and reservations shall not be effective against the United States as long as it
owns or leases property in the district but shall apply to any subsequent owner
or lessee of such property.
(2) One hundred percent (100%) of the owners of real property in the area to be
annexed have petitioned for annexation.
(3) The district, following the annexation, will continue to meet the standards set
out in G.S. 153A-312(a).
(4) The area to be annexed requires the services, facilities, or functions financed,
provided, or maintained for the district.
(5) The area to be annexed is contiguous to the district.
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (c), the board shall cause
to be prepared a report containing:
(1) A map of the district and the adjacent territory proposed to be annexed,
showing the present and proposed boundaries of the district; and
(2) A statement showing that the area to be annexed meets the standards and
requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
The report shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board for at
least four weeks before the date of the public hearing.
(c) Hearing and Notice. – The board shall hold a public hearing before adopting any
resolution extending the boundaries of a district. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour
and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include a statement that the report required by
subsection (b) of this section is available for inspection in the office of the clerk to the board.
The notice shall be published at least once not less than four weeks before the hearing. In
addition, the notice shall be mailed at least four weeks before the date of the hearing by any class
of U.S. mail which is fully prepaid to the owners as shown by the county tax records as of the
preceding January 1 (and at the address shown thereon) of all property located within the area to
be annexed. The person designated by the board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that
the mailing has been completed, and the certificate shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(d) Effective Date. – The resolution extending the boundaries of the district shall take
effect at the beginning of a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board.
(1985, c. 435, s. 1; 2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-314.1. Removal of territory from districts.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 16
(a) Standards. – A board of commissioners may by resolution remove territory from a
research and production service district upon finding that:
(1) The removal has been recommended by a vote of two-thirds of the eligible
votes of the owners and tenants association.
(2) One hundred percent (100%) of the owners of real property in the territory to
be removed have petitioned for removal.
(3) The territory to be removed no longer requires the services, facilities, or
functions financed, provided, or maintained for the district.
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (c) of this section, the
board shall cause to be prepared a report containing:
(1) A map of the district highlighting the territory proposed to be removed,
showing the present and proposed boundaries of the district; and
(2) A statement showing that the territory to be removed meets the standards and
requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
The report shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to
the board for at least 10 days before the date of the public hearing.
(c) Hearing and Notice. – The board shall hold a public hearing before adopting any
resolution reducing the boundaries of a district. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour,
and place of the hearing and its subject and shall include a statement that the report required by
subsection (b) of this section is available for inspection in the office of the clerk to the board.
The notice shall be published at least once not less than seven days before the hearing. In
addition, the notice shall be mailed at least two weeks before the date of the hearing by any class
of U.S. mail which is fully prepaid to the owners as shown by the county tax records as of the
preceding January 1 (and at the address shown thereon) of all property located within the
territory to be removed. The person designated by the board to mail the notice shall certify to the
board that the mailing has been completed, and the certificate shall be conclusive in the absence
of fraud.
(d) Municipal Annexation Allowed Under General Law. – The general law concerning
annexation, Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes, shall apply to any territory
removed from the district under this section, notwithstanding any local act to the contrary.
(e) Effective Date. – The resolution reducing the boundaries of the district shall take
effect at the beginning of a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board.
(2003-187, s. 1; 2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-315. Required provision or maintenance of services.
(a) New District. – When a county or counties define a research and production service
district, it or they shall provide, maintain, or let contracts for the services for which the district is
being taxed within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year, after the effective date of the
definition of the district.
(b) Extended District. – When a territory is annexed to a research and production service
district, the county or counties shall provide, maintain, or let contracts for the services provided
or maintained throughout the district to property in the area annexed to the district within a
reasonable time, not to exceed one year, after the effective date of the annexation. (1985, c. 435,
s. 1.)

§ 153A-316. Abolition of districts.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 17
A board or boards of county commissioners may by resolution abolish a research and
production service district upon finding that (i) a petition requesting abolition, signed by at least
fifty percent (50%) of the owners of nonresidential real property in the district who own at least
fifty percent (50%) of the total area of nonresidential real property in the district, has been
submitted to the board or boards; and (ii) there is no longer a need for such district. In
determining the total area of nonresidential real property in the district and the number of owners
of nonresidential real property, there shall be excluded (1) real property exempted from taxation
and real property classified and excluded from taxation and (2) the owners of such exempted or
classified and excluded property. The board or boards shall hold a public hearing before adopting
a resolution abolishing a district. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour, and place of the
hearing, and its subject, and shall be published at least once not less than one week before the
date of the hearing. The abolition of any district shall take effect at the end of a fiscal year
following passage of the resolution, as determined by the board or boards. If a multi-county
district is established, it may be abolished only by concurrent resolution of the board of
commissioners of each county in which the district is located. (1985, c. 435, s. 1; 2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-316.1. Urban research service district (URSD).
(a) Standards. – The board of commissioners of a county may establish one or more
urban research service districts ("URSD" as used in this Part) that meets the following standards:
(1) The URSD is wholly within a county research and production service district
located partly within that county.
(2) The URSD is located wholly within that county.
(3) The URSD is not contained within another URSD.
(4) A petition requesting creation of the URSD signed by at least fifty percent
(50%) of the owners of real property in the URSD who own at least fifty
(50%) of total area of the real property in the URSD has been presented to the
board of commissioners.
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (c) of this section, the
board of commissioners shall cause to be prepared and adopted by it a report. The report shall be
available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board for at least four weeks before
the date of the public hearing. The report shall contain the following:
(1) A map of the proposed URSD, showing its proposed boundaries.
(2) A statement showing that the proposed URSD is for the purpose of providing
urban services, facilities, or functions to a greater extent than (i) in the entire
county and (ii) in the county research and production service district.
(3) A plan for providing one or more services, facilities, or functions to the
URSD.
(c) Hearing and Notice. – The board of commissioners shall hold a public hearing before
adopting any resolution defining a URSD under this section. Notice of the hearing shall state the
date, hour, and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include a map of the proposed
URSD and a statement that the report required by subsection (b) of this section is available for
public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board. The notice shall be published at least
once not less than one week before the date of the hearing. In addition, it shall be mailed at least
four weeks before the date of the hearing by any class of U.S. mail that is fully prepaid to the
owners, as shown by the county tax records as of the preceding January 1, of all property located
within the proposed URSD. The person designated by the board to mail the notice shall certify to

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 18
the board that the mailing has been completed, and the designated person's certificate is
conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(d) Effective Date. – The resolution defining a URSD shall take effect at the beginning of
a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board of commissioners.
(2012-73, s. 1; 2012-194, s. 62.5.)

§ 153A-316.2. URSD advisory committee.
(a) Members. – The board of commissioners, in the resolution establishing a URSD, shall
also provide for an advisory committee for the URSD. The committee shall have at least 10
members, serving terms as set forth in the resolution. The resolution shall provide for the
appointment or designation of a chairperson. The board of commissioners shall appoint the
members of the USRD [URSD] advisory committee. Before making the appointments, the board
shall request the association of owners and tenants, required by G.S. 153A-312(a), to submit a
list of persons to be considered for appointment to the committee. The association shall submit at
least two names for each appointment to be made. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section, the board of commissioners shall make the appointments to the committee from the list
of persons submitted.
(b) Additional Members. – In addition to the members provided in subsection (a) of this
section, the developer of the research and production park established as a research and
production service district shall appoint one person to the URSD advisory committee as the
developer's representative on the committee. The board of commissioners may make two
additional appointments of such other persons as the board of commissioners deems appropriate.
(c) Vacancy. – Whenever a vacancy occurs on the committee in a position filled by
appointment by the board of commissioners, the board, before filling the vacancy, shall request
the association to submit the names of at least two persons to be considered for the vacancy, and
the board shall fill the vacancy by appointing one of the persons so submitted, except that if the
vacancy is in a position appointed by the board of commissioners under subsection (b) of this
section, the board of commissioners making that appointment shall fill the vacancy with such
person as the board of commissioners deems appropriate.
(d) Advisory Role. – Each year, before adopting the budget for the URSD and levying
the tax for the URSD, the board of commissioners shall request recommendations from the
URSD advisory committee as to the level of services, facilities, or functions to be provided for
the URSD for the ensuing year. The board of commissioners shall, to the extent permitted by
law, expend the proceeds of any tax levied for the URSD in the manner recommended by the
URSD advisory committee. (2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-316.3. Extension of URSD.
(a) Standards. – A board of commissioners may by resolution annex territory to a URSD
upon finding that:
(1) The conditions, covenants, restrictions, and reservations required by G.S.
153A-312(a)(8) that apply to all real property in the URSD also apply or will
apply to the property to be annexed, provided that such covenants, restrictions,
and reservations shall not be effective against the United States as long as it
owns or leases property in the URSD but shall apply to any subsequent owner
or lessee of such property.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 19
(2) One hundred percent (100%) of the owners of real property in the area to be
annexed have petitioned for annexation.
(3) The URSD, following the annexation, will continue to meet the standards set
out in G.S. 153A-316.1(a).
(4) The area to be annexed requires the services, facilities, or functions financed,
provided, or maintained for the URSD.
(5) The area to be annexed is contiguous to the URSD.
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (c) of this section, the
board shall cause to be prepared a report. The report shall be available for public inspection in
the office of the clerk to the board for at least four weeks before the date of the public hearing.
The report shall contain the following:
(1) A map of the URSD and the adjacent territory proposed to be annexed,
showing the present and proposed boundaries of the URSD.
(2) A statement showing that the area to be annexed meets the standards and
requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
(c) Hearing and Notice. – The board shall hold a public hearing before adopting any
resolution extending the boundaries of a URSD. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour,
and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include a statement that the report required by
subsection (b) of this section is available for inspection in the office of the clerk to the board.
The notice shall be published at least once not less than four weeks before the hearing. In
addition, the notice shall be mailed at least four weeks before the date of the hearing by any class
of U.S. mail that is fully prepaid to the owners, as shown by the county tax records as of the
preceding January 1, of all property located within the area to be annexed. The person designated
by the board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that the mailing has been completed, and
the certificate shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(d) Effective Date. – The resolution extending the boundaries of the URSD shall take
effect at the beginning of a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board.
(2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-316.4. Removal of territory from URSD.
(a) Standards. – A board of commissioners may by resolution remove territory from a
URSD upon finding that:
(1) The removal has been recommended by a vote of two-thirds of the eligible
voters of the owners and tenants association.
(2) One hundred percent (100%) of the owners of real property in the territory to
be removed have petitioned for removal.
(3) The territory to be removed no longer requires the services, facilities, or
functions financed, provided, or maintained for the URSD.
(4) The county has not financed any project for which taxes levied on the URSD
provide debt service pursuant to G.S. 153A-317.1(c).
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (c) of this section, the
board shall cause to be prepared a report. The report shall be available for public inspection in
the office of the clerk to the board for at least 10 days before the date of the public hearing. The
report shall contain the following:
(1) A map of the URSD highlighting the territory proposed to be removed,
showing the present and proposed boundaries of the URSD.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 20
(2) A statement showing that the territory to be removed meets the standards and
requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
(c) Hearing and Notice. – The board shall hold a public hearing before adopting any
resolution reducing the boundaries of the URSD. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour,
and place of the hearing and its subject, and shall include a statement that the report required by
subsection (b) of this section is available for inspection in the office of the clerk to the board.
The notice shall be published at least once not less than seven days before the hearing. In
addition, the notice shall be mailed at least two weeks before the date of the hearing by any class
of U.S. mail that is fully prepaid to the owners, as shown by the county tax records as of the
preceding January 1, of all property located within the territory to be removed. The person
designated by the board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that the mailing has been
completed, and the certificate shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(d) Effective Date. – The resolution reducing the boundaries of the URSD shall take
effect at the beginning of a fiscal year commencing after its passage, as determined by the board.
(2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-316.5. Required provision or maintenance of services in URSD.
(a) New URSD. – When a county defines a URSD, it shall provide, maintain, or let
contracts for the services for which the URSD is being taxed within a reasonable time, not to
exceed one year, after the effective date of the definition of the URSD. When a county defines a
URSD, it may designate the developer of the research and development park established as a
research and production service district in which the URSD is located as an agent that may
contract with any local government for the provision of services within the URSD.
(b) Extended URSD. – When a territory is annexed to a URSD, the county shall provide,
maintain, or let contracts for the services provided or maintained throughout the URSD to
property in the area annexed to the URSD within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year, after
the effective date of the annexation. (2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-316.6. Abolition of URSD.
A county board of commissioners may by resolution abolish a URSD upon finding that (i) a
petition requesting abolition, signed by at least fifty percent (50%) of the owners of
nonresidential real property in the URSD who own at least fifty percent (50%) of the total area of
nonresidential real property in the URSD, has been submitted to the board or boards; (ii) there is
no longer a need for such URSD; and (iii) the county has not financed any project for which
there is outstanding debt serviced by tax revenues levied within the URSD. In determining the
total area of nonresidential real property in the URSD and the number of owners of
nonresidential real property, there shall be excluded (i) real property exempted from taxation and
real property classified and excluded from taxation and (ii) the owners of such exempted or
classified and excluded property. The board or boards shall hold a public hearing before adopting
a resolution abolishing a URSD. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour, and place of the
hearing and its subject, and shall be published at least once not less than one week before the
date of the hearing. The abolition of any URSD shall take effect at the end of a fiscal year
following passage of the resolution, as determined by the board. (2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-317. Research and production service district taxes authorized; rate limitation.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 21
(a) Tax Authorized. – A county, upon recommendation of the advisory committee
established pursuant to G.S. 153A-313, may levy property taxes within a research and production
service district in addition to those levied throughout the county, in order to finance, provide, or
maintain for the district services provided therein in addition to or to a greater extent than those
financed, provided, or maintained for the entire county. In addition, a county may allocate to a
district any other revenues whose use is not otherwise restricted by law. The proceeds of taxes
only within a district may be expended only for services provided for the district.
Property subject to taxation in a newly established district or in an area annexed to an
existing district is that subject to taxation by the county as of the preceding January 1.
(b) Limit. – Such additional property taxes may not be levied within any district
established pursuant to this Article in excess of a rate of ten cents (10¢) on each one hundred
dollars ($100.00) value of property subject to taxation or, in the event that the research and
production service district satisfies the criteria of G.S. 143B-437.08(h), such additional property
taxes may not be levied within said district in excess of a rate of twenty cents (20¢) on each one
hundred dollars ($100.00) value of property subject to taxation.
(c) Public Transportation. – For the purpose of constructing, maintaining, or operating
public transportation as defined by G.S. 153A-149(c)(27), in addition to the additional property
taxes levied under subsections (a) and (b) of this section, a county, upon recommendation of the
advisory committee established pursuant to G.S. 153A-313, may levy additional property taxes
within any district established pursuant to this Article not in excess of a rate of ten cents (10¢) on
each one hundred dollars ($100.00) value of property subject to taxation. Such property taxes for
public transportation may only be used within the district, or to provide for public transportation
from the district to other public transportation systems or to other places outside the district
including airports. (1985, c. 435, s. 1; 2009-523, s. 3(c); 2009-527, s. 6; 2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-317.1. Urban research service district taxes authorized; rate.
(a) Tax Authorized. – A county, upon recommendation of the advisory committee
established pursuant to G.S. 153A-316.2, may levy property taxes within a URSD in addition to
those levied throughout the county, and in addition to those levied throughout the county
research and production service district, in order to finance, provide, or maintain for the URSD
services provided therein in addition to or to a greater extent than those financed, provided, or
maintained both for the entire county and for the county research and production service district.
Only those services that cities are authorized by law to provide may be provided. In addition, a
county may allocate to a URSD any other revenue not otherwise restricted by law.
(b) Rate. – Property subject to taxation in a newly established URSD or in an area
annexed to an existing URSD is that subject to taxation by the county as of the preceding
January. The maximum tax rate set forth in G.S. 153A-317 shall not apply to the URSD. The
additional property taxes within any URSD may not be levied in excess of the rate levied in the
prior year by a city that:
(1) Is the largest city in population that is contiguous to the county research and
production service district where the URSD is located.
(2) Is located primarily within the same county the URSD is located.
(c) Use. – The proceeds of taxes levied within a URSD may be expended only for the
benefit of the URSD. The taxes levied for the URSD may be used for debt service on any debt
issued by the county that is used wholly or partly for capital projects located within the URSD,
but not in greater proportion than expense of projects located within the URSD bear to the entire

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 22
expense of capital projects financed by that borrowing of the county. For the purpose of this
subsection, "debt" includes (i) general obligation bonds and notes issued under Chapter 159 of
the General Statutes, (ii) revenue bonds issued under Chapter 159 of the General Statutes, (iii)
financing agreements under Article 8 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes, and (iv) special
obligation bonds issued by the county. (2012-73, s. 1.)

§ 153A-317.2: Reserved for future codification purposes.

§ 153A-317.3: Reserved for future codification purposes.

§ 153A-317.4: Reserved for future codification purposes.

§ 153A-317.5: Reserved for future codification purposes.

§ 153A-317.6: Reserved for future codification purposes.

§ 153A-317.7: Reserved for future codification purposes.

§ 153A-317.8: Reserved for future codification purposes.

§ 153A-317.9: Reserved for future codification purposes.

§ 153A-317.10: Reserved for future codification purposes.

Part 3. Economic Development and Training Districts.
§ 153A-317.11. Purpose and nature of districts.
The board of commissioners of any county may define a county economic development and
training district, as provided in this Part, to finance, provide, and maintain for the district a skills
training center in cooperation with its community college branch in or for the county to prepare
residents of the county to perform manufacturing, research and development, and related service
and support jobs in the pharmaceutical, biotech, life sciences, chemical, telecommunications, and
electronics industries, and allied, ancillary, and subordinate industries, to provide within the
district any of the education, training, and related services, facilities, or functions that a county or
a city is authorized by general law to provide, finance, or maintain, and to promote economic
development in the county. The skills training center and related services shall be financed,
provided, or maintained in the district either in addition to or to a greater extent than training
facilities and services are financed, provided, or maintained in the entire county. A district
created under this Part is a special tax area under Section 2(4) of Article V of the North Carolina
Constitution. (2003-418, s. 1; 2004-170, s. 38.)

§ 153A-317.12. Definition of economic development and training district.
(a) Standards. – The board of commissioners may by resolution establish an economic
development and training district for an area or areas of the county that, at the time the resolution
is adopted, meet the following standards:
(1) All of the real property in the district primarily is being used for, or is subject
to, a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions that limits its use

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 23
primarily to biotech processing, chemical manufacturing, pharmaceutical
manufacturing, electronics manufacturing, telecommunications
manufacturing, and any allied, ancillary, or subordinate uses including,
without limitation, any research and development facility, headquarters or
office, temporary lodging facility, restaurant, warehouse, or transportation or
distribution facility.
(2) The district includes at least two pharmaceuticals manufacturing or
bioprocessing facilities occupying sites in the district containing in the
aggregate at least 425 acres owned by publicly held corporations.
(3) The bioprocessing and pharmaceuticals manufacturing facilities in the district
employ in the aggregate at least 1,600 persons.
(4) The district includes an industrial park consisting of at least 60 acres within a
noncontiguous parcel of at least 625 acres now or formerly owned by an
airport authority.
(5) The district's zoning classifications permit the uses listed in this section.
(6) All real property in the district is either zoned for or is being used primarily
for pharmaceutical, biotech, life sciences, chemical, telecommunications, or
electronics manufacturing or processing or allied, ancillary, or subordinate
uses.
(7) The district shall include a skills training center situated on a tract containing
not less than eight acres, which facility shall be designed and staffed to
provide relevant training to prepare existing or prospective employees of
targeted industries for jobs in one or more of the pharmaceutical, biotech, life
sciences, chemical, telecommunications, and electronics industries and allied,
ancillary, or subordinate industries. The training center shall be completed
within a reasonable period after the creation of the district.
(8) At the date of creation, no part of the district lies within the boundaries of any
incorporated city or town.
(9) There exists a uniform set of covenants, conditions, restrictions, and
reservations that applies to all real property in the district other than property
owned by the federal, State, or local government.
(10) There exists in the district an association of owners and tenants to which
owners of real property representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the
assessed value of real property in the district belong, which association can
make the recommendations provided for in G.S. 153A-317.13.
(11) A petition requesting creation of the district signed by owners of real property
in the district who own real and personal property representing at least fifty
percent (50%) of the total assessed value of the real and personal property in
the district has been presented to the board of commissioners. In determining
the assessed value of real and personal property in the district and the owners
of real property, there shall be excluded: (i) real property exempted from
taxation and real property classified and excluded from taxation and (ii) the
owners of such exempted or classified and excluded property. Assessed value
shall mean the most recent values determined by the county for the imposition
of taxes on real and personal property.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 24
(b) Findings. – The board of commissioners may establish an economic development and
training district if, upon the information and evidence it receives, the board determines that:
(1) The proposed district meets the standards set forth in subsection (a) of this
section;
(2) Economic development of the county will be served by providing selected
skills training in a facility designed specifically to address the needs of
targeted industries such as pharmaceuticals, biotech processing,
telecommunications, electronics, and allied, ancillary, or subordinate supplies
or services to induce existing industries and targeted industries to improve and
expand their facilities and new industries to locate facilities in the district,
thereby providing employment opportunities for the residents of the county;
(3) It is impossible or impractical to provide training facilities and services on a
countywide basis to all existing and future employers in the county to the
same extent as such training services are intended to be furnished within the
district; and
(4) It is economically feasible to provide the proposed training facilities and
services in the district without unreasonable or burdensome tax levies.
(c) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (d) of this section, the
board of commissioners shall cause to be prepared a report containing all of the following:
(1) A map of the proposed district showing its proposed boundaries.
(2) A statement showing that the proposed district meets the standards set out in
subsection (a) of this section.
(3) A plan for providing the skills training center and training services to the
district.
The report shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board for at
least four weeks before the date of the public hearing.
(d) Hearing and Notice. – The board of commissioners shall hold a public hearing before
adopting any resolution defining a district under this section. Notice of the hearing shall state the
date, hour, and place of the hearing and its subject and shall include a map of the proposed
district and a statement that the report required by subsection (c) of this section is available for
public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board. The notice shall be published at least
once not less than one week before the date of the hearing. In addition, it shall be mailed at least
four weeks before the date of the hearing by any class of U.S. mail which is fully prepaid to the
owners as shown by the county tax records as of the preceding January 1 (and at the address
shown thereon) of all property located within the proposed district. The person designated by the
board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that the mailing has been completed, and the
certificate shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(e) Effective Date. – The resolution creating a district shall take effect at the beginning of
the fiscal year commencing after its passage or such other date as shall be determined by the
board of commissioners. (2003-418, s. 1.)

§ 153A-317.13. Advisory committee.
(a) Creation. – The board of commissioners, in the resolution establishing an economic
development and training district, shall also provide for an advisory committee for the district.
The committee shall consist of five members, serving terms as set forth in the resolution. The

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 25
resolution shall provide for the appointment or designation of a chair. The board of
commissioners shall appoint the members of the advisory committee as provided in this section.
(b) Membership. – Three of the five committee members shall represent the association
of owners and tenants, as required by G.S. 153A-317.12(a)(10), and two members shall represent
the county. Before making the appointments representing the association, the board of
commissioners shall request the association to submit a list of persons to be considered for
appointment to the committee. The association of owners and tenants shall submit at least two
names for each appointment to be made and the board of commissioners shall make the
appointments to the committee representing the association from the list of persons submitted to
it by the association. Whenever a vacancy occurs on the committee in a position filled by an
appointment by the board of commissioners representing the association of owners and tenants,
the board, before filling the vacancy, shall request the association to submit the names of at least
two persons to be considered for the vacancy, and the board shall fill the vacancy by appointing
one of the persons so submitted.
(c) Advisory Duties. – Each year, before adopting the budget for the district and levying
the tax for the district, the board shall request recommendations from the advisory committee as
to the type and level of services, facilities, or functions to be provided for the district for the
ensuing years. The board of commissioners shall, to the extent permitted by law, expend the
proceeds of any tax levied for the district in the manner recommended by the advisory
committee. (2003-418, s. 1.)

§ 153A-317.14. Extension of economic development and training districts.
(a) Standards. – A board of commissioners may by resolution annex territory to an
economic development and training district upon finding that:
(1) The conditions, covenants, restrictions, and reservations required by G.S.
153A-317.12(a)(1) that apply to all real property in the district, other than
property owned by the federal, State, or local government, also apply or will
apply to the property, other than property owned by the federal government, to
be annexed.
(2) One hundred percent (100%) of the owners of real property in the area to be
annexed have petitioned for annexation.
(3) The district, following the annexation, will continue to meet the standards set
out in G.S. 153A-317.12(a).
(4) The reasonably anticipated training needs of the existing companies in the
area to be annexed and of new companies that may locate within the expanded
area can be met by the skills training facility located in the district.
(5) The area to be annexed is either contiguous to a lot, parcel, or tract of land in
the district or at least 500 acres in the aggregate counting all parcels proposed
for annexation. A property shall, for purposes of this section, be deemed to be
contiguous notwithstanding that it may be separated from other property by a
street, road, highway, right-of-way, or easement.
(6) If any of the area proposed to be annexed to the district is wholly or partially
within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality, then it shall be
necessary to first obtain the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of
the governing body of the municipality before the area can be annexed.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 26
(b) Report. – Before the public hearing required by subsection (c) of this section, the
board shall cause to be prepared a report containing all of the following:
(1) A map of the district and the territory proposed to be annexed showing the
present and proposed boundaries of the district.
(2) A statement that the area to be annexed meets the standards and requirements
of subsection (a) of this section.
The report shall be available for public inspection in the office of the clerk to the board for at
least four weeks before the date of the public hearing.
(c) Hearing and Notice. – The board shall hold a public hearing before adopting any
resolution extending the boundaries of a district. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour,
and place of the hearing and its subject and shall include a statement that the report required by
subsection (b) of this section is available for inspection in the office of the clerk to the board.
The notice shall be published at least once not less than four weeks before the hearing. In
addition, the notice shall be mailed at least four weeks before the date of the hearing by any class
of U.S. mail which is fully prepaid to the owners as shown by the county tax records as of the
preceding January 1 (and at the address shown thereon) of all property located within the area to
be annexed. The person designated by the board to mail the notice shall certify to the board that
the mailing has been completed, and the certificate shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(d) Effective Date. – The resolution extending the boundaries of the district shall take
effect at the beginning of the fiscal year commencing after its passage or such other date as shall
be determined by the board. (2003-418, s. 1.)

§ 153A-317.15. Required provision or maintenance of skills training center.
(a) New District. – When a county creates a district, it shall provide, maintain, or let
contracts for the skills training center for which the district is being taxed within a reasonable
time, not to exceed one year, after the effective date of the creation of the district.
(b) Extended District. – When a territory is annexed to a district, the county shall
provide, maintain, or let contracts for any necessary additions to the skills training center to
provide the same training provided throughout the district to existing and new industries in the
area annexed to the district within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year, after the effective
date of the annexation. (2003-418, s. 1.)

§ 153A-317.16. Abolition of economic development and training districts.
A board of county commissioners may by resolution abolish a district upon finding that a
petition requesting abolition, signed by at least fifty percent (50%) of the owners of real property
in the district who own at least fifty percent (50%) of the real and personal property in the district
based upon the most recent valuation thereof, has been submitted to the board and that there is no
longer a need for such district. In determining the total real and personal property in the district
and the number of owners of real and personal property, there shall be excluded: (i) property
exempted from taxation and property classified and excluded from taxation and (ii) the owners of
such exempted or classified and excluded property. The board shall hold a public hearing before
adopting a resolution abolishing a district. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour, and
place of the hearing and its subject and shall be published at least once not less than one week
before the date of the hearing. The abolition of any district shall take effect at the end of a fiscal
year following passage of the resolution, as determined by the board. (2003-418, s. 1.)

NC General Statutes - Chapter 153A Article 16 27
§ 153A-317.17. Taxes authorized; rate limitation.
A county may levy property taxes within an economic development and training district, in
addition to those levied throughout the county, for the purposes listed in G.S. 153A-317.11
within the district in addition to or to a greater extent than the same purposes provided for the
entire county. In addition, a county may allocate to a district any other revenues whose use is not
otherwise restricted by law. The proceeds of taxes within a district may be expended only to pay
annual debt service on up to one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) of the
capital costs of a skills training center provided for the district and any other services or facilities
provided by a county in response to a recommendation of an advisory committee.
Property subject to taxation in a newly established district or in an area annexed to an
existing district is subject to taxation by the county as of the preceding January 1.
Such additional property taxes may not be levied within any district established pursuant to
this Article in excess of a rate of eight cents (8¢) on each one hundred dollars ($100.00) value of
property subject to taxation. (2003-418, s. 1; 2004-170, s. 39.)

Appendix G
Funding Opportunities for Plan Implementation

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
Acres for America NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US N/A 1:1 w/ 5:1 competitive April
Agricultural Develpment and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund NCDA&CS
Nonprofit conservation organizations, county
agencies in partnerships wuith farmers or
landowners North Carolina N/A 50/25/25 December
Army Corp of Engineers Section 206 Aquatic Restoration Grant USACE Non-federal sponsor US 5,000,000.00$
50/50 after first $100,000
in study, then 65/35 for
design and construction None
Asheville Merchants Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Buncombe County 25,000.00$ N/A March
Biltmore Lake Charitable Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Enka-Candler Communities N/A April
Black Mountain – Swannanoa Valley Endowment Fund under CFWNC
non-profit, govs, educational, religious orgs serving
Black Mountain and Swannanoa Valley Buncombe County 10,000.00$ N/A March
Bringing Back the Natives/More Fish
National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation
Local, state, federal, and tribal governments and
agencies, special districts, non profits, and schools
and universities US 100,000.00$ 1 to 1 July
Cashiers Community Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Greater Cashiers Community 10,000.00$ N/A July
Cheoah Fund
Brookfield Smoky
Mountain Hydropower
Non-profits, state or federal agencies, federally
recoginzed tribes, individuals or corporations
Cheoah and Little Tennessee River
basins N/A N/A 1-Sep
Cherokee Preservation Foundation Large Grants
Cherokee Preservation
Foundation
Non-profits, educational institutions,
federal/state/local govs, tribal organizations Tribal land locations N/A N/A
Cherokee Preservation Foundation Small Grants
Cherokee Preservation
Foundation
Non-profits, educational institutions,
federal/state/local govs, tribal organizations Tribal land locations 20,000.00$ N/A
Clean Water Management Trust Fund NC DC&NR State agency, local gov't, nonprofits North Carolina N/A 0 Early Feb
Clean Water State Revolving Fund NCDEQ/USEPA
States, counties, cities, towns, private & public
entities US
1/2 amount
available per
funding cycle Closing fee of 2%March & September
Conservation Community Cost Share NCDA & DSWC
Homeowners, businesses, schools, parks, and
publicly owned lands North Carolina N/A 25/75 3-Feb-17
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)NCDA & CS- DSWC
Local, state, or tribal governments or non-
governmental organizations US N/A 0 None
Developing the Next Generation of Conservationists NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US 50,000.00$ 1 to 1 November
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program (DWSRF)US EPA Local gov, water corporations NC N/A N/A N/A
Environmental Solutions for Communities NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US N/A N/A N/A
Farm Bill Programs USDA-NRCS
Local, state, or tribal governments or non-
governmental organizations, and owners or renters
of agricultural land North Carolina No max 0 None
Developing the Next Generation of Conservationists NFWF
State and Federal agency, local gov't, nonprofits &
institutions US 50,000.00$ 1 to 1 31-Jan-17
Forest Legacy Program NC Forest Service State, local gov't, private land trusts. Landowners North Carolina N/A 0 None
Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust Trust Non-profits, gov entities NC N/A N/A February, August
Lowe's Home Improvements Community Partners Grant Lowes
Nonprofit organizations, municipalities, and public
agencies US 25,000.00$ 0 May, August
National Fish and Wildlife Grants NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US N/A N/A N/A
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
National Wildlife Refuge Friends NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US 15,000.00$ 1 to 1 to be competitive July
NC Division of Mitigation Services NCDMS, NCDOT Private & Public entities North Carolina N/A Fee Schedule Used N/A
NCCF Duke Energy Water Resources Grant
NC Community
Foundation via Duke
Energy
501c3, Fed, State, local gov service area
100,000.00$ 0 April, Oct
NCDEQ 205j Planning Grant NCDEQ/USEPA NC Councils of Government North Carolina N/A 0 September
NCDEQ 319 NC DEQ/USEPA
State, local gov'ts, including COGs, Inter and Intra
state agencies, public and private nonprofit
(including academic) organizations and institutions
North Carolina
N/A 60/40 April
NCDEQ Water Resources Development Grant NC DEQ Local gov't and local political subdivisions North Carolina N/A 50/50 Jan 1, July 1
NCDOJ Environmental Enhancement Grant
NC Department of
Justice via Smithfield
Agreement
State and Federal agency, local gov't, nonprofits &
institutions North Carolina
500,000.00$ 50/50 October
North Carolina Appalachian Regional Commission (NC Rural
Development)
NC Department of
Commerce Local governments 29 Counties in WNC N/A N/A
January, March, May,
July, September,
November
North Carolina Humanities Council Grassroots Grants NCHC Any organization with a humanities focus NC 2,000.00$ N/A Rolling
North Carolina Humanities Council Large Grants NCHC Any organization with a humanities focus NC 25,000.00$ N/A June
North Carolina Humanities Council Planning Grants NCHC Any organization with a humanities focus NC 750.00$ N/A Rolling
Parks and Recreation Trust Fund NC Parks NC Counties and incorporated municipalities North Carolina 500,000.00$ 50/50 December
Partners for Fish and Wildlife in North Carolina USFWS
All landowners including private individuals,
partnerships, corporate owners, nonprofits, and
local governments North Carolina N/A 30-60%None
People in Need Grants under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Mountain communities 20,000.00$ N/A September
Pigeon River Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Haywood,Madison, Buncombe 30,000.00$ N/A March, September
Public Works and Economic Development
US Economic
Development
Administration
State, local gov'ts, including COGs, Inter and Intra
state agencies, public and private nonprofit
(including academic) organizations and institutions US N/A N/A None
Ramble Charitable Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Buncombe County 7,500.00$ N/A April
Resilient Communities Program NFWF/Wells Fargo
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US 500,000.00$ 1 to 1 July
Rutherford County Endowment under CFWNC
non-profit, govs, educational, religious orgs serving
Rutherford County Rutherford County 10,000.00$ N/A March
Sisters of Mercy of North Carolina Foundation, Inc.SMNC Foundation Any 24 counties in Western NC N/A N/A December
Sudden and Urgent Needs (SUN) Grants under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Western NC 10,000.00$ N/A Rolling
The Cannon Foundation, Inc.Cannon Foundation
Governmental entities, non-profits open more than
5 years, churches throughout NC, rural areas N/A Match required Rolling
The Fund for Southern Communities
Fund for Southern
Communities Organizations with total budget below $150,000 Georgia, NC, SC 5,000.00$ N/A September
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
Urban & Community Forestry Grant Program NC Forest Service
State, local gov't, pubic educ institutions, IRS
approved 501c3 North Carolina 15,000.00$ 50/50 March
US EPA Environmental Education Grant US EPA
local, tribal, or state education agency, college,
university, non-profit, noncommercial educational
broadcasting entity US 91,000.00$ 25/75 6-Apr-16
US Fish and Wildlife Grants USFWS
Commercial organizations, foreign entities, Indian
tribal governments, individuals, institutions of
higher education, nonprofit organizations, and
state and local governments US N/A N/A N/A
Wells Fargo Foundation Environmental Grants Wells Fargo Non-profits, gov entities, tribal entities Triad and Western North Carolina N/A N/A invitation-only
Wetland Program Development Grant USEPA
States, tribes, local governments, interstate
associations, and intertribal consortia, and
nonprofits US 400,000.00$ 25%May
Women For Women under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Western NC 3,300.00$ N/A July
Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation
charitable, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3)s,
colleges/universities, religious entities, gov't North Carolina 35,000.00$ 0
Temporarily
Suspended
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRIBAL ENTITIES
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
Bringing Back the Natives/More Fish
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation
Local, state, federal, and tribal
governments and agencies, special
districts, non profits, and schools and
universities US $100,000 1 to 1 July
Cherokee Preservation Foundation Large Grants Cherokee Preservation Foundation
Non-profits, educational institutions,
federal/state/local govs, tribal
organizations Tribal land locations N/A N/A
Cherokee Preservation Foundation Small Grants Cherokee Preservation Foundation
Non-profits, educational institutions,
federal/state/local govs, tribal
organizations Tribal land locations $ 20,000.00 N/A
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)NCDA & CS- DSWC
Local, state, or tribal governments or
non-governmental organizations US No max 0 None
Farm Bill Programs USDA-NRCS
Local, state, or tribal governments or
non-governmental organizations, and
owners or renters of agricultural land North Carolina No max 0 None
North Carolina Humanities Council Grassroots Grants NCHC
Any organization with a humanities
focus NC $ 2,000.00 N/A Rolling
North Carolina Humanities Council Large Grants NCHC
Any organization with a humanities
focus NC $ 25,000.00 N/A June
North Carolina Humanities Council Planning Grants NCHC
Any organization with a humanities
focus NC $ 750.00 N/A Rolling
Partners for Fish and Wildlife in North Carolina USFWS
All landowners including private
individuals, partnerships, corporate
owners, nonprofits, and local
governments North Carolina N/A 30-60%None
Sisters of Mercy of North Carolina Foundation, Inc.SMNC Foundation Any 24 counties in Western NC N/A N/A December
The Fund for Southern Communities Fund for Southern Communities
Organizations with total budget below
$150,000 Georgia, NC, SC $ 5,000.00 N/A September
US EPA Environmental Education Grant US EPA
local, tribal, or state education agency,
college, university, non-profit,
noncommercial educational
broadcasting entity US $ 91,000.00 25/75 6-Apr-16
US Fish and Wildlife Grants USFWS
Commercial organizations, foreign
entities, Indian tribal governments,
individuals, institutions of higher
education, nonprofit organizations, and
state and local governments US N/A N/A N/A
Wells Fargo Foundation Environmental Grants Wells Fargo Non-profits, gov entities, tribal entities
Triad and Western North
Carolina N/A N/A invitation-only
Wetland Protection Development Grant USEPA
States, tribes, local governments,
interstate associations, and intertribal
consortia, and nonprofits US $400,000 25%May
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NON-
PROFITS
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
Acres for America NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US No max 1:1 w/ 5:1 competitive April
Agirculture Cost Share Program NCDA & CS- DSWC
Landowner or renter of existing agricultural
operation North Carolina No max 25:75 N/A
Agricultural Develpoment and Farmland
Preservation Trust Fund NCDA&CS
Nonprofit conservation organizations, county
agencies in partnerships wuith farmers or
landowners North Carolina N/A 50/25/25 December
Army Corp of Engineers Section 206 Aquatic
Restoration Grant USACE Non-federal sponsor US $5,000,000
50/50 after first $100,000 in
study, then 65/35 for design and
construction None
Asheville Merchants Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Buncombe County 25,000.00$ N/A March
Biltmore Lake Charitable Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Enka-Candler Communities N/A April
Black Mountain – Swannanoa Valley Endowment
Fund under CFWNC
non-profit, govs, educational, religious orgs serving
Black Mountain and Swannanoa Valley Buncombe County 10,000.00$ N/A March
Bringing Back the Natives/More Fish
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation
Local, state, federal, and tribal governments and
agencies, special districts, non profits, and schools
and universities US $100,000 1 to 1 July
Cashiers Community Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Greater Cashiers Community 10,000.00$ N/A July
Cherokee Preservation Foundation Large Grants
Cherokee Preservation
Foundation
Non-profits, educational institutions,
federal/state/local govs, tribal organizations Tribal land locations N/A N/A
Cherokee Preservation Foundation Small Grants
Cherokee Preservation
Foundation
Non-profits, educational institutions,
federal/state/local govs, tribal organizations Tribal land locations 20,000.00$ N/A
Clean Water Management Trust Fund NC DC&NR State agency, local gov't, nonprofits North Carolina
No max 0 Early Feb
Clean Water State Revolving Fund NCDEQ/USEPA
States, counties, cities, towns, private & public
entities US
1/2 amount available per
funding cycle Closing fee of 2%March & September
Community Foundation of Burke County Burke County Non-profits Burke County N/A N/A July
Conservation Community Cost Share NCDA & DSWC
Homeowners, businesses, schools, parks, and
publicly owned lands North Carolina No max 25/75 3-Feb-17
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP)NCDA & CS- DSWC
Local, state, or tribal governments or non-
governmental organizations US No max 0 None
Corporation for National and Public Service CNCS Community organizations US N/A N/A N/A
Developing the Next Generation of
Conservationists NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US 50,000 1 to 1 November
Environmental Solutions for Communities NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US N/A N/A N/A
Farm Bill Programs USDA-NRCS
Local, state, or tribal governments or non-
governmental organizations, and owners or
renters of agricultural land North Carolina No max 0 None
Five Star & Urban Waters Restoration Grant NFWF
State and Federal agency, local gov't, nonprofits &
institutions US 50,000.00$ 1 to 1 31-Jan-17
Forest Legacy Program NC Forest Service State, local gov't, private land trusts. Landowners North Carolina N/A 0 None
Gannett Foundation Gannett Foundation Non-profits Asheville 5,000.00$ N/A February, August
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NON-
PROFITS
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
Huffman-Cornwell Foundation Huffman-Cornwell Foundation Non-profits Burke County N/A N/A Rolling
Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust Trust Non-profits, gov entities NC N/A N/A February, August
Lowe's Charitable and Educational Foundation Lowe's Non-profits, educational institutions Across U.S., Canada and Mexico 100,000.00$ N/A
Lowe's Home Improvements Community Partners
Grant Lowes
Nonprofit organizations, municipalities, and public
agencies US $25,000 0 May, August
Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation MR Babcock Foundation Non-profits Southeastern United States 70% match required
Mebane Foundation Mebane Foundation Non-profits N/A N/A July, January
Melvin R. Lane Fund under CFWNC Non-profits Western NC 50,000.00$ N/A
National Fish and Wildlife Grants NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US N/A N/A N/A
National Wildlife Refuge Friends NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US $15,000 1 to 1 to be competitive July
NC Division of Mitigation Services NCDMS, NCDOT Private & Public entities North Carolina No max Fee Schedule Used N/A
NCCF Duke Energy Water Resources Grant NC Community Foundation via
Duke Energy 501c3, Fed, State, LG service area 100,000.00$ 0 April, Oct
NCDEQ 319 NC DEQ/USEPA
State, local gov'ts, including COGs, Inter and Intra
state agencies, public and private nonprofit
(including academic) organizations and institutions
North Carolina
No Max 60/40 April
NCDOJ Environmental Enhancement Grant
NC Department of Justice via
Smithfield Agreement
State and Federal agency, local gov't, nonprofits &
institutions North Carolina
$500,000 50/50 October
New Belgium Brewing Company New Belgium Brewing Non profit organizations states that sell their product 5,000.00$ 0 Various
North Carolina GlaxoSmithKline Foundation GSK Non-profits NC N/A N/A Quarterly
North Carolina Humanities Council Grassroots
Grants NCHC Any organization with a humanities focus NC 2,000.00$ N/A Rolling
North Carolina Humanities Council Large Grants NCHC Any organization with a humanities focus NC 25,000.00$ N/A June
North Carolina Humanities Council Planning
Grants NCHC Any organization with a humanities focus NC 750.00$ N/A Rolling
Park Foundation Park Foundation Non profit organizations United States N/A 0
January, March, July, and
September
Partners for Fish and Wildlife in North Carolina USFWS
All landowners including private individuals,
partnerships, corporate owners, nonprofits, and
local governments North Carolina N/A 30-60%None
People in Need Grants under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Mountain communities 20,000.00$ N/A September
Pigeon River Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Haywood,Madison, Buncombe 30,000.00$ N/A March, September
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NON-
PROFITS
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
Public Works and Economic Development
US Economic Development
Administration
State, local gov'ts, including COGs, Inter and Intra
state agencies, public and private nonprofit
(including academic) organizations and institutions US N/A N/A None
Ramble Charitable Fund under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Buncombe County 7,500.00$ N/A April
Resilient Communities Program NFWF/Wells Fargo
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US $500,000 1 to 1 July
Rutherford County Endowment under CFWNC
non-profit, govs, educational, religious orgs serving
Rutherford County Rutherford County 10,000.00$ N/A March
Sierra Nevada Brewing Co.Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Non profit organizations US N/A 0 21 days advance
Sisters of Mercy of North Carolina Foundation, Inc.SMNC Foundation Any 24 counties in Western NC N/A N/A December
Sudden and Urgent Needs (SUN) Grants under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Western NC 10,000.00$ N/A Rolling
The Cannon Foundation, Inc.Cannon Foundation
Governmental entities, non-profits open more
than 5 years, churches throughout NC, rural areas N/A Match required Rolling
The Fund for Southern Communities Fund for Southern Communities Organizations with total budget below $150,000 Georgia, NC, SC 5,000.00$ N/A September
The Glass Foundation Glass Foundation Non-profits Western NC 100,000.00$ N/A December, April, June
The Mary Duke Biddle Foundation MD Biddle Foundation Art, education, charities NC, NYC
Urban & Community Forestry Grant Program NC Forest Service
State, local gov't, pubic educ institutions, IRS
approved 501c3 North Carolina $15,000 50/50 March
US EPA Environmental Education Grant US EPA
local, tribal, or state education agency, college,
university, non-profit, noncommercial educational
broadcasting entity US 91,000.00$ 25/75 6-Apr-16
US Fish and Wildlife Grants USFWS
Commercial organizations, foreign entities, Indian
tribal governments, individuals, institutions of
higher education, nonprofit organizations, and
state and local governments US N/A N/A N/A
Wells Fargo Foundation Environmental Grants Wells Fargo Non-profits, gov entities, tribal entities Triad and Western North Carolina N/A N/A invitation-only
Wetland Protection Development Grant USEPA
States, tribes, local governments, interstate
associations, and intertribal consortia, and
nonprofits US $400,000 25%May
Women For Women under CFWNC Non-profits, gov entities Western NC 3,300.00$ N/A July
Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation
charitable, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3)s,
colleges/universities, religious entities, gov't North Carolina 35,000.00$ 0 Temporarily Suspended
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
AGRICULTURAL ENTITIES
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
Agirculture Cost Share Program NCDA & CS- DSWC
Landowner or renter of existing
agricultural operation North Carolina No max 25:75 N/A
Agricultural Develpoment and Farmland Preservation Trust FundNCDA&CS
Nonprofit conservation organizations,
county agencies in partnerships wuith
farmers or landowners North Carolina N/A 50/25/25 December
Army Corp of Engineers Section 206 Aquatic Restoration GrantUSACE Non-federal sponsor US $5,000,000
50/50 after first
$100,000 in study,
then 65/35 for design
and construction None
Conservation Community Cost Share NCDA & DSWC
Homeowners, businesses, schools, parks,
and publicly owned lands North Carolina No max 25/75 3-Feb-17
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)USDA-NRCS Farmers & Ranchers US N/A N/A None
Corporation for National and Public Service CNCS Community organizations US N/A N/A N/A
Environmental Quality Incentives program (EQIP)USDA-NRCS
Owners of land in agricultural or forest
production or persons engaged in
livestock, agricultural or forest
production US No max 0 None
Farm Bill Programs USDA-NRCS
Local, state, or tribal governments or
non-governmental organizations, and
owners or renters of agricultural land North Carolina No max 0 None
Forest Legacy Program NC Forest Service
State, local gov't, private land trusts.
Landowners North Carolina N/A 0 None
NC Division of Mitigation Services NCDMS, NCDOT Private & Public entities North Carolina No max Fee Schedule Used N/A
Partners for Fish and Wildlife in North Carolina USFWS
All landowners including private
individuals, partnerships, corporate
owners, nonprofits, and local
governments North Carolina N/A 30-60%None
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATIONAL
ENTITIES
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
Acres for America NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US No max 1:1 w/ 5:1 competitive April
Black Mountain – Swannanoa Valley Endowment Fund under CFWNC
non-profit, govs, educational, religious orgs
serving Black Mountain and Swannanoa
Valley Buncombe County 10,000.00$ N/A March
Bringing Back the Natives/More Fish
National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation
Local, state, federal, and tribal
governments and agencies, special districts,
non profits, and schools and universities US $100,000 1 to 1 July
Cherokee Preservation Foundation Large Grants
Cherokee Preservation
Foundation
Non-profits, educational institutions,
federal/state/local govs, tribal
organizations Tribal land locations N/A N/A
Cherokee Preservation Foundation Small Grants
Cherokee Preservation
Foundation
Non-profits, educational institutions,
federal/state/local govs, tribal
organizations Tribal land locations 20,000.00$ N/A
Conservation Community Cost Share NCDA & DSWC
Homeowners, businesses, schools, parks,
and publicly owned lands North Carolina No max 25/75 3-Feb-17
Corporation for National and Public Service CNCS Community organizations US N/A N/A N/A
Developing the Next Generation of Conservationists NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US 50,000 1 to 1 November
Environmental Solutions for Communities NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US N/A N/A N/A
Learning Links under CFWNC Public schools Multi-county 800.00$ N/A September
Lowe's Charitable and Educational Foundation Lowe's Non-profits, educational institutions Across U.S., Canada and Mexico 100,000.00$ N/A
National Fish and Wildlife Grants NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US N/A N/A N/A
National Wildlife Refuge Friends NFWF
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US $15,000 1 to 1 to be competitive July
NCDEQ 319 NC DEQ/USEPA
State, local gov'ts, including COGs, Inter and
Intra state agencies, public and private
nonprofit (including academic)
organizations and institutions
North Carolina
No Max 60/40 April
North Carolina Humanities Council Grassroots Grants NCHC Any organization with a humanities focus NC 2,000.00$ N/A Rolling
North Carolina Humanities Council Large Grants NCHC Any organization with a humanities focus NC 25,000.00$ N/A June
North Carolina Humanities Council Planning Grants NCHC Any organization with a humanities focus NC 750.00$ N/A Rolling
Partners for Fish and Wildlife in North Carolina USFWS
All landowners including private
individuals, partnerships, corporate
owners, nonprofits, and local governments North Carolina N/A 30-60%None
Public Works and Economic Development
US Economic
Development
Administration
State, local gov'ts, including COGs, Inter and
Intra state agencies, public and private
nonprofit (including academic)
organizations and institutions US N/A N/A None
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATIONAL
ENTITIES
Funding Source Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions Grant Max Match Required Due Date
Resilient Communities Program NFWF/Wells Fargo
State, and local governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations US $500,000 1 to 1 July
Rutherford County Endowment under CFWNC
non-profit, govs, educational, religious orgs
serving Rutherford County Rutherford County 10,000.00$ N/A March
Sisters of Mercy of North Carolina Foundation, Inc.SMNC Foundation Any 24 counties in Western NC N/A N/A December
The Fund for Southern Communities
Fund for Southern
Communities
Organizations with total budget below
$150,000 Georgia, NC, SC 5,000.00$ N/A September
The Mary Duke Biddle Foundation MD Biddle Foundation Art, education, charities NC, NYC
Urban & Community Forestry Grant Program NC Forest Service
State, local gov't, pubic educ institutions,
IRS approved 501c3 North Carolina $15,000 50/50 March
US EPA Environmental Education Grant US EPA
local, tribal, or state education agency,
college, university, non-profit,
noncommercial educational broadcasting
entity US 91,000.00$ 25/75 6-Apr-16
US EPA Environmental Education Grant US EPA state education or environmental agency
US Fish and Wildlife Grants USFWS
Commercial organizations, foreign entities,
Indian tribal governments, individuals,
institutions of higher education, nonprofit
organizations, and state and local
governments US N/A N/A N/A
Women For Women under CFWNC Women and girls Western NC 3,300.00$ N/A July
Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation
charitable, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3)s,
colleges/universities, religious entities,
gov't North Carolina 35,000.00$ 0
Temporarily
Suspended
These resources highlight many different opportunities
or provide links to other grants
Resource Funder Recipient Details Location Restrictions
Capacity Grants(links to WNC nonprofit pathways)
LINKS TO WNC
Nonprofit Pathways Various
Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection US EPA Various
Community Foundation of Henderson County Henderson County Non-profits Henderson County area
Community Foundation of Western NC (CFWNC)Various Various Western NC
Duke Energy Foundation Various Various Duke Energy service area.
EPA Research Fellowships Various
EPA Research Grants Various
EPA Research Grants, Fellowship, and SBIR list serv US EPA Various
EPA Water Pollution Control Grants US EPA Various
Federal Grants Various
Financial Tools and Funding Sources for Environmental Programs US EPA Various
Foundation Center's Funding finder Foundation Cetner Various
Golden LEAF Foundation GoldenLeaf Non-profits, gov entities
Priority for strengthening
North Carolina’s long-term
economy, especially in
tobacco-dependent,
economically distressed,
and/or rural communities.
Kresge Foundation Kresge Foundation Various Various
National Center for Envrionmental Research Listserv Various
North Carolina Environmental Education Listing NCEE Various
North Carolina Parks Various Various Various
Polk County Community Foundation Various Various Polk County
Southeastern Environmental Education Alliance Various Various
The Duke Endowment Various Various NC SC
Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21)USDOT Various
USDA - Water and Ag Info Center USDA Various
Watershed Financing- Moving Beyond Grants US EPA Various
Western North Carolina Nonprofit Pathways builds skills, no funds Various Western NC

ADDENDUM TO:

LAKE MATTAMUSKEET
WATERSHED RESTORATION
PLAN
An anchor to the past, a path to the future

NOVEMBER 30, 2018
PREPARED BY: NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
On behalf of: Hyde County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission

i | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n - A d d e n d u m

ii | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n - A d d e n d u m

The information provided in this addendum is included to supplement the content within the Lake
Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan to sufficiently address the criteria requirements of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Nine Minimum Elements. The addendum was submitted to the
N.C. Division of Water Resources for review on July 22, 2019.

iii | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n - A d d e n d u m

iv | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n - A d d e n d u m

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................
ESTIMATE OF POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTIONS ........................................................................................... 1
Hydrologic Restoration via Sheet Flow Application ................................................................................ 2
Calculating Nitrate Removal from Restored Wetlands ....................................................................... 2
Agricultural Buffer Restoration................................................................................................................ 3
Waterfowl Impoundment Management ................................................................................................. 5
Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Removal ............................................................................................... 6
ESTIMATES OF REQUIRED TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ......................................................... 6
Monitoring and Research ......................................................................................................................... 6
Maintain Existing Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 6
Future Research .................................................................................................................................... 7
Modeling/Engineering Design ................................................................................................................. 7
Infrastructure Improvements/Project Construction ............................................................................... 8
Establishment of a Service District .......................................................................................................... 8
Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 8
Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Removal ............................................................................................... 8
INTERIM MILESTONES .................................................................................................................................. 8
Active Water Management ...................................................................................................................... 9
Water Quality Improvements .................................................................................................................. 9
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 11

| L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n - A d d e n d u m

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Nutrient load reduction estimates based on implementing vegetated filter strips…..…………………..4
Table 2: Runoff and pollutant load reductions for vegetated filter strip…………………………………………………….5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Classification of existing drainage ditches within the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed….…………….4

1 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n - A d d e n d u m

ESTIMATE OF POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTIONS
The Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed is located within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and drains to the Pamlico
Sound (sub-basin 03020105). The Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Management Strategy includes a set of rules (15A
NCAC 02B .0255 - .0261) designed to equitably regulate sources of nutrient pollution in the basin including
wastewater, stormwater, and agricultural nutrient sources as well as protect riparian buffers and mandate
training for professionals that apply fertilizer. The rules went into effect in 2001 and seek to reduce
nitrogen levels in the estuary by 30% and cap phosphorus levels at a 1991 baseline. According to the Tar-
Pamlico Basinwide Water Resources Management Plan 2014 Summary, “full implementation of the
nutrient reduction strategy has been a measured process and was reached in 2006.”
However, monitoring has identified excess amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus in the lake, which have
caused problems including low oxygen levels, extensive fish kills, and harmful algal blooms. In 2016, Lake
Mattamuskeet was listed on the state 303(d) list of impaired waters due to elevated levels of pH and
chlorophyll-a. The concentration of chlorophyll-a within the lake has been measured close to 200µg/L
during the peak growing season, and the pH value reached 11 s.u. in June 2019.
In addition, monitoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicates submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) has not been present in the lake since 2017. Monitoring results also indicate algae
blooms have become a more frequent occurrence and contain a cyantotoxin, cylindrospermopsin, at
concentrations that can impair recreational use. In fact, USFWS staff posted warning signs about health
risks associated with harmful algal blooms during the first day of boating season (March 1 – November 1)
at the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge in 2019.
This water quality issue is complicated by a decline of drainage capacity throughout the watershed, and a
passive drainage system for the lake that relies on gravity in an area with minimal topographic relief. These
problems are exacerbated further by rising sea level. The initial priority actions identified within the
watershed restoration plan stem around establishing active water-level management capabilities in the
Lake Mattamuskeet watershed that maintain or improve drainage capacity of lands in the watershed and
improve water quality through land use best management practices (BMPs), wetland restoration and
sheet flow application of drainage waters.
Information about a) drainage management on the surrounding landscape and the associated flow rates
as well as b) nutrient and sediment concentrations within drainage ditches are needed. This data will be
used to quantify the pollutant loads from sources within the watershed and develop pollutant load
reduction targets to meet water quality goals. A coarse nutrient load reduction of 80% is the estimated
target required to reduce the concentration of chlorophyll-a from 200µg/L to 40µg/L based on a
theoretical linkage (EPA, 2008). The coarse target will be used until the watershed characterization is
better refined through the development of the hydrologic and hydraulic model for the watershed.
Nutrient load reduction estimates have been generated for each of the proposed management actions.
These estimates provide an initial step to quantify reductions that can be obtained from implementing
this watershed restoration plan.

2 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Hydrologic Restoration via Sheet Flow Application
The strategy being pursued aims to re-establish and replicate the natural movement of water from the
lake towards the Alligator River rather than the Pamlico Sound. The preferred design alternative is to
identify, design, and prioritize projects where water diverted from the lake could be sheet flowed over
newly-created or restored wetlands. The sheetflow application would allow nutrients to be assimilated
and sediment to fall out before eventually reaching a water body such as the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW). This restoration strategy has the dual benefit of 1) restoring historic flow paths and 2)
directing drainage water to where it can sheetflow across restored wetlands as opposed to discharging in
sensitive and already degraded shellfishing waters. To date, several locations have been identified for
potential sheet flow applications both within and adjacent to the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed.
One private landowner has volunteered tracts of land located within the northwest boundary of the
watershed that would provide a pathway to sheet flow water over prior converted wetlands before
eventually connecting to the AIWW. The particular parcel is 293 acres in size, and three-fourths of the
parcel is currently enrolled in easement programs (through the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and
the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)). The owner is willing to enroll the remaining
~70 acres in the Emergency Watershed Protection-Floodplain Easement Program (EWP-FPE) or similar
conservation program.
A roughly 600-acre parcel of actively farmed land, located to the south and immediately adjacent to the
aforementioned parcel, belongs to the same property owner and currently drains to the lake. An
engineering firm will be contracted, once funding is acquired, to develop an engineered design to redirect
drainage water from the 600-acre parcel to the 293-acre parcel via sheet flow before connecting to the
AIWW.
Calculating Nitrate Removal from Restored Wetlands
Dr. Tiffany Messer performed mesocosm experiments over a two-year time period from September 2012
to September 2014 as part of her dissertation research under the direction of Dr. Michael Burchell, North
Carolina State University. This study evaluated the nitrate removal capacity of two restored wetlands
receiving agricultural drainage water. The studies used Hyde County soils and loaded the wetlands at
nutrient concentrations similar to what has been observed through monitoring efforts in and around Lake
Mattamuskeet. Based on these mesocosm experiments, “utilizing restored wetlands to treat agricultural
drainage water is a promising method to reduce N exports to downstream sensitive ecosystems,” (Messer
et al., 2017).
Messer et al. (2017) found that nitrate removal rates ranged from 0.001 to 6.5 lbs/ac/d within mineral
soils and 0.001 to 4.4 lbs/ac/d within organic soils during the growing season when water temperatures
were above 53°F. However, when average water temperatures were below 53°F in both the growing and
non-growing season the nitrate removal rates ranged from 0.05 to 1.4 lbs/ac/d and 0.03 to 2.5 lbs/ac/d
in mineral and organic soils respectively.
Extrapolating this to estimate load reduction from potential sheet flow projects for Lake Mattamuskeet,
the following was considered: for seven months of the year, during the growing season, the average daily
low temperature is above 53°F. Meaning, the average daily low temperature is below 53°F for the
remaining five months during the non-growing season. The soils of the potential sheet flow site are
primarily organic and categorized as Pungo muck and Bellhaven muck according to the Natural Resources

3 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Based on this information it is estimated that the nitrogen
load reduction that would occur from implementing the sheet flow strategy described above could range
from a maximum estimate of 2,654 lbs/d of nitrate when temperatures are above 53°F, to 1,484 lbs/d of
nitrate when temperatures are below 53°F. Therefore, the annual estimated load reduction that could
potentially occur from redirecting the drainage water from the 600-acre parcel would be a maximum of
79,631 lbs/yr based on the average number of days pumping is thought to be needed per year. The
federation and partners are seeking funding to perform a project site assessment and develop a
preliminary engineered design for this priority management strategy.
Two other potential sheet flow application sites have been identified to date and are in need of further
evaluation. The overall effectiveness of this strategy will be dependent on identifying sufficient areas for
sheet flow application. Studies conducted by Chescheir et. al (1991) in neighboring Dare and Tyrrell
County indicated that sheet flow application can reduce total nitrogen, total phosphorus and sediment by
nearly 80 percent when the ratio of drained land to wetland area was 5:1. Even when the ratio of drained
land to wetland was as high as 18:1, reductions of 30-60 percent were observed. (Chescheir et.al, 1991).
By extension, this indicates that if stakeholders can identify ~1,000-4,000 acres for sheet flow application,
30-80% of nutrients and sediment currently draining to the lake can be reduced.
Agricultural Buffer Restoration
Riparian buffers and filter strips are an effective method of reducing nutrient inputs to waterways.
According to NCDWR, nutrient offset credits for agriculture riparian buffer restoration is 75.76 pounds of
N/acre/year load reduction, and 4.88 pounds of P/acre/year load reduction. However, due to a variety
of factors, it is not common practice for farmers to implement vegetated buffers between cropland and a
drainage ditch. Without a buffer strip, the farmer is able to maximize harvestable cropland and facilitate
access for ditch maintenance purposes. Proper incentives are necessary to encourage implementation by
landowners to offset a loss in revenue associated with a reduction in the acreage of harvestable cropland.
The North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program provides such an incentive, and is locally administered
through the Hyde Soil and Water Conservation District.
A GIS-based analysis was performed to estimate the linear length of primary drainage ditches within the
watershed that are not buffered by vegetation. The National Hydrography Dataset was used to delineate
the location of surface water ditches, and 2018 orthoimagery was used as a reference to identify whether
or not vegetative buffers were present. Based on this desktop analysis, it was determined that there are
four distinct geographic areas that cover the perimeter of the watershed where the use of vegetative
buffers could reduce the nutrient and sediment load entering into those specific ditches that eventually
drain to the lake (Figure 1) (Table 1).
The minimum flow length through a filter strip is recommended to be 20 feet as per the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standard (Code 393). The linear length of the existing
un-buffered ditches was multiplied by the minimum flow length to calculate the area where filter strips
could be installed. The nutrient load reduction was then estimated for both nitrogen and phosphorus in
the table below. One caveat of this estimate is that it only accounts for installing filter strips on one side
of the drainage ditch. There may be instances where agricultural land drains to both sides of the ditch.
Therefore, the nutrient load reduction estimate in the table below is conservative in nature.

4 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Figure 1. Classification of existing drainage ditches within the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed.

Location
Un-buffered
Ditch Length
(miles)
Buffer
Width
(feet)
Area
(acres)
Nitrogen
Reduction
(pounds/year)
Phosphorus
Reduction
(pounds/year)
Piney Woods Rd (NW) 17.3 20 41.9 3,177.33 204.66
North Lake Rd (NE) 14.8 20 35.9 2,718.18 175.09
New Holland (SE) 11.9 20 28.8 2,185.56 140.78
SR 1304 (SW) 3.6 20 8.7 661.18 42.59
Total 47.6 20 115.4 8,742.25 563.12

Table 1. Nutrient load reduction estimates (pounds/year) based on implementing vegetated filter strips
on existing ditches within the watershed that are currently un-buffered.

5 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

The table below shows the compelling results on the effective widths of vegetated filter strips from a five-
year study conducted in the Tar Pamlico Basin by North Carolina State University (Table 2) (Line and
Osmond, 2007). Specific nutrient load reduction estimates could be generated using the table if water
quality sampling and monitoring is conducted within targeted ditches that do not currently have a
vegetated buffer to assist with determining the width that would be most appropriate to reduce the
desired nutrient and sediment load in the most cost effective manner as possible.

Runoff TSS TP DP TKN NH3 NO3 TN
Width < 15 ft*
number of studies 11 13 11 7 4 6 6 5
median (%) 20 58 54 4 69 57 24 58
mean (%) 22 57 47 6 67 40 28 38
Width 15-30 ft*
number of studies 12 15 12 6 5 5 5 6
median (%) 46 81 68 48 76 67 57 62
mean (%) 47 82 68 28 76 43 49 66
Width >30 ft*
number of studies 7 9 7 1 2 2 2 3
median (%) 65 91 90 90 89 88 82 82
mean (%) 66 85 86 85 89 88 40 84

Table 2. Runoff and pollutant load reductions (%) for vegetated filter strip (Line and Osmond, 2007)
(*measurements of width were converted from metric to standard units).

Waterfowl Impoundment Management
Dr. Randall Etheridge, East Carolina University, is studying two waterfowl impoundments with different
management regimes. One impoundment is managed by the Refuge to provide native, seed-producing
wetland plants preferred by waterfowl (moist-soil management), and the other is a private impoundment
planted with corn and managed by a local farmer. The objective of this study is to determine the potential
nutrient input of these management regimes into Lake Mattamuskeet. The results will help to inform if
the management of the impoundments can be altered to reduce the nutrients reaching the lake while
also maintaining their food production for waterfowl.

6 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Removal
Common carp are known as “ecosystem engineers” capable of causing stable state shifts in shallow
aquatic ecosystems as a result of increased turbidity from carp grazing that results in a decline of SAV and
subsequent shifts in biological assemblages. Modeling shows the loss of SAV is a result of a negative
feedback mechanism between increased nutrient loading, increased harmful algal blooms, and increased
turbidity, which is possibly exacerbated by an overabundance of invasive common carp.
Master’s student April Lamb has been working with her advisor Dr. Jesse Fischer at North Carolina State
University to evaluate the feasibility of common carp exclusion and targeted vegetation restoration within
Lake Mattamuskeet. Population density estimates determined there to be 971,220 carp with a biomass
of approximately 4,475,053 million pounds within the lake. Common carp are roughly 1% phosphorus and
6.5% nitrogen as measured by live weight. Therefore, the estimated nutrient load reduction associated
with a large scale common carp removal program would be 44,750 pounds of phosphorus and 290,878
pounds of nitrogen. Carp exclusion fences will be installed at tide gates of each outfall canal and at the
five culverts that pass under NC-94 causeway that bisects the lake to minimize the reinvasion threat of
common carp. A long-term maintenance biomass removal program will also be explored.
The removal of common carp will not have an immediate impact on phytoplankton blooms since the
removal will not immediately impact the nutrient bioavailability within the water column of the lake.
However, the biomass removal will reduce a source of nutrients that concentrate within the sediment
through decomposition and eventually interact with the water column through resuspension and
bioturbation. The biomass removal is anticipated to drastically reduce bioturbation, which would then
improve water clarity and provide a higher probability for SAV restoration to occur.
ESTIMATES OF REQUIRED TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Monitoring and Research
The members of the Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group are comprised of staff scientist from USFWS
and NCWRC. They work through a collaborative agreement to identify, prioritize, and conduct monitoring
and research at the Refuge. The results of their efforts are used to inform current and future lake
management actions. USFWS and NCWRC have dedicated staff and funding to allow this collaboration to
continue. No new funds for this staff level coordination are needed. However, ensuring continued support
of their existing monitoring efforts and new funding for identified research needs will be important.
Maintain Existing Efforts
Long-term monitoring datasets are essential to evaluating the effectiveness of management actions and
developing research questions that can be addressed through scientific investigation.
Continuous monitoring of lake levels and water quality as well as precipitation and wind speed occurs at
real-time monitoring stations located within each basin of the lake through a contract between USFWS
($35,000), NCWRC ($20,000), and USGS ($5,000). Total financial contributions of $60,000 per year are
required to maintain this monitoring effort.
Monitoring of water levels, discharge, and water quality in the canals on the Refuge is performed on a
weekly basis and monthly grab samples are collected by USFWS staff through regular operations at an
annual cost of $4,000 and $5,000 respectively. The cost of maintaining this effort could increase if
additional water quality parameters are analyzed or the sampling frequency increases.

7 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Real-time monitoring of the water level at Rose Bay initially cost approximately $30,000 to install the
water level station accomplished through coordination with the USFWS Refuge Inventory and Monitoring
Branch in collaboration with North Carolina State University. Since March 2019, a new radar system to
monitor real-time water depth was installed through grant funding and will be maintained by the North
Carolina Flood and Inundation Mapping program.
In the spring, the NCWRC staff annually sample inland fish communities within Lake Mattamuskeet and
associated canals within the Refuge boundary ($5,000). SAV monitoring is performed by the USFWS staff
on an annual basis ($2,500) as part of the Refuge and USFWS migratory game bird program
operations. Aerial waterfowl surveys are performed annually by both the USFWS as part of Refuge
operations, and NCWRC staff as part of the mid-winter waterfowl survey. The cost of conducting the mid-
winter waterfowl survey ranges between $7,000 - $15,000 per year and accounts for several hours of staff
time and the use of aircraft provided by the USFWS.
Total cost to maintain existing monitoring efforts is estimated to be: $83,500- $91,500.
Future Research
Specific research efforts have focused on answering questions related to the drainage capacity within the
four main outlet canals, effects of nutrient loading through sediment resuspension within the lake,
common carp population and biomass estimates, concentrations of agricultural herbicides within
drainage ditches, effectiveness of SAV restoration techniques, and nutrient concentrations of water
discharged from both conventional and moist soil management style impoundments. Some of this
research has already been completed while some remains ongoing. The information provided from these
current and future studies is critical to the success of the watershed restoration efforts. However,
providing a cost estimate for future research is challenging at this time as it will require information and
recommendations generated from ongoing studies.
Based on previous research projects funded in the watershed and on the lake, it is estimated that
$200,000 a year would provide sufficient funding to support future research priorities.
Modeling/Engineering Design
The strategy being pursued aims to re-establish and replicate the natural movement of water from the
lake towards the Alligator River rather than toward the Pamlico Sound. The preferred design alternative
is to identify, design, and prioritize projects where water diverted from the lake could be sheet flowed
over newly-created or restored wetlands where nutrients and sediment can be absorbed before
eventually connecting to a water body.
In order to systematically evaluate the various alternatives proposed to restore water quality a detailed
engineering analysis is required to select the most cost-effective and most environmentally acceptable
pathway(s) to provide an additional outlet for the lake via sheet flow applications that restore the natural
hydrology of the region. The development of watershed scale model, evaluation of potential sheet flow
sites, and engineered designs that could be used to obtain permits has a cost estimate of $250,000.
Private landowners have volunteered tracts of land that could provide a pathway to sheet flow water over
prior converted wetlands. Each of these sheet flow projects will require engineered designs. It is estimated
that each project will cost $100,000-$200,000 to fully design. It is not yet known how many total projects
will come from this watershed restoration plan, but based on similar experiences in the neighboring

8 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

Mattamsukeet Drainage Association, an estimate of 10-15 projects is reasonable. Therefore, total
engineering/design costs are roughly estimated to be $1.75M.
Infrastructure Improvements/Project Construction
In general, it is expected that infrastructure improvements and construction of the identified projects will
cost 10 times the design cost. With design/engineering costs estimated at $1.75M, it is safe to estimate a
$17-20M investment in implementing the infrastructure improvements. This estimate is in keeping with
similar work being done to implement active water management and wetland restoration projects within
the Mattamuskeet Drainage Association and North River Wetlands Preserve.
Establishment of a Service District
A cost estimate of $30,000 was suggested by Hyde County staff for the legal fees associated with title
searches and preparation of documents and materials in advance of a public hearing for the establishment
of a service district based on experience from the establishment of the Swan Quarter and West Quarter
Special Service Districts, which are both located in Hyde County.
Operation and Maintenance
The details of the service district still need to be evaluated, but the general understanding among the
stakeholders is that drainage services could be either contracted from the existing drainage entities or
new drainage infrastructure and management could be developed to assist in meeting the drainage
needs. The upfront infrastructure and development costs of establishing a new service district could likely
be funded by grant or other funding opportunities. The service district would be responsible for using
income generated from a levy on private property taxes for the operation and maintenance of drainage
services within the district as well as capital improvement projects. The USFWS cannot cede management
authority of the Refuge and therefore would not be included as a party of the service district. The Refuge
could enter into an MOA with Hyde County as a collaborating partner to contribute to the implementation
of the plan’s management within the service district.
Representatives from the Mattamuskeet Drainage Association suggested using an assessment fee of $30
per acre/year as an average cost estimate to fund active water management within a newly established
service district based on assessment fees that are used in adjacent drainage management entities. This
cost estimate accounts for both operation, maintenance, and future upgrades. The area of land within
the watershed but outside the Refuge boundary that would be incorporated into a service district totals
17,993 acres, and the total annual cost estimate would be $539,790 to operate and maintain.
Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Removal
The Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group is pursuing funding opportunities to perform the biomass
removal through the submission of an application to the Fiscal Year 2022 National Wildlife Refuge System
Large Invasive Species Project Allocation. The budget to perform the biomass removal identifies costs of
$750,000 as payment to contracted fishermen for removal of 5 million pounds of common carp based on
a rate of 15 cents per pound; and $250,000 for equipment, monitoring, and maintenance of common carp
exclusion gates, monitoring equipment, nets, seine traps, etc.
INTERIM MILESTONES
One of the priority management actions includes conducting annual and five-year assessments for the
purpose of adapting and evolving the watershed restoration plan based on results. These assessments

9 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

will specifically consider water management improvements on the lake and within the watershed,
reductions in nutrients reaching the lake, improvements in lake water clarity, reduction in algal blooms
within the lake, and preservation of the way of life in Hyde County. The following interim milestones have
been identified as measures that can be used to evaluate the success of implementing priority
management actions.
Active Water Management
The implementation of active water management capabilities within the lake and watershed is a critical
component of the watershed restoration plan. There are several interim milestones associated with this
goal that include:
 Perform hydrologic study of the watershed - May 1, 2020
 Create a formal body that provides managing authority for active water management within the
watershed in coordination with the Refuge, which would be excluded as a party to the formal
body since USFWS cannot cede management authority.
o Hold public hearing by May 1, 2020 to take effect July 1, 2020.
 Design engineered plans for the pilot project to re-direct drainage from a 600-acre parcel that
currently drains to the lake to an adjacent 293-acre parcel within the watershed via sheet flow
before eventually discharging towards the AIWW - December 1, 2020
o Complete construction - December 1, 2021
 Design engineered plans for active water management within the watershed - June 1, 2021

Water Quality Improvements
The actions of active water management and water quality improvements are intimately tied. By
designing and installing sheet flow application projects to help with managing water volume, water quality
will also be improved.
Since removing the lake from the 303(d) list is one of the goals of the watershed restoration plan, reducing
the chlorophyll-a concentrations within the lake by 10µg/L per year until the water quality standard of
40µg/L is reached shall be used as an interim milestone to evaluate the effectiveness that both nutrient
load reductions and active water management within the watershed has on water quality within the lake.
This interim milestone will be used as benchmark once active water management activities are
implemented. The pH value of the water within the lake should shift from basic to neutral as chlorophyll-
a concentrations are lowered and subsequently fewer phytoplankton blooms.
Nutrient reductions and water quality improvements will be assessed annually and at 5-year intervals,
and include:
 Increasing light attenuation coefficient (k) for the lake.
 Increasing secchi disk measurements for the lake.
 Gradual declining nitrogen (mg/L) and phosphorus (mg/L) levels overtime based on lake-wide
grab samples (Total P is 100% greater than 1980 levels; Total N is 400% greater than 1980
levels).
 Completing up to three pilot projects on actively farmed lands to determine the efficacy of a
variety of nutrient management BMPs (e.g. filter strips, no-till, check weirs, etc.) within the
watershed.

10 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

The performance of a common carp (Cyprinus carpio) removal program is anticipated to not only remove
a significant source of nitrogen and phosphorus within the lake, but also improve water clarity by reducing
bioturbation and subsequent turbidity. A proposal to perform this removal has been submitted by the
Mattamuskeet Technical Working Group for submission to the Fiscal Year 2022 National Wildlife Refuge
System Large Invasive Species Project Allocation. The proposal targets as close to 100% common carp
biomass removal as possible. An operational management plan will go into effect after the large scale
removal, and an annual 5% biomass return rate will be used to measure the effectiveness of the
management activities to keep the common carp population in control.
The return of SAV coverage will serve as a primary indicator of the lake ecosystem health and will be used
as the principal metric to evaluate the effectiveness of each implemented management action/BMP to
improve water quality within Lake Mattamuskeet. Since the SAV restoration component is anticipated to
occur over the long-term, a goal of observing 25% coverage within the lake over the next decade will be
used as the interim milestone. Afterwards, the same rate increase of 25% over five year increments will
be used as an interim milestone until 100% coverage is reached.

11 | L a k e M a t t a m u s k e e t W a t e r s h e d R e s t o r a t i o n P l a n

REFERENCES
Cheschier, G.M., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs, and R.G. Broadhead. 1991. Nutrient and sediment removal
in wetlands receiving pumped agricultural drainage water. Wetlands 11(1): 87-103.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and
Protect Our Waters. Washington, D.C.
Line, D.E., Osmond, D.L., 2007. Cost Effectiveness of AG BMPS for NC. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality.
Messer, T.L., Burchell II, M.R., Birgand, F., Broome, S.W., Chescheir, G., 2017. Nitrate removal potential
of restored wetlands loaded with agricultural drainage water: A mesocosm scale experimental
approach. Ecological Engineering. 106, 541-554.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2014. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Natural Resources Conservation Service Technical Guide, Section IV, Standard #393
(Filter Strip).